Whats with all the blind anti-Americanism?

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
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

Ahh,

but there's nothing less clear than a president who says "we will leave the world alone", then a president who says "we will set your people free" when he really means "we will do what is best for us".

Then, said president continues his roll and decides that another people need to be set free. Co-incidentally, these would be the people of a nation that almost the president's advisory has been pushing to invade for about 10 years now.

All of a sudden, one has to ask oneself whether or not policy really did change, and if so how many times has it changed, and on the wants of whom?

You can believe all you like that the US wears its policy on its sleeve, but if you believe thats the case, then you
must accept that its part of the US policy to threaten others because they wont back the US play.

It would also be part of the US policy to support rogue states and oppressive governments. Lets not forget that Pakistan was a "rogue state" whom the US did not have any dealings with until post-911. Now, just because Pakistan said "we condemn this, and yes, we will support you invading our neighbour", they are all of a sudden an acceptable ally. This too would be part of the policy, yes - to go on a crusade against oppression, whilst reclassifying some of the worst oppressors as "friends and allies" because you really really care about setting people free.

So you accept all this two-facedness as part of US policy, and support it....yes?

jc

Hobbes

Getting back on topic a little.

Anti = negative version of ...

So what is Americanism? I would be intrested what each person defines what it is to be American.

Hobbes

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.

Except that this time on, there is no real difference between Afganistan now and then. Only the Taliban are the rebels now. Regime is pretty much the same as it always was.

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

Well it would, if they could actually find WMD in the country. Now they won't even let the UN weapons inspectors into Iraq after Saddam is gone? Something to hide? Or more worried about something they won't find.

SkepticOne

Originally posted by Hobbes
Getting back on topic a little.

Anti = negative version of ...

So what is Americanism? I would be intrested what each person defines what it is to be American.

The 'ism' bit is attached to the word anti-American. Anti-American means being against America or Americans. I would assume America means the US rather than the continent when people use the term. We also have anti-Irish, anti-British etc.

bonkey

Originally posted by Hobbes
Except that this time on, there is no real difference between Afganistan now and then. Only the Taliban are the rebels now.

Lets not forget that illegal drug production and export has gone through the roof as a result of this liberation as well....this is a pretty significant change directly resultant from the good work the US of A did there.

jc

Originally posted by bonkey
You can believe all you like that the US wears its policy on its sleeve, but if you believe thats the case, then you
must accept that its part of the US policy to threaten others because they wont back the US play.
jc

I see it rather than agree with it all the time.
What I don't see is where the confusion might be regarding, a U.S president resisting the weight of some of his policy advisors wanting one thing and he and others wanting something different.
It's perfectly plain that , Bush had his leave them alone approach changed after 9-11.
What nation (or any grouping) doesn't have a "whats best for us " attitude?

It would also be part of the US policy to support rogue states and oppressive governments. Lets not forget that Pakistan was a "rogue state" whom the US did not have any dealings with until post-911. Now, just because Pakistan said "we condemn this, and yes, we will support you invading our neighbour", they are all of a sudden an acceptable ally. This too would be part of the policy, yes - to go on a crusade against oppression, whilst reclassifying some of the worst oppressors as "friends and allies" because you really really care about setting people free.

So you accept all this two-facedness as part of US policy, and support it....yes?

No, rather than condemn anyone outright for some of their actions, I would rather condemn and work against those that I disagree with.
If I (or every one) were to be totally anti or pro, Friends/Enemies with any person/state/people based on just some of their actions, my world ( and probably yours ) would just grind to a halt.
Thats particularily true in relation to dealings with the largest most sucessfull Economy in the world.
It's also true in inter personal relationships or in peoples day to day business dealings.
mm

bonkey

You're missing my point....

liberating Iraq isnt policy. Its an execution of policy.

What is the underlying policy? What single policy, or set of policies does the US wear on its sleeve which justifies the liberation of Iraq and does not contradict other actions by the US abroad ???

jc

What is the underlying policy? What single policy, or set of policies does the US wear on its sleeve which justifies the liberation of Iraq and does not contradict other actions by the US abroad ???

