Whats with all the blind anti-Americanism?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Originally posted by klaz
Perhaps you should address the question of the US changing policies, to the families of the Iraqi soldiers that died defending their nation from a foreign aggressor. This can be thrown either way.

Indeed, and the so called republican guard,left one of Sadam's best palaces to be defended by syrians and lebanese on the day Baghdad fell, most Iraqi soldiers just weren't interested, in defending Sadam.
Thats why the much mooted deadly street war never happened, except for sporadic attacks.

Again, i don't see a change in policy. The US have not changed their policy of being very aggressive to other nations.

Well thats where, we'll disagree, as , the coalition's intent was to be aggressive towards Sadam's regime not it's people.
The result has been to rid the country of , a persecution.
It's also becoming fairly obvious , that Iraq's leaders were making good their escape plans before this started.
They knew they couldn't win militarally, and must have known with all the torture they gave their people that , citizens weren't willing by and large to fight for them
Yet still they persisted in letting the war go ahead, a war that they could have avoided.

I didn't say he did change his policy.

Towards his people, let me remind you what you said:

He may have changed his "policy" towards the world, his people and the his neighbours. In the last 5 years how many countries did he invade, or tribes did he gas? The US assumption for this war, was that his policy hadn't changed, and they attacked.

you include his policy towards his people there, which for his regime ,to the last, was one of brutality.
and I'm sorry, but your last comment:

Also i didn't hear of any huge executions of civilians, or a purge of the militaryor any such action that would place Saddam as the worst dictator in the world. The accusations against Saddam tend to fall from a decade ago, with the exception that he torured/executed his people, on a smaller scale.

That takes the biscuit altogether:rolleyes:
mm

vorbis

he he klaz, if Sadamme had won the first Gulf War, it would have meant he had beaten the American Army! They would have certainly cared about that! $ decades of warfare is a bit of an excessive term for the US's foregin policy. That statement sounds like they had an army fighting other countries for 40 years.
Currently as the world's only superpower, its foreign policy is relatively benign. Don't forget it has the capability to take over any other country in the world. Regards the Iqaqi war, its not a war of conquest. Indeed if one considers the outcome of going to war and not going to war, the better benefits are gained from going to war. Less civilians died in the war than under the Sadamme regime in one month. They now have the chance to establish a government that might give half a damn about its own people. Sanctions will be lifted. Not going to war would result in more cilvilian deaths and endless poverty for the majority of iraqis. As brutal as war is, in this case I believe the end justifies the means.

Executive Steve

i find it disgusting that i am confronted with allegations of knee jerk blind anti americanism when in fact my anti americanism is the product of years of WATCHING THE NEWS AND READING THE PAPERS AND SEEING WHATS GOING ON. as such, i would almost demand an apology, but wont since i wouldnt get one.:cool:

SkepticOne

Originally posted by klaz
Most people agree that Saddam deserved to be replaced. I don't think theres too much disagreement about that. However, i'll be curious to find out how the people truely loyal to Saddam, (i'm not just talking about troops, but families, aswell) will be treated by the coalition, the Kurds, and by their own people.

If I was them, I'd stay away from the Kurds. Many of them have a bit of a chip on their shoulder.

vorbis

all I'll say tyranny is that while watching the news you must have been blind to the bad things other countries did. No one here is saying America never did anything wrong. Its a bit of a stretch to call it the Great Satan just because of that.

Éomer of Rohan

I think Tyranny is dead right - anti-americanism of which I myself partake is certainly not blind. I am not irrationally anti-america and I have many reasons to back up that stance most of which have been mentioned at some point or another in the course of many posts.

1) Cultural Imperialism; the destruction of native cultures in the bid for new markets and the creation of a globalised 'me me me' or consumerist culture.

2) Intervention in foreign nations internal affairs eg the outrageous interference in democratic elections in Italy in 1979 to restrict the communists from taking power (and they weren't even real communists! They were Euro-Communists which is just another word for Social Democrats!). Vietnam, Korea, the Pacific part of WWII all single handedly caused by the US (and for those who disagree with the last one, then at least concede that the death of 140,000 Japanese civilians for no good reason was the fault of the US) then we move to Iran, Nicaragua, Panama, Argentina, Chile, Colombia.....the list goes on.

3) The lack of tolerance in their culture for people who are different - eg Goddess worshippers or socialists.

4) TV culture and all associated American ideas that involve the most irrelevent of activities of some celebrity being more important than real political debate (as opposed to the mud slinging we see in the US not to mention in our own dail - by the by, what TD refused to enter debate with Joe Higgins saying 'Don't talk to me, you're a socialist and we all know what that means'?)

5) The unbridled corrupting power they exert through the World Bank, the IMF and the WTC in the bid to create 'Free Markets' the world over when in reality they create poverty and just don't care since it isn't American poverty (or European for that matter).

