PDA

View Full Version : What is the Hatred of America and Americanism?



amigo32
January 25th, 2003, 04:41 AM
Why do so many European countries, and others beyond*Europe despise us? *

Kris
January 25th, 2003, 05:31 AM
Partly envy of American power, partly resentment toward bad American policies I guess. That's the common analysis.

amigo32
January 25th, 2003, 05:37 AM
Bad American policies: *I agree! *

(Edited by amigo32 at 5:38 am on Jan. 25, 2003)

ddny
January 25th, 2003, 09:18 AM
President Bush

dbhstockton
January 25th, 2003, 05:26 PM
It has gotten much worse since GW came to power. *9/11 could have been a time for countries to come to our support, but the Bush regime has consistently alienated the international community. *They squandered that opportunity. *

There is general resentment of american hegemony, but there are also specific issues bugging people. *Two top the list: *belligerance and unilateralism toward Iraq; and the Kyoto Protocol -- people in the US just don't understand how much we pissed off the rest of the world (If you don't know what I'm talking about, I rest my case).

Zoe
January 25th, 2003, 05:32 PM
And the occasional idiot American tourist that they encounter that has no cultural sensitivity/intelligence. *We tend to laugh at these back-woods / trailer type people and forget what an embarrassment they can be when they go abroad (however frequent that may be).

dbhstockton
January 25th, 2003, 05:38 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/24/international/europe/24ALLI.html

Eugenius
January 26th, 2003, 05:06 PM
Quote: from dbhstockton on 5:26 pm on Jan. 25, 2003
Two top the list: *belligerance and unilateralism toward Iraq; and the Kyoto Protocol -- people in the US just don't understand how much we pissed off the rest of the world (If you don't know what I'm talking about, I rest my case).
I may be inviting a firestorm of righteous resentment, but having researched the Kyoto Protocol, I think that it was not such a hot piece of legislation that should receive unanimous approval. *Specifically, developing nations, which account for nearly half of all CO2 emissions were not obligated to make any reductions, and the entire brunt of the agreement fell on the civilized nations, the US prime among them. *Perhaps the European environmental fanatics have a disproportionate amount of influence over the politics and public opinion in their countries (Note that these are often the same people who protest against nuclear plants - among the least polluting of all power sources, emitting no CO2), but in the US cooler heads prevailed.

(Edited by Eugenius at 5:06 pm on Jan. 26, 2003)

JCDJ
January 26th, 2003, 11:33 PM
I think there's more than one reason, but this is part of it.

I may pay about eight dollars for a movie ticket just to entertain myself and see a movie, meanwhile somewhere else in the world, some kid might be able to use those eight dollars to live or survive or something.

Or, you may pay 4 or 6,000 dollars a month for a luxury apartment (well maybe not you, but you get the idea), while that same money can be used to probably feed a whole small town somewhere else in the world.

The fact that we treat ourselves things that we don't even need (kit kat bar, luxury car, a lap top, faster speed computer, other stuff, etc.), when the same resources and money can be used to save people in other countries, and make life in other countries a lot less dire than they currently are.

On top of that, we don't even mean to do this. We don't say to ourselves, gee, I'll buy this hamburger rather than save a child in India, or I'll move to a better apartment at the expense of a whole little town in [instert poor country here].

Ptarmigan
January 26th, 2003, 11:44 PM
America is hated because we are the superpower and Europe once was. They are upset that they are not the superpower they were once were. Its jealously. Eugenius, you are right about the Kyoto Protocal. Its very flawed. Its meant for nations like us. Third World nations are the worst polluters. Global warming is something that is unproven. It maybe just a cycle. Global warming maybe good, because people in cold places would welcome it. How come there was none for light pollution which is a proven problem and can be fixed easily. Also, they see America as very decadent, in which there is lack of morals, especially in the Muslim world.

Agglomeration
January 26th, 2003, 11:47 PM
They need to expand the Kyoto Protocol to many developing nations that are expanding their economies. It's a shame really when the US and Japan can be forced to ratify such a protocol but China doesn't have to.

Regards to Nuclear power, I think that while a nuclear meltdown's chance is possible but pretty slim. We need to focus on hazards that are happening here and now, especially all gas-guzzling, ground paving, urban sprawl promoting, open-space gobbling cars (not just SUV's), oil and coal plants that need expensive anti-pollution devices, and the lack of energy-efficiency standards.