Are You are asking me there to give a take on what their underlying policy is, or is it that you want me to take a stand on whether what the U.S do in one area, contradicts that which they do on the other.
Correct me if I'm wrong , but thats what I read from your question.

If the Bush administration approach pre 9-11 was militarally non intervention internationally, that was their foreign policy.
It's easy enough to impliment that
As you said yourself, post 9-11 that did a 180 u-turn.
As to what underlies it...,well U.S interests of course.
Interests which in the case of Iraq co-incided with those of Britain but conflicted with those of France,Russia, and China...
And the common denominator..?? yes, Self interest or Greed.Can you honestly say you have never been Greedy or selfish at any point?
It's the same principal that applies in Irelands case when we go out to win investment that could have went to Scotland or Germany or when we play them on the field.
It applies to everyone and everything, especially in that latter case when a country might draw a game if it helped another, or what goes on at a Eurovision vote with Greece , Cyprus and Turkey for instance.
which leads me back to your original question,from which I'm presuming you think I'm missing your point:

So you accept all this two-facedness as part of US policy, and support it....yes?

This "two facedness" isn't a uniquely U.S thing and unless someone can tell me, that it can be eliminated, everywhere, I'll still feel the correct approach is to deal with each individual action on it's merits/demerits and not condemn the whole instigator/person/Country or whatever.
mm

vorbis

hey man, you summed up my point of view perfectly.
The world is an imperfect place where most people and countries are out for their own self-interest. The US is no different to any other country in that respect.
As for Afganistan, I'd say they are better off now. The Taliban regime was totally repressive. As for the continuing warlord problem, thats been on issue there for countless centuries.

bonkey

Originally posted by vorbis
The world is an imperfect place where most people and countries are out for their own self-interest.

Ahhh...but thats not quite true. There's a difference.

Most people also agree that it is in their - and everyone's - self-interest to work within a pre-agreed but imperfect framework, where we ensure that no-one should have absolute authority, where we all can have a say within a framework, and so on.

This is why we have laws, democracy etc....its because people have mostly learned that its simply not enough to act in your own self-interest. That society works a whole lot better for everyone when we consider both our self-interest and the impact of our action on others. Typically, we do not what is best for us, but what is best for us within a set of social constraints.

Those constraints - laws - are typically enforced by police, and we complain bitterly about police corruption. Indeed, the more power a position holds, the more integrity we expect the holder of that position to have.What was that line from Spiderman - "With great power comes great responsibility" or something like that.

Yes, we all have our little pettinesses and flaws which contradict this, and yes, there are some hopelessly corrupt people who see the system as something to be abused, but by and large, we are progressively learning that co-operation is far more beneficial to everyone than self-service, and we have laws which give us a chance of enforcing that belief on others even when they dont share it.

At the inter-national scale though, its "who's big enough to bully their wants through". Co-operation is all well and fine, but once its not gonna give you what you want, you just gotta ask yourself "am I strong enough to do this alone".

Our international police is - effectively - the biggest bully on the block, and they are not enforcing "co-operation", but rather "what I want".

So, its not really the same at all. At a personal level, I have laws that I can have reasonable faith in. I have police I can have reasonable faith in. And I have the vast majority of the population that by and large, I can have reasonable faith in.

At an international level, there is none of this. There is simply a big bully on the block who's current attitude is that what they say goes, full stop, end of story, thank you and goodnight. Great if the rules agree with them, tough crap if they dont...and woe betide anyone who would rather stand by the agreements they've signed for any reason, rather than siding with the police/bully.

The US is no different to any other country in that respect.

Well, perhaps in that if any other country was in the US position, they'd do the exact same. Does that make it right?

jc

The Corinthian

Originally posted by vorbis
hey man, you summed up my point of view perfectly.
The world is an imperfect place where most people and countries are out for their own self-interest. The US is no different to any other country in that respect.

Then you would accept that what you call blind anti Americanism is nothing more but the manifistation of self-interest: A reaction against policy which is not acting in our best interests, but in the intrests of a foreign power.