There are many more but those are the ones I am feeling most of at the minute - the arrogant stupidity is another but that is a personal one rather than a political reason for disliking Americans).

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
5) The unbridled corrupting power they exert through the World Bank, the IMF and the WTC in the bid to create 'Free Markets' the world over when in reality they create poverty and just don't care since it isn't American poverty (or European for that matter).

So why is it that the poorest countries in the world according to UNICEF are the very countries with the least amount of globalization and foreign investment? When was the last time you bought something that was made in Chad, Angola, Niger or Mali?

There are many more but those are the ones I am feeling most of at the minute

There are many other countries in the world which are guilty of the same or worse crimes that you accuse the US of -- many of them far more recently. But your criticism seems to be reserved for the US alone -- I haven't seen you criticize Cuba's execution of political dissidents, China's crimes in Tibet, the Russian murders of civilians in Chechnya or even our own problems with racial intolerance. You don't even criticize the British government for collaborating with loyalist terrorists! All you can say is that it was "dubious" from "a pragmatic point of view". Contrast this mild tut-tutting with your reaction if the US had somehow colluded in the murder of Irish people.

This would suggest to me that your dislike of America is not a rational result of the American government's crimes. Otherwise why are you not "anti-Cuban", "anti-Russian", "anti-Chinese", "anti-British" and "anti-Irish" as well?

sanvean

Originally posted by Meh
This would suggest to me that your dislike of America is not a rational result of the American government's crimes. Otherwise why are you not "anti-Cuban", "anti-Russian", "anti-Chinese", "anti-British" and "anti-Irish" as well?

i think the answer lies in this here statement:

There are many more but those are the ones I am feeling most of at the minute - the arrogant stupidity is another

generalising about a whole race of people is never a particularly clever thing to do. it also defeats your other arguments, as it seems that your anti-americanism, while directed against american foreign policy, actually stems from ignorant xenephobia/racism. also, it makes it harder for someone like me (who would not consider myself anti-american, but against certain policies, specifically foreign policies, but also some domestic policies, that the american government tends towards) to argue that i'm not xenephobic etc.

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

Originally posted by Meh
When was the last time you bought something that was made in Chad, Angola, Niger or Mali?

When was the last time WTO member countries *didn't* have murderously high tariffs on goods emanating from these countries? Oh yeah it's when they were colonies, silly me

I haven't seen you criticize Cuba's execution of political dissidents, China's crimes in Tibet, the Russian murders of civilians in Chechnya or even our own problems with racial intolerance.

Probably because those are internal affairs of the nations concerned. As in, close to none of the criticism the US receives is for what it does within its continental borders. Tell you what, I may disagree with the idea of a death penalty, but if some other government starts yapping on about human values to ours, they can fvck off. How our elected representatives choose to run domestic affairs within our borders is *our* business, not yours- that's the reasonable stance to take. Internal reform is our duty, not those of other governments Yes it's apalling to see human rights abuses within those nations' borders, but remember that these are relatively young countries. China and Cuba have been independent for just over 50 years, the Russian federation for just over a decade.

Heck, even we've had our harsh moments in recent history- less than 40 years ago we didn't let black folks drink from the same water-fountains or go to the same schools. And Enoch Powell's "rivers of fire" speech wasn't all that long ago. Give it time, let them sort out their own internal affairs.

Now foreign policy is a whooole different kettle of fish. No one spoke out more loudly than me when the Soviets marched into Afghanistan, or the Pakistanis started the Kargil war, etc etc. The US tends to be an expert in dealing with *other* nations' internal affairs, which no nation has a right to do.

You don't even criticize the British government for collaborating with loyalist terrorists! All you can say is that it was "dubious" from "a pragmatic point of view". Contrast this mild tut-tutting with your reaction if the US had somehow colluded in the murder of Irish people.

Heh, if I wanted to be cynical I'd point out that the Republic of Ireland was founded just by such "terrorists". The reason there isn't any outrage is as you say, because people weren't suprised, but the real reason is: the paramilitaries don't speak for the majority of people any more. When a paramilitary force speaks with the voice of the masses, then it is almost inevitable that governments will do whatever they can to destroy paramilitaries that operate within its own borders. Being inevitable doesn't make it right, and I hope heads *do* roll over this, however unlikely. They crossed the line, and the rule of law was subverted- but because of how low-profile it is in relative terms it's unlikely anything substantial will be done unfortunately.

This would suggest to me that your dislike of America is not a rational result of the American government's crimes. Otherwise why are you not "anti-Cuban", "anti-Russian", "anti-Chinese", "anti-British" and "anti-Irish" as well?