Ptarmigan
January 27th, 2003, 12:56 PM
Quote: from Agglomeration on 10:47 pm on Jan. 26, 2003
They need to expand the Kyoto Protocol to many developing nations that are expanding their economies. It's a shame really when the US and Japan can be forced to ratify such a protocol but China doesn't have to.

Regards to Nuclear power, I think that while a nuclear meltdown's chance is possible but pretty slim. We need to focus on hazards that are happening here and now, especially all gas-guzzling, ground paving, urban sprawl promoting, open-space gobbling cars (not just SUV's), oil and coal plants that need expensive anti-pollution devices, and the lack of energy-efficiency standards.

If power plants want to truly reduce pollution, then we must fight light pollution, because it wastes electricity and energy. It also wastes money, especially with this budget crunch. Light pollution is a problem we can solve. http://www.darksky.org/

Kris
January 31st, 2003, 03:26 PM
Eugenius, in the US business interests prevailed.



January 31, 2003
Why Today's Europeans Object to America's Worldview
By ETHAN BRONNER


PARIS — When you fly into the Basel airport, you have a choice between two exits. One leads to Switzerland and Germany, the other to France. Little effort is devoted to indicating which is which. There are fewer armed guards visible than at any major airport in America. You can wander accidentally into the wrong country. Considering that three different languages are spoken within a mile and that the Rhine River nearby flowed for centuries with the blood of conflict, the airport's casual borders are a reminder of what contemporary Europe has become — a near-haven of harmonious coexistence.

That's easy to forget but vital to remember, because it goes to the heart of what is gnawing at the European-American relationship these days. Eight European leaders may have backed President Bush's approach to Iraq in an op-ed article published yesterday in The Wall Street Journal and a number of European papers, but most Europeans tend to think Americans have too harsh a view of the world, relying on force in international relations where diplomacy and commerce would do. Americans often consider the Europeans craven appeasers who prefer to buy off an enemy rather than confront him. As war with Saddam Hussein looms, this divide is affecting nearly every trans-Atlantic interaction.

Oddly, it represents a reversal of roles. Not many generations ago, Americans came to Europe for a firsthand look at power and its trappings — how to dress and how to eat when you are in charge of civilization. The Americans were the wide-eyed ones, the Europeans the hard-bitten sophisticates. Those images remain. Most recently, when the Soviet Union collapsed, it was an American theorist who said that we were witnessing the end of history through the triumph of a singular viewpoint. Europeans scoffed at his naïveté. Yet if you want to find a place where history actually seems to have come to an end, where there are no longer armed conflicts aimed at redrawing maps and redistributing wealth, it is in the well-groomed, cosmopolitan and militarily weak Europe of the 21st century.

The change has been so quick that it gets overlooked. When Germany and France, at a celebration of their 40-year friendship pact this month, jointly raised their voices in opposition to early military action in Iraq, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld angrily dismissed them as "old Europe." He got it precisely backward. Aversion to war is what defines not the old Europe but the new one, where disagreements are settled by multilingual summit talks over dinners of snails and duck, and high-speed trains zip you from Paris to Brussels without the need ever to show a passport or exchange currency. The big dispute in Europe is over how much to subsidize farmers.

Of course, Europeans live in a paradise of modern convenience and cultural tradition at least in part because they have handed over responsibility for military engagement to the Americans. This makes for a paradox that has been pointed out by Robert Kagan in the journal Policy Review. Europeans want to maintain the role they have long enjoyed — leading the world debate. But without the power to back up your perspective, such leadership can prove elusive.

This produces a second paradox. The Europeans are persuaded that their newfound coexistence is a model for the world and that the more Hobbesian American approach represents a dangerous alternative. In other words, the disagreement over Iraq is not only over specific policy choices but underlying worldviews. The Europeans, and especially the French, in whose nation the phrase mission civilisatrice (civilizing mission) originated, have long seen it as their role to teach others how to live. Yet now the Americans talk about invading Iraq in order to spread democracy in the Middle East. This has nurtured the conflict between Europe and the Americans in a way that gives fresh meaning to the phrase "clash of civilizations."

At a recent conference in Brussels of Americans and Europeans, the new Europe was much in evidence. The participants were not discussing what European governments should do about Iraq. They were debating what the United States should do. It was clear that Europe could do very little without increasing its military power. While that was something many advocated, others remarked that if it did so, Europe might betray what it had become.

