Whats with all the blind anti-Americanism?

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by vorbis
Its stretching it to declare it a blueprint for world invasion.

I never suggested or inferred that the PNAC or US wants to rule the World. However, there is very little stretching that one has to do form the PNAC position papers before you raise an eyebrow. The following is from their Statement of Principles - the language seems pretty plain to me:

Our aim is to remind Americans of these lessons and to draw their consequences for today. Here are four consequences:

• we need to increase defense spending significantly if we are to carry out our global
• we need to strengthen our ties to democratic allies and to challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values;
• we need to promote the cause of political and economic freedom abroad;
• we need to accept responsibility for America's unique role in preserving and extending an international order friendly to our security, our prosperity, and our principles.

Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next.

So, ironically, to argue that language such as “challenge regimes hostile to our interests and values” is benign would probably be stretching the truth.

Éomer of Rohan

I have just one request of those who read that little PNAC policy statement that I have read many times before. Read between the lines!

vorbis

as rohan said. is it really that sinister?
much lke a company, a country can't stand still, it can either go forward or backward. America wants to enforce the position it has in the world. France acted in much the same manner by opposing America over Iraq. They wanted to enforce their position as a serious player in the world.

Éomer of Rohan

Igoddamnwelldemandthatyourestructurethatpost!!

*recovers from the near coronary failure there LOL.

I said read between the lines which makes it so much more sinister especially when we take into account precedent on the part of US right wing administrations.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by vorbis
much lke a company, a country can't stand still, it can either go forward or backward. America wants to enforce the position it has in the world.

I completely agree, in fact she is strengthening the position she has in the World.

However, I'm not an American. This kind of leaves me disenfranchised in the New World Order. Are you?

Éomer of Rohan

They wanted to enforce their position as a serious player in the world.

I think the point is that they are defending their role rather than enforcing it. ALL the old European nations have good reason to consider the US a threat.

vorbis

of course they should. Whats so sognificant about that? The US is a major economic rival to the EU and so is Asia. Is there something unusual about that?

Éomer of Rohan

Only that since 1942, the US has been propping up the failing old imperial powers and NOW they decide that it is not to their advantage anymore rather than 10 years ago.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by vorbis
of course they should. Whats so sognificant about that? The US is a major economic rival to the EU and so is Asia. Is there something unusual about that?

Then by the same logic, what is so unreasonable about us Europeans being defensive against such a rival? If you condone the US’s protection of US interests, should you not also equally accept a European bias directed at the protection of European interests?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by 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?

There have long been anti-American (as there were anti-Soviet) sentiments on the political fringes - both left and right. The new anti-Americanism, that we are witnessing is almost certainly as a result of pragmatic self-interest, rather than ideology.

So in response to your question, I would agree that there are two major types of Anti-Americanism present in Europe today.

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.

I disagree. A sudden change in policy, doesn't equate with a complete change. If Iraq had suddenly become a kind, and peaceful nation, while Saddam was in power, would you have believed that they had no hidden objectives? Not a chance. The same applies here. I'm not comparing the US to Saddam's regime, however, the US has for years had hidden agendas in regards to their foreign policies.

Maybe it is stretching to call it world invasion, just as saying that any nation (that doesn't include western nations), will automatically use WMD's, beyond a defensive posture.

What i find funny, is that people are getting critized for being suspicious of the US, and their motives, when nobody is accusing you of being blindly pro-american.... I'm not going to call you such, since i don't think anyone is. But then again i don't think anyone is blindly anti-american. Either you live with your eyes open, or you're just a sheep.

Originally posted by klaz
I disagree. A sudden change in policy, doesn't equate with a complete change. If Iraq had suddenly become a kind, and peaceful nation, while Saddam was in power, would you have believed that they had no hidden objectives? Not a chance. The same applies here. I'm not comparing the US to Saddam's regime, however, the US has for years had hidden agendas in regards to their foreign policies.

sudden? I'd call it persistant, at this stage ( considering 12 years is a good proportion of the average posters, (here) years on this planet . )
But you are not comparing like with like, ,when you compare a U.S change of international policy with any unlikely change in the policy of Sadam's regime as you've just done.

You see Klas, you are looking for the perfect world again if you think a country should not have agenda's.
Those of the U.S aren't very hidden though, and personally I judge them on their over all effects and from what I've seen the last four campaigns have had positive motives, while not all perfect results.
mm

Sparks

Man,
What's wrong with wanting a perfect world? Or would you rather wish a harsh life with no justice or security for your children?