See above. The international order before the Iraq crisis did not accept the idea of interfering with the internal affairs of a nation-state. The way others choose to do business may be downright distasteful, but it's their country acting within its own borders. As long as they don't meddle in other nations' affairs it's for them to run their country as they like, and for their people to bring about reform. With the exception of the British example in Northern Ireland all the other nations mentioned do exactly that. Russia has grown out of its Cold War foreign policy, yet we seemed to have returned to it. That is what makes people so very worried, and I for one don't blame them.

Meh

Originally posted by Bob the Unlucky Octopus
Probably because those are internal affairs of the nations concerned.

The Chinese occupation of Tibet isn't. In any case, Éomer (the poster whose arguments I was addressing) doesn't just criticise the US's foreign policy; he also objects to its TV and its "intolerance", as well as the "arrogant stupidity" of all Americans.

Éomer of Rohan

Righteo.

Meh, you do ignore the point that Bob makes with regard to the post - colonial order and the WTC / IMF /WB. And if you really want to get technical I have a list of patents that American corporations have taken out regarding certain plant strains in third world nations and have then used the WTC to enforce a 'no royalties no use' on the native population who have used them for thousands of years - this is very common in the Andean region.

There are many other countries in the world which are guilty of the same or worse crimes that you accuse the US of

I wait with baited breath to hear of another country which exterminated three million innocent foreign nationals since Nazi Germany. Moreover, no other country has used nuclear weapons in war. No other country interferes in the sovereign affairs of foreign nations to the same extent and they certainly don't paint themselves as the 'good guys' to the developed world.

I haven't seen you criticize Cuba's execution of political dissidents, China's crimes in Tibet, the Russian murders of civilians in Chechnya or even our own problems with racial intolerance.

Then I suggest you go through my posts again. I have criticised all of these and more - citing all the imperial and pseudo communist nations as criminals, but none surpass the US. I am especially annoyed with regard to the last point - our own racial intolerance given that I started a thread on it not so long ago.

Contrast this mild tut-tutting with your reaction if the US had somehow colluded in the murder of Irish people.

If the US had killed Irish people or been involved in the killing of Irish people I would have been justifiably angry. Similarly so with the Brits, but then the situation is not to be treated in an absolutist manner. The British were dealing with UK citizens on UK territory, many of whom were suspected (most later proven) terrorists and terrorist sympathisers. The one thing I am really angry with Britain over was the use of the Irish conscripts in WW1, the ignorance of the abuses of the Stormont Government, the denial of the rights of some people in the 6 counties, internment, and so on.

This would suggest to me that your dislike of America is not a rational result of the American government's crimes. Otherwise why are you not "anti-Cuban", "anti-Russian", "anti-Chinese", "anti-British" and "anti-Irish" as well?

I would suggest to you that you have generalised about me, taking what I have posted here and comparing the lack of other material posted in this thread to suggest out of context that I am only Anti-American. I am indeed against the abuses of the Cuban government, the invasion of tibet, the destruction of Chechnya and so on - but I will make this point once more - these nations are miniscule in what they do compared to the abuses of the US especially with regard to what they do vis a vis the international community.

Also, I suggest if you wish to argue with me, you argue with the other points I make rather than just the one you think that you can come back to.

Éomer of Rohan

And just while I remember, can you think of another so called democratic nation which has ousted people from jobs, schools and their lives simply because of a political belief and still does?

Victor

What is anti-americanism as you define it?

Originally posted by vorbis
A few facts to put in perpspective. This war has caused less than 10000 casualties yet the Congo civil war resuilted in 4.7 million dead. I have never heard one word of protest against the 6 african countries who contibuted to the tragedy. Are they better than the US?

You appear to be using 2 different scales there th2 10,000(?) being direct casualties, the 4.7m being direct and indirect (based on number of people at start of war and what the population should be now).

Anyone invading the Congo (or is it the Republin of Congo) would have severe problems in terms not only of the task at hand, but also the resentment of the local population against foreign (in particular "white" European involvement). Given that the war involves much of Central and Southern Africa, it is only winnable by one practical means - diplomacy.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I wait with baited breath to hear of another country which exterminated three million innocent foreign nationals since Nazi Germany.

I can name several countries which have killed more than this number of their own citizens, in a far more deliberate and cold-blooded way than the US did in south east Asia. But killing your own countrymen is fine by you, it seems.

Then I suggest you go through my posts again. I have criticised all of these and more - citing all the imperial and pseudo communist nations as criminals, but none surpass the US. I am especially annoyed with regard to the last point - our own racial intolerance given that I started a thread on it not so long ago.

Well, I searched through your post history, and I couldn't find any posts by you on any of these subjects so far this month. I was able to find a seemingly endless stream of anti-American invective though, including your wish that Bin Laden crash another airliner into the Pentagon. So you're going to have to link these posts in which you criticize Cuba, China, Russia and Ireland. In any case, my point that you prefer to criticize the US while ignoring countries which are just as bad if not worse still stands.