An Italian member of the European Parliament, for example, spoke of the phrase "Never again." Americans use it to mean preventing another Nazi Holocaust — no appeasement, no looking the other way at genocide. Europeans, he said, also meant no more war. "The European public does not accept peace and war as two routes to the same goal," he said. "Peace is itself a value. Just like life. That is why we oppose the death penalty."

One unstated concern Europeans clearly have about an American-led war in Iraq is that it could render Europe and its civilizational model irrelevant. That may sound purely self-interested, but in truth the European model is more relevant than ever. Through common economic interests, education and relentless talk, the Europeans have forged a new world for themselves.

Other regions should be so lucky. There is no escaping the fact that Europe needs to spend more money on arms if it wants a serious role in foreign policy. But its ideas deserve a close hearing in world affairs, as for example in the war on terror. Americans, after all, have become good at fighting terrorists but not at fighting terrorism. As one German political scientist put it: "You think we are naïve for resisting the use of force. We think you are naïve for failing to understand how to dry up the sources of terror."

Americans and Europeans may have switched places in recent decades as their power relation has shifted, but in this debate it's an open question as to which are the realists.



Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

DominicanoNYC
January 31st, 2003, 03:41 PM
I also think it's because of past decisions by the US which really never helped certain countries.

dbhstockton
January 31st, 2003, 06:07 PM
That's an understatement...

DominicanoNYC
January 31st, 2003, 08:57 PM
How's it an understatment?

amigo32
February 1st, 2003, 04:53 AM
A wonderful argument Christian! *

JCDJ
March 4th, 2004, 09:14 PM
Maybe it relates to the fact that if 140 people were killed one day in Brooklyn or Hoboken, or California, we'd all be more concerned than we were when 140 people were killed in the suicide bombing on Sunday.

Or that we reacted to California's fire that killed tens of people with sentiment and care, more so than we did the earthquake that killed 20,000 people in Iran.

Or maybe it's that we don't even realize it.


(and how come no one repsonded to me Movie ticket - saving kid in 3rd world country analogy)?

maroualle
March 11th, 2004, 06:02 AM
Very interesting thread.....It should be readed by anti-americans.
It's nice to read that you know how the Bush administration has made alot of mistakes but not only just that.

JLM
March 11th, 2004, 06:45 PM
There are stupid people all over the world and there's nothing that we can do about that. I live in Canada and this place is no exception. There are people here that love the US and people that hate it, mainly for its foreign policy. Even if I was against something that the US did, I would not place the blame on every American. To me, that is absurd.

As for Europe, my relatives in Italy don't really distinguish between Canadians and Americans. To them, we behave the same. I don't know if that's a complement or what. :) Then again, Italians don't have a problem with Americans (at least, I'm not aware of it).

Freedom Tower
March 13th, 2004, 03:03 PM
Maybe it relates to the fact that if 140 people were killed one day in Brooklyn or Hoboken, or California, we'd all be more concerned than we were when 140 people were killed in the suicide bombing on Sunday.

Or that we reacted to California's fire that killed tens of people with sentiment and care, more so than we did the earthquake that killed 20,000 people in Iran.

Or maybe it's that we don't even realize it.


(and how come no one repsonded to me Movie ticket - saving kid in 3rd world country analogy)?

Give me a break. The Bush administration relaxed sanctions on Iran because of the earthquake. And we sent tons of aid to them in the form of search and rescue teams, food, clothing, tents, etc. However, after 9/11 what did Iran send us? Nothing. Maybe some more terrorists is all.

Anti-americanism is so prevalent because of the ASSUMPTION that we dont care about other countries. Whenever any major event happens anywhere such as in Haiti, countries EXPECT help from the United States. When they dont get it we look apathetic. When they do get our help they don't want us in their country!! we cant win.

We are expected to help any country in need. Most of the time we do help them! Then people get pissed off we are in their country and attack our troops there etc. So although it may sound illogical, anti-americanism is so rampant because we try to help other countries too much. Some examples:

We sent humanitarian aid to somalia. Then people giving aid were attacked by terrorists. So we send in a military team to round up those attackers and the whole city of mogadishu turns against us and starts killing us. Then they claim that America is trying to rule them. So a simple mission to feed somalians got us attacked by nutjobs. Then the attempt to round up those nuts gets us international publicity of our troops being killed and dragged through streets after our "agression". Instead of doing what we should have and retaliating further we pull out, showing the world that we back down to savages and terrorists. This now creates another image, one that says we dont fight back when attacked. The USS Cole attack and attacks in Africa, and Beirut gave those same images.