As to your assessment of US foreign policy for the last few campaigns, I've got to hear the justification for

from what I've seen the last four campaigns have had positive motives, while not all perfect results

sudden? I'd call it persistant, at this stage ( considering 12 years is a good proportion of the average posters, (here) years on this planet . )

well, i'm in my late twenties, so i see it slightly different from the 12 year olds.

But you are not comparing like with like, ,when you compare a U.S change of international policy with any unlikely change in the policy of Sadam's regime as you've just done.

Here we differ. Since i find it just as unlikely that the US would change policies. I haven't seen too much to say that a change in any despot regime, would be any less likely than the US changing from being so aggressive.

You see Klas, you are looking for the perfect world again if you think a country should not have agenda's.

Actually no, i do know that countries will have Hidden agendas. I don't have a problem with that. But on the other hand i'm allowed to be suspicious of those agendas.

Those of the U.S aren't very hidden though, and personally I judge them on their over all effects and from what I've seen the last four campaigns have had positive motives, while not all perfect results.

And you're assuming that those agendas are open, just as i'm assuming that they're not.

Again you're judging that the last 4 campaigns have been proof of their change. Just as over the last 10 years you assumed that Saddam was still a threat to the world.

vorbis

to be honest, its hard to see whats a hidden motive behind their current motives. Regarding the Iraq war.
They wanted to remove an unstable dictator
They wanted a more US friendly government in the area
They wanted to secure their energy requirements future
They wanted to fight terrorism.

Have I missed any of their agenda? Have I missed anything? I'm in favor of that because the overall result will benefit the Iraqi people.
Corinithian, I find nothing wrong with your post about Europeans being wary of US interests. Where I make a distinction is with those who view every us administration decision as somehow evil?

Éomer of Rohan

They wanted to remove an unstable dictator
They wanted a more US friendly government in the area
They wanted to secure their energy requirements future
They wanted to fight terrorism.

And if that is not the most unapologetic statement of Imperialism the world has ever seen since the days of the British Empire I will eat my hat. I fear for the world my children will inherit if that is how things are looking now!

vorbis

what was éomer?
as for a statement of imperialism. Theres a profound difference. The new governement in Iraq will be elected by Iraqis. Does anyone think that thats not going to be the case? Thats pretty different to a colony ruled by the home country. As far as I'm concerned, in 2 years time the Iraqis will have a government vastly superior to the regime Sadamme overruled. That governemnt will be US friendly as the US gave them the chance to establish such a government.

Éomer of Rohan

1) rephrase the first question please, I missed the gist of it.
2) If US companies are rebuilding Iraq you can be damn sure they will squeeze all they can out of it.
3) A 'friendly' government? Yeah right. In the country that hates Israel almost as much as the Palestinians do? In the country that was raped and looted by the British Empire? In the country that America devastated and then set the vultures on? Unlikely. Unless it is not a democracy. Do not forget that what Rummy said about democracy being introduced over 'a period of years' or the little caption that came up on boards some time ago (and I'd be grateful if someone would provide the reference) YANK: "You have a democracy now and freedom of speech." IRAQI: "Then I have the freedom to say that I want you the hell out of my country."

The Corinthian

Originally posted by vorbis
Corinithian, I find nothing wrong with your post about Europeans being wary of US interests. Where I make a distinction is with those who view every us administration decision as somehow evil?

A fair point, but it is this very weariness, along with the realization that Europe is dependant upon the precarious good will of the US (possibly most damaging to relations has been the apparent lack of respect by the US for European sentiments) that has largely manifested itself with this popular anti-American backlash.

It is as a result of this apparent naked aggression shown by the US, that has made it easier for the European Vox Populi, who would normally be more concerned with matters of day-to-day self interest, to accept and even support the demonisation the US administration by those perennial political malcontents that one finds on the fringes of politics.

Of course, the US has not been helped by its spectacular mishandling of diplomacy - naked bulling tactics (I know France did it too, but not as much), faked WMD ‘evidence’, apparent scorn for the UN, seemingly dropping their closest ally in the political shitpile, and now cronyism. Please note, I’m not making any moral judgements, but if you consider that diplomacy is often described as the art of letting others have your own way, the Bush administration has frankly made a pig’s ear of it.

Still, as the dust settles on this adventure, so should most of this backlash - returning us to the status quo where those fringe groups are largely ignored again.