If the US had killed Irish people or been involved in the killing of Irish people I would have been justifiably angry. Similarly so with the Brits, but then the situation is not to be treated in an absolutist manner. The British were dealing with UK citizens on UK territory, many of whom were suspected (most later proven) terrorists and terrorist sympathisers.

And this summarizes your problem. You're willing to make excuses for everyone except the US. In fact, Pat Finucane and Adam Lambert, the two victims mentioned in the Stevens report, weren't IRA members or even IRA suspects.

And just while I remember, can you think of another so called democratic nation which has ousted people from jobs, schools and their lives simply because of a political belief and still does

Yes.

Meh, you do ignore the point that Bob makes with regard to the post - colonial order and the WTC / IMF /WB. And if you really want to get technical I have a list of patents that American corporations have taken out regarding certain plant strains in third world nations and have then used the WTC to enforce a 'no royalties no use' on the native population who have used them for thousands of years - this is very common in the Andean region.

You do mean the WTO, right? I'd be interested to see the list; go ahead and post it. I was under the impression that patents only applied to original inventions...

Éomer of Rohan

I define Anti-Americanism (a term I am less than comfortable with mind you) as the responsible and reasoned opposition to the US government and her policies, to the expansionist outlook of her culture, to the 'dumbing down' of our society as a direct result of US TV culture and its absorption by Anglo-Irish society, to the nulling of political debate (as opposed to branding people with terms like 'communist' in an effort to stop the public listening to them as practised in the US), to the serious infringing on environmental issues by the US (and here I recognise that the US is only the second worst ) and so on and on and on.

davelerave

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I define Anti-Americanism (a term I am less than comfortable with mind you) as the responsible and reasoned opposition to the US government and her policies, to the expansionist outlook of her culture, to the 'dumbing down' of our society as a direct result of US TV culture and its absorption by Anglo-Irish society, to the nulling of political debate (as opposed to branding people with terms like 'communist' in an effort to stop the public listening to them as practised in the US), to the serious infringing on environmental issues by the US (and here I recognise that the US is only the second worst ) and so on and on and on.

"the 'dumbing down' of our society as a direct result of US TV culture"-lol

Éomer of Rohan

:mad:

I can name several countries which have killed more than this number of their own citizens, in a far more deliberate and cold-blooded way than the US did in south east Asia. But killing your own countrymen is fine by you, it seems.

Before you hurl such baseless accusations, please back them up.

Well, I searched through your post history, and I couldn't find any posts by you on any of these subjects so far this month. I was able to find a seemingly endless stream of anti-American invective though, including your wish that Bin Laden crash another airliner into the Pentagon. So you're going to have to link these posts in which you criticize Cuba, China, Russia and Ireland. In any case, my point that you prefer to criticize the US while ignoring countries which are just as bad if not worse still stands.

Obviously didn't look hard enough for what you didn't want to find. Ireland and the immigration / racism issue. Acknowledgement that the US have done SOMETHING good in their existence .....ok having gone through a whole lot of posts and become severely bored I hope you will take me on trust that there is specific post where I list the imperialist nations and Communist China and Russia are mentioned very specifically but I can't fricking well remember the name of it. Anyway.....

Having read your article about the expulsion of a member of the Conservative Party for supposed links with the BNP surely you concede that that is extremely weak given that any links with an outside political party while an important member of a seperate political party is a justifiable removal from position whereas the removal from non political jobs and the refusal of non political jobs to members of a given political party (ie Communist Party USA) and the spying on those members is entirely indefensible?

You do mean the WTO, right? I'd be interested to see the list; go ahead and post it. I was under the impression that patents only applied to original inventions...

Yes I did mean the WTO, apologies.

Patent 5,304,718 to professor of Colorado University regarding Male sterile Apelawa Quinoa plants. Andean people restricted from usage of said plant and US$ 1m industry is brought down amid legal battles with US and Brazil.

Tapey rice wine, gamu, bubod and basi, owned by the Igorot people of the Philippines for hundreds of years undefended by the WTO TRIP agreement.

1985 - Margosan-O patent granted (Neem based products) to MR Grace and co whilst the intellectual property of India.

1985 - 1995: 37 such patents granted that restrict the use of the 14 million indigenous neem trees in India to the new owners if for commercial purposes. Such cases documented as extending to Kava from Pacific Islanders and Bitter Gourd from the Philippines.

Sources:
"Why do People Hate America?" - Merryl Wyn Davies and Ziauddin Sardar.
"No logo" and "Tales from the Front Line of the Globalisation Debate"- Naomi Klein.