As for Afganistan, I'd say they are better off now. The Taliban regime was totally repressive. As for the continuing warlord problem, thats been on issue there for countless centuries.

That’s arguable, and we both would be speculating on that issue. The Taliban regime was totally repressive; however, in the vacuum of power that has replaced them would anarchy and de facto civil war (as one might find in most of the country) any better?

Originally posted by bonkey
At an international level, there is none of this. There is simply a big bully on the block who's current attitude is that what they say goes, full stop, end of story, thank you and goodnight. Great if the rules agree with them, tough crap if they dont...and woe betide anyone who would rather stand by the agreements they've signed for any reason, rather than siding with the police/bully.
jc

I don't agree with that part, countries are created by people, and they reflect the opinions of the people who run them.
If they are representative democracies, they by and large reflect the opinions of their citizens also.
The United States is a Very large sucessfull Economy, a testament to how well it is run by it's people.
It's only acting as the largest example of what is human nature.
If what you say there is true, I'll await the fall of france economically as She struggles with the consequenses she has to face, that Colin Powell has been talking of recently.
Regardless of what reasonable faith you or any of the rest of us have in most of the population as a whole,everybody is at some point going to break the rules somewhere along the line.
That doesn't make it right, but it wouldn't make sweeping condemnation of them right either.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
If what you say there is true, I'll await the fall of france economically as She struggles with the consequenses she has to face, that Colin Powell has been talking of recently.

If what I say is true, then the economic fall of France would happen if the US was economically strong enough to bully it into falling. It isnt, and ultimately bullying has its limits. Push far enough and people will push back.

Why do you think North Korea with its alleged intercontinental nuclear capability is a "regional problem" and Saddam who has allegedly some WMDs buried somewhere with no delivery mechanism is a threat to world peace?

Simple - because one can be walked over, and the other cant.

Regardless of what reasonable faith you or any of the rest of us have in most of the population as a whole,everybody is at some point going to break the rules somewhere along the line.
That doesn't make it right, but it wouldn't make sweeping condemnation of them right either.

So those lads who just put a librarian in a coma should be allowed to walk because hey - everyone breaks the rules at some point so we shouldnt really condemn them. Surely not.

Would you concede instead that there are some rules that we can accept that most of the population as a whole is not going to break, and that these are the rules which are central to society?

Then the whole thing just boils down to which rules you as an individual perceive should be "sacrosanct" in society. I don't see that as unreasonable grounds for levelling criticism or condemnation. I accept that not everyone will agree with everyone elses prioritisation, but I also accept the right of people to stand up for what they believe in.

I believe that this holds true at an international level as well. We see that nations have differing standards depending on what their underlying beliefs are. Certain things are held more sacrosanct in differing nations.

Would we be no different to the US if we were in their position? I believe we might be. We'd be better in some ways, and worse in others. Does that mean we shouldnt point out the faults in ourselves or in them? I dont think so.

If I criticise America, its blind anti-Americanism. If I criticise Ireland, what is it then? Blind unpatriotism? Why is it blind? Just because you dont share the same values as I do? Does that not make your criticism of me equally blind?

When this war started, I believed the US could win it, and am pleased to see that it has gone comparitively well. But I was opposed to it. Why? Because I wasnt just looing at the war itself.

My concern still remains that there is a complete lack of certainty that the situation can be improved, and I do not trust that the motives of those involved are sufficiently altruistic to enable them to create a workable solution that the local populace will accept. I do not trust that those involved have the staying power to remain involved if it all starts going pear-shaped. I hope it doesnt, or that if it does they will stay involved and see it through.

If they get it right, I will be amongst the first to stand up and applaud them for a job well done. If they see it through, regardless of the ups and downs, and show a willingness throughout to get it right, I will stand up and applaud them regadless of how flawed the solution is.

Until that time, however, I remain convinced that they are far more likely to walk away when it becomes suitable to them rather than when it becomes suitable to the Iraqis because - as we have more or less agreed - their underlying foreign policy is one of self-interest.