But we won’t revert completely to the old status quo, as the price that the US will pay for this adventure, in the future, is one of loss of trust. Governments will be less willing to accept what the US is saying to them, and populations of once friendly nations will not see Americans in quite the same amicable boisterous fashion as before.

Regrettably, even if left unspoken, George W Bush’s legacy to America is that she will be viewed with suspicion by the rest of the World for years to come.

They wanted to fight terrorism.

Thats all very well and good, but what current and modern links had Iraq with terrorist groups? Apart from Saddam personally supporting the Palestinian Terrorists. Being against terrorism is all very well and good, but the US needs to be a little more choosy as to whole they decide is carrying out terrorism, and the response required. For the most part, terrorism does not fall at the feet of a nation, however, this is the second time the US has lead an invasion of another nations borders on the very shaky pretext that the target supports terrorism. I don't see too many nations invading the US because the CIA supplied weapons & money to rebel factions, or invasion of Russia because past governments supplied European & middle eastern terrorists with money.

They wanted to remove an unstable dictator

I have no problem with this reason. I just don't like the methods involved, and the steps that led up to that removal.

They wanted a more US friendly government in the area

Just as Saddam wanted a more friendly nation to himself, when he tried to invade Kuwait. This is not a valid reason. Otherwise Germany's invasion of Poland, France, Hungary, Greece etc would have been perfectly valid, and no reason for world war.

They wanted to secure their energy requirements future

And this is supposed to excuse them for invading another nation? Not likely. Its illegal to steal property from another person. This runs on the same level. However at the same time, i'm not so suspicious to believe that the US will completely ignore the Iraqi right to the oil. But at the same time, they'll be more than happy to make some profit.

The new governement in Iraq will be elected by Iraqis.

Elected by Iraqi's, chosen by the US. At the end of the day, no parties that hold any ill feeling for the west will be allowed to run for election. Thats not democracy.

That governemnt will be US friendly as the US gave them the chance to establish such a government

True. And i'm sure the US garrison of troops will be a good reminder to be pro-US also. And don't say that the US will leave, since if you look at any nation they've ever been at "war" with, they've left pernament armed presence.

bonkey

Originally posted by vorbis
The new governement in Iraq will be elected by Iraqis. Does anyone think that thats not going to be the case?

/me raises his hand.

I do not believe that the major Iraqi factions (Shi'ite, Kurd, etc) will be able to agree on a power-sharing structure, and show a willingness to form a co-operative government which can rule all people fairly.

As a result, I am very unsure as to where things will go. One of the least likely scenarios - from my perspective - is that in 2 years (wherever this magical figure came from) the US will have withdrawn its governing influence, allowing a fairly and democratically elected Iraqi government to take control in its stead.

jc

Originally posted by klaz
well, i'm in my late twenties, so I see it slightly different from the 12 year olds.

Well ok, since we are on the age thing,I'm older still and in my early thirties:eek: ( actually it's not that bad ) Now for a 24 year old, the change in U.S policy is one that has been consistant for half their life which is significant, as someone in their early to mid 20's would be very representative of the bulk but not exclusively so of the anti war movement.
My point was not to represent the world as seen by a 12 year old as you so conveniently see fit to retort, which leads me onto:

Here we differ. Since i find it just as unlikely that the US would change policies. I haven't seen too much to say that a change in any despot regime, would be any less likely than the US changing from being so aggressive.

But they have changed policy, in the sense that, their last four campaigns have been largely billed as campaign's of liberation, and in at least three of those they seem to have had some major sucess.
That has happened over a period that would be a third to a half of your lifetime also.

Actually no, i do know that countries will have Hidden agendas. I don't have a problem with that. But on the other hand i'm allowed to be suspicious of those agendas.

Yes , you are free to be suspicious of anyones or countries agendas.
I will say though, that whatever, agenda, you are suspicious of in relation to America,their policy appears to be there for all the world to see.

Again you're judging that the last 4 campaigns have been proof of their change. Just as over the last 10 years you assumed that Saddam was still a threat to the world.

Hmmm,well to be honest, yes, I personally wouldn't have liked to see Sadam remain in power, as him being there would have increasingly become a magnet of refuge for all the worlds lunatics.
Removing the world of a Brutal Regime and the deaths and torture that would probably persist in Iraq under Sadam for the next ten years is good.
That said, there is not and never will be a perfect world devoid of people/countries pushing their interests, I just look at them one by one, thats all, and decide which is worst and the war against Sadam is now way down my list.
mm

My point was not to represent the world as seen by a 12 year old as you so conveniently see fit to retort,

well when i read your post you were commenting that most posters were in the 12 bracket, so i commented on that. I also said that as a 26 yr old i had a different outlook. My outlook is based on the history i learnt in school, college, and in adulthood. Just as your is.