Hells_Fury

In response to Éomer of Rohan ongoing assault on the American people ...... It seems that you are rather fanatical about throwing accusations of wrongdoings about a country that you do not and I'm ASSUMING have NEVER lived in. BUT you are correct , the USA is a large country , she has broad shoulders, so I say lets take the sins of the world and dump them on her shoulders. Apparently Americans can do no right in your eyes, they either don't do enough or do to much . She should pull all her people from all other country's and close her borders . The soldiers can be used to keep watch on her borders instead of trying to help oppressed people. All those refuges that keep trying to sneak in to have a better life ..... shoot them on the spot. All the Illegals in America and all those on green cards / Visa's .... deport them ....if they try to come back .... shoot them. Those that are so quick to speak against the American way .... give them a choice of another country to live and deport them. ( BTW.... it's called freedom of speech and is protected by the Bill of Rights ). She should withdraw all the billions of dollars that she is giving in foriegn aid and spend it on her own people, God knows they can use it . She should adopt a policy of zero tolerance .... some country attacks her ( terrorist , countries using weapons of war ...ect ect ect ) then wipe them from the face of the earth . Those that celebrate the attack .... wipe THEM from the face of the earth. Those countries that scream to her for help ...turn a deaf ear . Why should she help anyone else , it would only be interferring . It's the way of the world isn't it ? Survival of the fitness , the strong survive and the weak die. Since the beginning of time , some country , some nation , some people have been taken over , annihilated so that another can rule. AMERICANS didn't take over AMERICA , ENGLAND and FRANCE DID !! They sent their prisoners and unwanted people there. The rich came over to claim vast plantations , bringing with them the concept of slavery. AMERICANS didn't suddenly come up with the idea of slavery. None the less Slavery has been abolished for over a hundred years. I say load up all the decendants and send them back to "their" country .... it's only right , they don't really want to be there anyhow, right? The Irish , Scottish people also migrated there in a quest for a better life. It's why it's called "THE GREAT MELTING POT" many people of many countries came to her for a better life. She accepted them with open arms and gave them oppurtunies that they could not get in their country. True ... there was criminals to take advantage of the immagrants but that is had in ANY culture. America is vast enough and diverse enough that she can be selfsustaining. I think it would be interesting when those that are in the quest for world power realize that the USA has withdrawn her support from the rest of the world to see who didn't come out unscathed with all the "fairplay" that they would inflict on the weaker nations. America SHOULD mind her own business , she SHOULD take care of her own people . So I say your right ..... maybe if you speak loud enough and long enough the AMERICAN people will get the idea. You will have won your war against Americans. May God grant you the power to do so !

Éomer of Rohan

And you all thought my 'diatribe' (I prefer polemic) was bad.

Apparently Americans can do no right in your eyes

Egypt in 1952/3 America intervened with the former Imperial powers and nationalised the Suez Canal for the Egyptian people, sealing Egypt's independence from the UK. That was a good thing. Never say I am blind, I just choose to deal with whatever I wish. I could give more but I think on balance the USA does a great deal more harm than good.

All those refuges that keep trying to sneak in to have a better life ..... shoot them on the spot. All the Illegals in America and all those on green cards / Visa's .... deport them ....if they try to come back .... shoot them.

Need we discuss how the people in your southern states treat Mexican and other Central American immigrants?? Certainly it is very different to how they treat white European Immigrants. And point out to me where I said that all Illegals should be shot?

e country attacks her ( terrorist , countries using weapons of war ...ect ect ect ) then wipe them from the face of the earth . Those that celebrate the attack .... wipe THEM from the face of the earth.

And of course they aren't doing this already. Al of a suddent they had to wipe out Afghanistan (well they did offer the Taliban the chance to hand over Bin Laden and his three thousand trained armed volunteers who would all have gone quietly of course) and did a damn god job - in fact they are still doing it - remind me how many civilians killed in the last retaliatory strike? 11 wasn't it. Of course then it was Iraq who were supporting terrorists only they weren't so America changed the story to WMD but midway through the war when they were finding bugger all they changed it again and all of a sudden it was about Human Rights. Hmmm. Of course now they look towards Syria and Iran.....and Cuba, Libya, North Korea...

Why should she help anyone else , it would only be interferring .

Ah no we agree on something - and maybe your definition of 'help' really is kill foreign nationals, create plagues, topple democratically elected governments, assassinate (or attempt anyway) foreign government heads, bomb cities, enslave people of LEDC's via Child Labour and so on...

Survival of the fitness , the strong survive and the weak die. Since the beginning of time , some country , some nation , some people have been taken over , annihilated so that another can rule.

Wrong, the total annihilation of a people was invented by the Nazis. No one else to the best of my knowledge has ever used this tactic, not even the US - unless carpet bombing and Napalming can be counted....