We sent troops to Iraq in first gulf war to protect saudi arabia and Kuwait. Then many saudi arabians and kuwaitis got angry that our troops never completely left. The same troops risking their lives to protect those countries were wanted to be kicked out when the war was over. Some gratitude!! The world is indifferent to the fact that the United States is just a country like any other. We cannot be expected to make decisions based on the need of others all the time. We have to think about ourselves once in a while. And even though we almost always help others the way we do it is not appreciated. When we don't they say we dont care. The US is seen as a huge superpower that has no problems of its own and has unlimited resources to hand out. It's just not true. There are plenty of poor and homeless here who we should help before we help foreigners.

BrooklynRider
March 13th, 2004, 08:20 PM
Freedon Tower, the examples you give are subjective. You are citing examples of America going in an trying to correct situations of its choosing. How about all of the situations around the world where we could have helped and, instead, did nothing? No one talks about the incidents where America has done nothing, they only talk about where we have acted and it is almost always in our own interest.

In my opinion, the problem with America and a portion of our population is that we buy into the myth foisted upon us by the Bush administration that we are "the most powerful nation in the world". The fact is that we are the most heavily armed nation in the world not the most powerful. If we were the most powerful nation in the world, we would be creating peace, feeding the hungry, stopping genocide, protecting the environment and pursuing human rights for all around the globe. Everyone would have access to healthcare, education and justice. We don't do this for our own people, let alone the people of the world at large.

We are powerful in the way that any asshole with a gun has power. We use intimidation. We act unilaterally. We aren't interested in dialogue, we are interested in bossing people and countries around. We act always with American interests in mind - rarely with human interests in mind. More specifically, our interests of late are driven by greed and consoltion of power through control.

This country has had eras of greatness and eras that are pure embarrassment. I certainly think the persona of George W. Bush is embarrassing and enraging to both Americans and foreigners. I think the behavior of his administration and his "speak brashly while swinging a big stick" philosophy of foreign policy has set this country back decades in the area of foreign relations. When you think of the goodwill the world showed America post 9/11, it is absolutely astonishing how quickly and thoroughly this president has squandered it.

There were certainly issues and circumstances we can point to under Bill Clinton, the first President Bush, and Ronald Reagan in the last twenty years where we could or should have pursued a different course of action. The behavior of this administration is unprecendented. I am a fervent registered and active Independent voter with no party alliance, but I think John Kerry had it exactly right when he said, "This is the biggest group of crooks and liars I have ever seen" - to paraphrase.

I know of NO ONE who plans on voting for this man in November. Of course that might not matter, because I also know of NO ONE who isn't concerned that this administration and the Republican National Committee might rig the coming election, possibly by pre-programming the new eletronic voting machines that lack any papertrail to swing areas of voting. As dark as I think the last four years have been, I think we are well out of reach of that light at the end of the tunnel we are hoping for. I wouldn't put it past the Bush administration to stage a terrorist attack if it would boost his support. I think George W. is a sad figure. He knows nothing of what is going on and takes his orders from Karl Rove and, to a lesser, degree Dick Cheney.

I'm an American who passionately abhors what this admnistration has made this country stand for around the world. I can only imagine and dread what people outside this country think of us. I can't say I advocate attacks on innocent Americans or American interests by terrorist groups, but I can clearly see how some people, groups or countries might feel so threatened, disgusted and angry that they would.

Let the flaming begin.

Moderators: don't ban me.

JMGarcia
March 13th, 2004, 08:35 PM
There are two basic facts in international relations. All nations do what they perceive as being in their own best interests. Almost as universal is the zero some game of international diplomacy as each nation jockies to get a little more clout for itself, usually at the expense of another.

The only debate is whether, in 20-20 hindsight or future hypothesizing, the overall positives of an action outweighed the overall negatives.

BrooklynRider
March 13th, 2004, 08:37 PM
There are two basic facts in international relations. All nations do what they perceive as being in their own best interests. Almost as universal is the zero some game of international diplomacy as each nation jockies to get a little more clout for itself, usually at the expense of another.