And that is where the problem lies. Are they willing to fundamentally shift their foreign policy on this issue and accept the responsibility that they are due, or will they simply remain true to their own ideals and accept the responsibility only as long as it is suitable?

I do not find the latter acceptable. That is my belief. Other people have their beliefs as to why this war is wrong.

You accept that there has been no shift in the underlying "greed" policy. So surely you are saying that I am right to level my criticism, based on my beliefs. If you dont share my beliefs, then obviously my conclusion isnt the right one for you either. But does that make my criticism blind? I dont think so. Having discussed them quite often, I am able to express my beliefs on the matter reasonablly well (I feel). Just because someone else may not be able to do so does not mean that their convictions are not seated in equally valid beliefs.

If those beliefs call for criticism or condemnation, then those people are right and have the right to do so.

jc

Originally posted by bonkey

Would we be no different to the US if we were in their position? I believe we might be. We'd be better in some ways, and worse in others. Does that mean we shouldnt point out the faults in ourselves or in them? I dont think so.
If I criticise America, its blind anti-Americanism. If I criticise Ireland, what is it then? Blind unpatriotism? Why is it blind? Just because you dont share the same values as I do? Does that not make your criticism of me equally blind?

Actually thats my point and where I'm coming from,to my mind it's good to critisise America on those actions that you disagree with, but it certainly is blind anti Americanism if you would universally condemn them as a whole rather than the actions individually.
I doubt anyway if thats your position, it's like it says in this forums very charter the spoken word contains a lot more information than the written and that can lead to misconceptions here which would probably take more time than either you or I have at any particular point to spend in front of our keyboards
I didn't actually accuse you of blind anything.
Rather I expressed the view that If I (or every one) were to be totally anti or pro, Friends/Enemies with any person/state/people based on just some of their actions, my world ( and probably yours ) would just grind to a halt.
You seem to be equating the actions of the lads beating up the librarian with the coalitions invasion of Iraq, that Guy was the innocent victim of a Brutal attack, who was Bullied by nasty people.
Theres not too many people now in Iraq who would argue that Sadam's regime shouldn't have been deposed in the way that it was, and plenty who would say that it was the only way.
That said I will agree with you that it is a terrible pity and an indictment of man kind that all brutal regimes aren't done away with such conviction, but rather in a lot of cases their survival or down fall depends on the greed or self interest of other parties.

You accept that there has been no shift in the underlying "greed" policy. So surely you are saying that I am right to level my criticism, based on my beliefs. If you dont share my beliefs, then obviously my conclusion isnt the right one for you either. But does that make my criticism blind? I dont think so. Having discussed them quite often, I am able to express my beliefs on the matter reasonablly well (I feel). Just because someone else may not be able to do so does not mean that their convictions are not seated in equally valid beliefs.

Oh I absolutely agree with the tone of your statement there.
From my side, I'll have lost some patience with the people of Iraq if they allow, once liberated from Sadam, a government to appear that equals or go's near it's brutality.

On an aside, by the way this has been, by far, the most interesting and wonderfull discussion I've participated in since entering this forum.
Most of the discussion throughout the forum is excelent and a tribute to the people that facilitate it
mm

vorbis

I might need to clarify the title a little bit. Its perfectly acceptable to critcise the US on specific actions. What I term blind anti-Americanism is blanket criticism. e.g. regarding the rioting immediately after the fall of Sadamme. There were numerous people saying the US had made Iraq a worse place, it was their fault, they should have prevented it etc. There was this inability to see that it was a good thing that Sadamme was gone and that this rioting would abate in a short period of time. Its the belief that everything the US does is wrong that I term anti-Americanism.

Éomer of Rohan

Its the belief that everything the US does is wrong that I term anti-Americanism.

No I disagree with this.

What happens when you and someone else disagree on whether a US action was right or wrong? Will you brand them anti-american? And if this continues to happen, ie you finding US international actions are 'for the good' and other people perceiving hidden motives, seeing that the US is simply self interested, will you then brand them anti-american?