She should withdraw all the billions of dollars that she is giving in foriegn aid and spend it on her own people, God knows they can use it

She should withdraw all the billions in aid that is propping up the most oppressive regimes on the planet at present - Israel for one. She should stop selling weapons to African countries and perhaps use her influence to stop other nations doing the same - she could do it but she makes to much money so why bother? And as for freedom of speech, what freedom of speech does a senator in the back pocket of some major corporation have? Just look at how Michigan bent over backwards to accomodate General Motors and then GM decided to leave anyway.

AMERICANS didn't take over AMERICA , ENGLAND and FRANCE DID !! They sent their prisoners and unwanted people there

No that was called A-u-s-t-r-a-l-i-a. To America went many people interested in tobacco farming and making lots of money. The so called 'founding fathers' were not driven from their homes or given the option, the ship or the gallows in some overdramatic hollywood screenplay, they left because of free will and took their religious fundamentalism with them.

None the less Slavery has been abolished for over a hundred years. I say load up all the decendants and send them back to "their" country

I didn't think you would be racist as well

The Irish , Scottish people also migrated there in a quest for a better life. It's why it's called "THE GREAT MELTING POT" many people of many countries came to her for a better life. She accepted them with open arms

What tripe. America needed low paid labourers and so on and the life of an Irishman in Boston was just as bad as in Dublin it just wasn't the English who used him.

So I say your right ..... maybe if you speak loud enough and long enough the AMERICAN people will get the idea. You will have won your war against Americans. May God grant you the power to do so

And if that isn't the most patronising overwrought rubbish, then ban me.

The Corinthian

I think I would be correct in pointing out that the topic at hand is not one of American Foreign and domestic policy since World War II, but the fairly recent phenomenon of European Anti-Americanism.

I say fairly recent because this sentiment was, up until recently, pretty much limited to fringe groups. America was seen by most as Europe’s well-meaning, if rather boisterous, nephew and not as the ogre that we are hearing of now. A combination of recent events, whereby words like pre-emptive and regime change have astonishingly become acceptable as well as the realization that Europe is not powerful and not listened to, has created this situation.

Personally, were I an American citizen I would probably be quite supportive of the present American policy of militarism (after all, it would be in my nations economic interests). But I’m not; I’m European, something that some of those Europeans who are quite supportive of the present policies tend to forget (while simultaneously being remarkably Euro-phobic).

Ireland gave US warplanes licence to cross our airspace and land at Shannon. I don’t blame the Irish government; we weren’t really given a choice. The US gave a polite veiled threat about “all they had done for us” and we complied.

So, overall, the rise of this European Anti-Americanism is not a surprise to me, as a result. It’s fuelled by a growing mistrust and unease with a foreign power that we have realized could swat us at a whim. A terrible dawning that our well-being is entirely dependant on America’s caprices. European Anti-Americanism is a predictable over-reaction to this fear and realization.

But, as I said, it is an over-reaction - America is not Europe’s enemy. There are too many ties (economic, cultural, historical) between Europe and America for her to even contemplate stomaching a belligerent policy towards us.

But nonetheless we have realized that does not necessarily imply that she is our friend either.

However, what does surprise me is that for some Europeans (in particular in the UK and Ireland - the English speaking European nations) will blindly accept this policy, as if they have convinced themselves that they are American citizens.

They’re not, as much as they would wish they were.

They are the new Puerto Ricans.

Éomer of Rohan

So then Corinthian, much as we have fought in the past LOL. how far would you agree that there are two major types of Anti-Americanism; those that oppose America because of her ideals of capitalism, her manner of exporting them etc etc etc (ie the opposition of the left to sum it up I think) and this new anti-americanism which I will agree is a reactionary force in the new Europe? And that the new swell in questioning of the US motives and so on is rather a right wing movement brought about by Europe's loss of military influence whereas previously the various parts of Europe had much influence....in fact one might say that the Cold War pretty much artificially extended the geopolitical international influence of 'the old world,' no?

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
there are two major types of Anti-Americanism; those that oppose America because of her ideals of capitalism, her manner of exporting them etc etc etc (ie the opposition of the left to sum it up I think)

In fairness, I always have a problem about this criticism being anti-American. America has simply inherited these values from Europe, and has surpassed us at implementing them.

While I will agree that hte American culture in general is becoming increasinbly pervasive, this whole idea of Europe becoming enslaved to the US capitalist culture is a different issue entirely - because we were always like that.

We - as a continent - have always bought the coolest stuff brought from the coolest places by whatever means. We didnt ask questions then, and we tend (as a majority) not to ask questions now...or at least not to act on the answers.

We have always encouraged oppressive regimes, as long as they had something cool to sell us. To say that the US is to blame for this, or that being anti-capitalism / anti-globalisation is a form of anti-American is - I feel - misleading and thats how I read this "flavour" of anti-Americansim.

Yes, there is an overlap, but I always ask myself that if Europe - united or divided - were to once again to contain world-rivalling power, would our new-found morals survive? Would we as a collection of peoples be any better?