As a 26 year old, i'm not anti-war. I'm just suspicious of the US. Just as i would be suspicious of China if it suddenly started invading other nations. Its not exclusive to the US. Just as i'm not going to turn a blind eye, just because the US have performed some noteworthy accomplishments over the last decade. I'm basing my opinions on the history of the last 50 years.

But they have changed policy, in the sense that, their last four campaigns have been largely billed as campaign's of liberation, and in at least three of those they seem to have had some major sucess.

Last four campaigns? Afghanistan was a revenge strike. Iraq i'm not too sure what the real reasons were. What are the other two? Kosovo? well i take my hat off to them for that.

That has happened over a period that would be a third to a half of your lifetime also.

True.

Yes , you are free to be suspicious of anyones or countries agendas

Cheers

I will say though, that whatever, agenda, you are suspicious of in relation to America,their policy appears to be there for all the world to see

There will be two sides to any action. An open appearance, and a hidden one. America's policy is openly aggressive. Their actions to date have been quite open when it suited them. However, i don't believe they're being very open about their aims in Iraq, nor were they very open about afghanistan. I do believe that there are hidden reasons for both agendas that we don't know about, and that re-inforces my belief, that the US are dangerous.

Hmmm,well to be honest, yes, I personally wouldn't have liked to see Sadam remain in power, as him being there would have increasingly become a magnet of refuge for all the worlds lunatics

I've said many times in the past that i'm glad Saddam is out. However i don't like the means by which it happened.

AS for being a magnet for the worlds lunatics, it didn't happen for the last 10 years, why would it have happened nowadays, without the US openly making them an enemy? At the end of this, it is the US that creates Arab martyrs, and increases the sentiment of hatred in the Middle East. Saddam by existing wouldn't have made much impact on this if left alone.

Removing the world of a Brutal Regime and the deaths and torture that would probably persist in Iraq under Sadam for the next ten years is good.

Again, it is good. I agree. However, saying that torture and such would exist in Iraq for the next ten years, under Saddam, is on par with saying that the US would not change their hidden policy/plans.

That said, there is not and never will be a perfect world devoid of people/countries pushing their interests, I just look at them one by one, thats all, and decide which is worst and the war against Sadam is now way down my list.

And this is how the US have succeeded in their aims, for one. Everyone will forget about Iraq now, just like they did afghanistan. And the US will have had their war, will have furthered their interests, and will now be looking for another nation, which the world will forget, once they invade.

Pushing your own interests is all about being human. That won't ever change. However, i don't intend to ignore actions that i consider extreme, to achieve your interests. Just as you wouldn't ignore if China invaded and conquered Taiwan.

Originally posted by klaz
well when i read your post you were commenting that most posters were in the 12 bracket, so i commented on that. I also said that as a 26 yr old i had a different outlook. My outlook is based on the history i learnt in school, college, and in adulthood. Just as your is.

I said:

considering 12 years is a good proportion of the average posters, (here) years on this planet . )

Good proportion meaning, more than a third in lots of cases and more than half in many, when we talk about peoples lifetimes.

Last four campaigns? Afghanistan was a revenge strike.

I thought it was about regime change and the taking out of a brutal regime that openly supports terrorism.

America's policy is openly aggressive.

Towards sadams Regime, in the most recent case.
No other attitude would have removed it
Not saying it's a perfect solution.

AS for being a magnet for the worlds lunatics, it didn't happen for the last 10 years, why would it have happened nowadays, without the US openly making them an enemy? At the end of this, it is the US that creates Arab martyrs, and increases the sentiment of hatred in the Middle East. Saddam by existing wouldn't have made much impact on this if left alone.

Well, it seems,Suicide attacks (and I hope I'm not proved wrong by events in time to come) are the work of fanatics , not necessarily directly involved in the country they are supposed to be defending. Sadam by continuing in power would have carried on brutalising thousands.
the perfect world would be devoid of all such people as they would see reason.

Again, it is good. I agree. However, saying that torture and such would exist in Iraq for the next ten years, under Saddam, is on par with saying that the US would not change their hidden policy/plans.