The fact must be realised that there will be some people who will see every US international action hitherto as being in the wrong, as having some problem or whatever. So long as these people are not saying this out of hand, then they cannot and should not be branded anti-american (of course the classic reply I am expecting here is that every action the US have ever taken has not been in the wrong but that is ALL a matter of perspective).

I would define anti-americanism as the automatic assumption that EVERYTHING the US will do in the future (when there is no precedent of erratic or interfering etc behaviour) will be wrong in any circumstances.

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
(of course the classic reply I am expecting here is that every action the US have ever taken has not been in the wrong but that is ALL a matter of perspective).

No, its not really.

If you maintain that every action that the US has ever taken is wrong, then you should also end up admitting that every action that every other nation has ever taken is also wrong - because by and large you will find it to be a subset of what the US have done. If you set your standards that high, no-one can meet them.

So now the question boils back to "why America?". Why are you choosing one nation for scathing damnation, without even admitting or acknowledging that everyone else is the same, in that their foreign actions are also all wrong.

Alternately, one could admit that not everything the US does is wrong. Its a much firmer stance to take because it can actually be defended. It gives you scope to say that "no, the coastguard/navy rescuing that foundering boat in international waters was not a bad thing", or whatever ridiculous case someone brings up as an example of how sweeping generalisations are excvessively simplistic to be defensible.

jc

Its the belief that everything the US does is wrong that I term anti-Americanism

Is there anybody on these boards that really believes this? I mean, i'm extremely suspicious of American Motives, and i'm against alot of what they've done in the past. However i'm willing to say that they have performed well at times in the past, and theres no reason why they won't do so in the future.

I don't believe in "blind anti-americanism". I believe in being opposed to the american administration & its policies. I believe in being against their invading another nation. But i'm not going to say that everything the US does is wrong, or subject to critism. The same goes for any other nation out there. All nation do bad, and they do good. Just as Saddams regime while awful, have performed some good acts. To say that they never have, just signifies that you live in a very slective black & white world. Thats not realism.

Originally posted by klaz
I don't believe in "blind anti-americanism". I believe in being opposed to the american administration & its policies. I believe in being against their invading another nation. But i'm not going to say that everything the US does is wrong, or subject to critism. The same goes for any other nation out there. All nation do bad, and they do good.

Yeah, opposition to all, is blind, but in this imperfect world, it's currently impossible to have everything done textbook,you can be sure someone has darker than dark interests that will sink that notion.
But when you say:

Just as Saddams regime while awful, have performed some good acts. To say that they never have, just signifies that you live in a very slective black & white world. Thats not realism.

I would believe that there are Scales and proportions that should be applied to a statement like that, and in all fairness,Iraq under Sadam Hussein would be one of the worst comparisons to use in terms of saying it did some good as well as bad.
mm

no, i agree to a certain amount. However since the invasion began, alot of people forget that saddams regime have done good in the past, just as many despot regimes have (stalins for example). The comparison can be made purely to illustrate that the blindness can go both ways, for people with that narrow black & white view..

Éomer of Rohan

Klaz, this is the only time I can EVER remember disagreeing with you about something LOL but...

Stalin's regime did Russia no good whatsoever. In fact prior to WWII, many millions were starving as a direct result of the industrialisation process - the NEP or 5 year plans or whatever you wish to call it. The Cheka under Stalin's buddy Felix Dzerzhinsky had the country jumping at it's own shadow and it was Stalin's disinformation to the Russian public that led to the unquestioning acceptance of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. During the war, Stalin and STAVKA were utterly ruthless in the evacuation of military materiel to the Urals when the Germans began their advance. The harsh truth was that Stalin and the 'Soviet' government did not supply their people with cold weather clothes or rations and many hundreds of thousands died in this way. At Stalingrad alone, 3 divisions worth of men were summararily executed by the NKVD for reasons such as 'questioning the Rodina' and so on. AFTER the war, Stalin made the purges of the pre war years look like a Sunday school picknick!! After all look at what happened to the commander of the 8th Army - the man who fought from Stalingrad right to the heart of Berlin, VI Chuikov.

However, just as you said, many despotic regimes do contribute something to their society before greed and rampant corruption take their toll.