To be honest, I'm not sure. Part of me likes to think so, and the other part of me says that this is mostly just wishful thinking, unsupported by any actual real facts.

So why pick on just the US, or why focus on the US? Well, its the same logic as was used for why people recommended boycotting just Nike, rather than all sweat-shop "users". If you can send a message to just the market leader - the policy maker to some degree - then you have the best chance of having a message heard, and if you can influence them, and are willing to support them for making the change....then everyone else has an impetus to change.

Of course, I never heard anyone ever talk about anti-Nikeism. There it was all anti-globalism, or anti-capitalism.

Yet here, where I would argue that the same standards apply, its anti-Americanism?

jc

Hells_Fury

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
And you all thought my 'diatribe' (I prefer polemic) was bad.

Never say I am blind, I just choose to deal with whatever I wish. I could give more but I think on balance the USA does a great deal more harm than good.
Need we discuss how the people in your southern states treat Mexican and other Central American immigrants?? Certainly it is very different to how they treat white European Immigrants. And point out to me where I said that all Illegals should be shot?
And of course they aren't doing this already.

Al of a suddent they had to wipe out Afghanistan

Ah no we agree on something - and maybe your definition of 'help' really is kill foreign nationals, create plagues, topple democratically elected governments, assassinate (or attempt anyway) foreign government heads, bomb cities, enslave people of LEDC's via Child Labour and so on...

She should withdraw all the billions in aid that is propping up the most oppressive regimes on the planet at present -

And as for freedom of speech, what freedom of speech does a senator in the back pocket of some major corporation have?

No that was called A-u-s-t-r-a-l-i-a. . The so called 'founding fathers' were not driven from their homes or given the option they left because of free will and took their religious fundamentalism with them.

I didn't think you would be racist as well

What tripe. America needed low paid labourers and so on and the life of an Irishman in Boston was just as bad as in Dublin it just wasn't the English who used him.

And if that isn't the most patronising overwrought rubbish, then ban me.

Once again I opt to play Devils Advocate..... I said you were right !! AMERICA SHOULD MIND HER OWN BUSINESS. BUT in doing so , she should close her borders to everyone ..... no one in , no one out . That way she isn't interferring with the affairs of others in the world. To COMPELETLY stay out of others affairs she would have to isolate herself from the world.

And I never said YOU said that illegals should be shot. I am well aware how the Mexicans , Cubans , Porta Ricans, ect. sneak into the country and take advantage of the oppurtunities offered in America. That is living off the welfare system because they are to lazy to get a job, importing and dealing drugs to the children ( adults are old enough to destroy their own life if they choose ....but someone has to protect the children). Wanting the government to feed and clothe them. The more children they have the more money they get. I sincerely believe if they want the money they should have to work for it..... be it dig a ditch one day and fill it back in the next. I don't think they would be as eager to come here for "free money" . Most government recepients eat better and dress better than the common working man.

The ONLY way you would be able to deter these people would make the penelty of trying to sneak into the country a price to dear for them to pay ..... hence SHOOT THEM ! I would think that anyone would be more willing to live than to be shot for doing something that they were told not to. From what I understand illegals are not shot , but caught and transported back . More die in airtight enclosures trying to sneak across than anything.

Wipe out Afghanastan ?? Last I heard it was still standing. Perhaps we have different views of "wipe out" ..... means remove from the face of the earth ....nothing left standing , nothing moving . You don't consider the crimes commited against America serious enough for her to go after Bin Laden ?? The thousands of INNOCENT people that died from their terriorist act . They weren't soldiers commited in a war. They were men ,women and CHILDREN , people caught unawares of someones unmitigated hatred. They made the first strike, they drew first blood. So I take it if someone was to attack Ireland , or your friends or family ( and there was no higher authority to turn to ) , then you would not do whatever it takes to hunt this person down and make them pay for their offenses .

Amussingly enough though I was OVEREXAGGERATING on most everything to make a point ( playing devils advocate ) but you jumped on it like a dog on a bone. Taking everything that was said as God's honest truth.

My definition of help is sending billions of dollars , food , medicines to third world countries. Its especially annoying when most of the people that need them never recieve them or recieve only a small portion. America should take care of HER OWN. There are people living in cars , cardboard boxes , children without food and clothing. Why expend money on people that aren't even in their own nation when America aren't EVEN taking care of the people in their own nation. Remember ....mind her own business .

Your right , I don't believe that America should be supplying other country weapons also. Why give them the very thing that they will more than like use against them.

You will usually find that people in back pockets but themselves there. They had a choice , they made a bad one.

The founding fathers were not driven from their homes , they did come over willingly. HOWEVER England was happy to dispose of her criminals , she wasn't exactly picky about where they went. They went to Australia yes ....but they also went to America.