Again I am astonished at your "faith" in Sadam's ability to change,given how he was able to terrify his people right up untill, U.S troops arrived in Baghdad.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
I thought it was about regime change and the taking out of a brutal regime that openly supports terrorism.

Well, I'd say that this disagreement is a pretty good illustration of why many people would not agree with your assertion that their policy appears to be there for all the world to see.

If that was the case, why is there so much constant diagreement over exactly what the US is doing in these various places? Surely it would be obvious from their policy?

Now - last time I checked - their foreign policy was not about regime change. Has this changed? Is it now "regime change against anyone who does X, Y, and Z" ? Or is it "regime change against anyone who does X, Y, and Z, as long as they're an easy target", or what is it?

You're the one who claimed it was clear....so maybe you can clarify exactly what said policy is at the moment.

jc

Originally posted by bonkey
You're the one who claimed it was clear....so maybe you can clarify exactly what said policy is at the moment.

jc

yes I will, they went in to Afghanistan, to oust the Taliban regime there and find and destroy/capture OBL and Co.
Thats clearly a regime change aim.
they were making no secret of that.
Bush much as I dislike his stance , on lots of issues, made no secret in front of the worlds media that he was going to change the Regime in Iraq.
Even Tony blair in the days approaching the start of the war, was citing that, as they only way to rid the country of WMD's.
That seems pretty clear to me, as it stands on those capaigns.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
yes I will, they went in to Afghanistan, to oust the Taliban regime there and find and destroy/capture OBL and Co.
Thats clearly a regime change aim.
they were making no secret of that.

And this is the whole story? There is nothing to be considered in the fact that Bush got elected on a stance which said he was taking the US out of international dealings? That he did not see it as the US' responsibility to play watchdog for the rest of the world is not important? That he felt other nations would have to learn to solve their own problems and would steer the US down a path to that end is not worth bringing up?

The US made no secret of its foreign policy. Its stated foreign policy reversed 180 degrees after 9/11, and you would have believe that it wasnt about revenge because the US said it was about something else?

That seems pretty clear to me, as it stands on those capaigns.

And whats with the rest of the world who keep looking for ulterior motives, and the things we're not being told, and so on? Why are analysts paid a fortune to figure out what governments are actually saying when they say things?

You mean all we have to do is take them at face value????

Maybe thats why its so clear to you.

jc

Originally posted by bonkey


And this is the whole story? There is nothing to be considered in the fact that Bush got elected on a stance which said he was taking the US out of international dealings? That he did not see it as the US' responsibility to play watchdog for the rest of the world is not important? That he felt other nations would have to learn to solve their own problems and would steer the US down a path to that end is not worth bringing up?
[/B]

Oh don't get me wrong here,one of the things that would appall me about Bush would have been his attitude to the rest of the world prior to 9-11 when compared to Clintons.
You are telling me that their policy has reversed 180 degree's since 9-11 ie the policy of the Bush administration.
The change in policy argument here stemmed from my reaction to Klas when he said:

Here we differ. Since i find it just as unlikely that the US would change policies. I haven't seen too much to say that a change in any despot regime, would be any less likely than the US changing from being so aggressive.

Now I do understand, how one could interpret, the U.S going into Afghanistan as Revenge for 9-11, but I don't have to agree with that position.
I see that campaign as the U.S and others going after Al Queda and it's appoligists the Talleban.
I 100% agreed with the action taken there and can see it as a necessary deterrent against a regimes support for that kind of terrorism.
Thats why I didn't deem it necessary to discuss tracts and tracts of the why's and wheres of the decisions of various administrations over the last 12 years.

And whats with the rest of the world who keep looking for ulterior motives, and the things we're not being told, and so on? Why are analysts paid a fortune to figure out what governments are actually saying when they say things?

Well thats a perfectly logical approach.
Indeed, to my mind,it copperfastens my opinion that the U.S in what her current government are doing must be aware that very little in terms of it's agenda or interests pushing goes un noticed, it cannot escape from that fact.
That doesn't take from the fact though that there could be nothing clearer than a President of the U.S saying that he is going to effect a Regime change and then doing exactly that.
mm

vorbis

yawn, the same accusation can be levelled at any government. Heck why are the analysts right?
I'd say Iraq will agree on a government. The place will probably be divided into 3 main federal regions.
Indeed the situation will be similar to Spain with the Basques and Catalans.
Fair enough putting in a freindly government should not be a main argument but it has value as a supporting one.
As for stealing oil I never said that. Securing their energy future involves having a reliable supplier for the future.