Sparks

I've said it before in different places, but it seems appropriate to repeat it here:

What's been taken for anti-americanism is in fact disgust at, and loathing of, the actions of some (hopefully a small minority) of the US military, most of the US media, and just about all of the Bush administration.

I mean, seriously - the US is rather large geographically with many beautiful areas, it has a lot of people, a reasonably long history, it's produced a lot of things I personally adore in art, technology, culture, politics and other areas - so how can I be against that becaue I am disgusted at other, quite seperate things and can give reasons why those things disgust me? That's like saying I'm anti-food because I don't like the taste of most seafood!

Sparks

Eomar,
I think klaz was trying to point out that when Saddam initially came to power, he outlawed some practises that we were quite happy to condemn when the taliban were practising them - womens rights for example. There were none under Saddam's predecessor. Of course, point out this and you can be certain that there will be twenty people happily frothing at the mouth to call you a Saddam sympathiser.

Éomer of Rohan

*points Sparks towards the last sentence in his last post on this thread*

Sparks

Ah!
Well, at least I added some detail

Originally posted by Sparks
I mean, seriously - the US is rather large geographically with many beautiful areas, it has a lot of people, a reasonably long history, it's produced a lot of things I personally adore in art, technology, culture, politics and other areas - so how can I be against that becaue I am disgusted at other, quite seperate things and can give reasons why those things disgust me? That's like saying I'm anti-food because I don't like the taste of most seafood!

You know Sparks, even though, we've crossed swords, at times, what you've said there encapsulates exactly my approach to America and other topics.It's possible to have that approach and dissagree pro foundly on what one likes or dislikes or is disgusted by.
It would make for an excelent wording for an agreed communiqué at the end of a summit between Man and sparks:D
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
However, just as you said, many despotic regimes do contribute something to their society before greed and rampant corruption take their toll.

While I agree fully with this sentiment, I remember some Austrian politician ending up in an awful lot of international hot water for making vaguely similar comments a couple of years ago....

Why do people assume that you can only have one blanketed stance on an issue?

For example...even if I was pro-Gulf2 (or whatever its coined now), I would still criticise the US for some of its actions.

Similarly, despite being anti-Gulf2, I will readily admit that much of what the US did was done well, and that many of the results are fundamentally good ones.

Its just the overall balance of what I approve and disapprove of that tips the scale in the end.

And yet, as soon as you say "I'm anti-war", its all too readily assumed that you really meant "I'm pro-Saddam", or "I hate America", or some other ridiculous assumption.

We had a lot of that around here (on both sides to be honest - the pro-war got their basting with outrageous blanket assumptions as well) not too far back, and I'm glad normality is slowly returning to the board.

But I wonder...why do people have a disinclination to admit that they are not 100% opposed to things? Its never black and white. People seem to think that arguing that it is makes your point stronger. Personally, I think it just makes it more unrealistic...even if I am guilty of it myself on occasion

jc

Sparks

Man,
Good grief, are you trying to give me a stroke?

On the whole "saddam might have done some good once" topic, try this article, for the curious. I still think that direct democracy would be a better system for them than dictatorship though. Only hassle is that you need a serious secular education program, a decent healthcare system and a healthy economy to convince the majority not to go with a theocracy... and if you think that's easy, remember that even Leno pointed out that the US can't manage that in Florida

vorbis

as I said before, the view echoed by sparks is perfectly reasonable. My ciritcism was aimed at those people who view every US action as somehow bad, no matter the circumstances. I have no issue about people disagreeing about Bush's policies. I think that they're reasonable. You think differently. Thats what's called free speech.

Éomer of Rohan

My ciritcism was aimed at those people who view every US action as somehow bad, no matter the circumstances.

Have you actually found anyone to direct this at yet or can the moderators close the thread LOL? I think the point has been made well and often that no one is blindly anti-american (at the very least not on these boards and not that I have ever met) and those that people would define as anti-american are in such a position because they hold a radically different idea of what is right and wrong from yourself or they are politically aware with respect to the consequences in the past of US action and so on.