I am not racist. I know many that are though, I think they are wrong. I know people of many nationalities and find I get along with them very well as long as they are good people to begin with , and before you twist that , it means has good moral values , work ethics, general character. I don't discriminate by colour of skin , way of speech or even belief of religon. But some would think that you are racist since you seem to have no tolerance for Americans.

The Immigrants - Irish or otherwise didn't have to come to America when they were seeking to improve their lives. There are many other countries in this large world of ours . However America was a large unsettle country. There were other places for them to go in it rather than staying in places where people took advantage of them. I already stated that the criminal element took advantage of them. To me the people that ran the sweat houses , child labour places , and low pay labour camps were definitely a criminal element. Most time you would find that it was immigrants that came before that took advantage of their own countrymen.

And no I wouldn't like to see you banned Everyone has their opinions , everyone can learn from others , Everyone has the right to voice their opinion . I know I could learn alot from you , debate is good. But I do so love playing devils advocate when I see someone that is bent a little to far to one side. America is not perfect , she may be wrong in many things, but she is not the great evil that you make her out to be.

Meh

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
Before you hurl such baseless accusations, please back them up.

China (Tibet and the 1960's famine). Cambodia. The USSR (Stalin's gulags).

Obviously didn't look hard enough for what you didn't want to find. Ireland and the immigration / racism issue.

Thought you said you'd posted it "not so long ago". That post is a month and a half old.

Having read your article about the expulsion of a member of the Conservative Party for supposed links with the BNP surely you concede that that is extremely weak given that any links with an outside political party while an important member of a seperate political party is a justifiable removal from position whereas the removal from non political jobs and the refusal of non political jobs to members of a given political party (ie Communist Party USA) and the spying on those members is entirely indefensible?

OK, what about this story then?

patents

Fair enough, looks like the WTO patent system is certainly being abused by some corporations. We definitely need reform to prevent spurious patents like these being granted.

Éomer of Rohan

*Sighs*

None the less Slavery has been abolished for over a hundred years. I say load up all the decendants and send them back to "their" country

I am not racist

Was anyone else a little confused by this example of the inherent contradictions there? No? Just me then.

I am not bent to one side or the other - as Bonkey said, Europe is the same as America but the US is simply better at exporting what I consider to be damaging values to the rest of the world, preventing other fields of thought from emerging (one example of this might be that if everyone was not so dogmatic that socialism doesn't work then they might actually be willing to try it for the first time in human history). I oppose European capitalism and imperialism every bit as much as I do American but the fact remains that the US is a hyperpower where Europe might as well arm themselves with spitballs and paper aeroplanes and thus criticism is much more necessary for the present time. I think I have pretty much given excellent grounds for the reasons to detest America, admittedly some of which people will dispute according to their ideology but all of them based on clear fact.

PS the last remark was addresses to the moderators not you.

Bonkey;

So why pick on just the US, or why focus on the US?

I do not pick on just the US but it is the greatest offender at present time and thus needs to be dealt with. So, having declared war on the US, is the enemy of my enemy my friend? I like Macchiavelli's take on that to be honest and so Europe and the old capitalist nations are ignored for the present as they are not the main threat to peace and stability and justice and the removal of hypocrisy from the world.

Éomer of Rohan

Meh, acknowledged - I am fiercely in support of intellectual freedom so yes that does qualify, but still not to the same extent as has been occuring in the US.

I am glad you mention Cambodia by they way. Any prizes for guessing which country caused that?

Hells_Fury

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
*Sighs*


quote:

---

None the less Slavery has been abolished for over a hundred years. I say load up all the decendants and send them back to "their" country

---

quote:

---

I am not racist

---

Was anyone else a little confused by this example of the inherent contradictions there? No? Just me then.

Again ..... Playing Devils Advocate .... Overexaggerating in "load them all up and ship them back " to make a point .

And no I'm not racist. A couple of overexaggerated comments do not qualify as rating someone racist. If I was to continually beleaguer a race , people , country with nasty comments , demeaning them insistently ..... THAT would make me a racist. I didn't , I haven't .... you are not entitled to label me such.

BTW ..... HAPPY EASTER !!!

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bonkey
While I will agree that hte American culture in general is becoming increasinbly pervasive, this whole idea of Europe becoming enslaved to the US capitalist culture is a different issue entirely - because we were always like that.

The good folks at Project for the New American Century, don’t share your fraternal beliefs:

“It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world.”

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1400040930/qid=1044473067/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/102-1606523-7625765?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

vorbis

this is eactly the kind of anti-Americanism bias I was on about. The US might launch 5 foregin aid schemes to help poorer countries. That would be seen as somehow false and covering up other motives. Yet most people here are willing to take the project for a new American Century entirely at face value. From what I gather its a document outlining how the US can grow its influence in the world rather than take it all over. Its stretching it to declare it a blueprint for world invasion.