The only debate is whether, in 20-20 hindsight or future hypothesizing, the overall positives of an action outweighed the overall negatives.

All invested emotion aside, I'll buy that.

Freedom Tower
March 14th, 2004, 10:23 AM
Freedon Tower, the examples you give are subjective. You are citing examples of America going in an trying to correct situations of its choosing. How about all of the situations around the world where we could have helped and, instead, did nothing? No one talks about the incidents where America has done nothing, they only talk about where we have acted and it is almost always in our own interest.

In my opinion, the problem with America and a portion of our population is that we buy into the myth foisted upon us by the Bush administration that we are "the most powerful nation in the world". The fact is that we are the most heavily armed nation in the world not the most powerful. If we were the most powerful nation in the world, we would be creating peace, feeding the hungry, stopping genocide, protecting the environment and pursuing human rights for all around the globe. Everyone would have access to healthcare, education and justice. We don't do this for our own people, let alone the people of the world at large.

We are powerful in the way that any asshole with a gun has power. We use intimidation. We act unilaterally. We aren't interested in dialogue, we are interested in bossing people and countries around. We act always with American interests in mind - rarely with human interests in mind. More specifically, our interests of late are driven by greed and consoltion of power through control.

This country has had eras of greatness and eras that are pure embarrassment. I certainly think the persona of George W. Bush is embarrassing and enraging to both Americans and foreigners. I think the behavior of his administration and his "speak brashly while swinging a big stick" philosophy of foreign policy has set this country back decades in the area of foreign relations. When you think of the goodwill the world showed America post 9/11, it is absolutely astonishing how quickly and thoroughly this president has squandered it.

There were certainly issues and circumstances we can point to under Bill Clinton, the first President Bush, and Ronald Reagan in the last twenty years where we could or should have pursued a different course of action. The behavior of this administration is unprecendented. I am a fervent registered and active Independent voter with no party alliance, but I think John Kerry had it exactly right when he said, "This is the biggest group of crooks and liars I have ever seen" - to paraphrase.

I know of NO ONE who plans on voting for this man in November. Of course that might not matter, because I also know of NO ONE who isn't concerned that this administration and the Republican National Committee might rig the coming election, possibly by pre-programming the new eletronic voting machines that lack any papertrail to swing areas of voting. As dark as I think the last four years have been, I think we are well out of reach of that light at the end of the tunnel we are hoping for. I wouldn't put it past the Bush administration to stage a terrorist attack if it would boost his support. I think George W. is a sad figure. He knows nothing of what is going on and takes his orders from Karl Rove and, to a lesser, degree Dick Cheney.

I'm an American who passionately abhors what this admnistration has made this country stand for around the world. I can only imagine and dread what people outside this country think of us. I can't say I advocate attacks on innocent Americans or American interests by terrorist groups, but I can clearly see how some people, groups or countries might feel so threatened, disgusted and angry that they would.

Let the flaming begin.

Moderators: don't ban me.


I don't know where to start, so I'll start from the top. What situations are there that we could have helped out but didn't? Let's see there's Haiti, oh wait no, we are helping Haiti right now! There is Liberia, oh wait, no, we sent a small team of men to help fix up the country. Wait, who HAVEN'T we helped? Oh I know Africa, wait we give billions of dollars a year in aid to Africa because of the "AIDS crisis". We help out everywhere. For a world where many people hate this country we sure do help a lot of them out. And so what if it's in our own interest? We are not allowed like any other country to have interests? Not to mention, how does giving billions to Africa in AIDS money help us out? It doesn't.

So now the Bush administration decided we were the most powerful nation in the world? Funny, I can remember us being called that many years before he ever came to power.

Let's see, I'm going to requote you for a second "If we were the most powerful nation in the world, we would be creating peace, feeding the hungry, stopping genocide, protecting the environment and pursuing human rights for all around the globe. Everyone would have access to healthcare, education and justice. We don't do this for our own people, let alone the people of the world at large."

We are trying to create peace between Israel and the Palestinians, it just isn't going to well. So we already meet your first requirement for being the most powerful nation. Second requirement, feeding the hungry. Let's see, here at home they are called food stamps. Internationally we give more to Africa for food than any other country in the world. Not to mention we are CURRENTLY giving food to North Korea, because despite hte political problems we are still stupid enough to feed a nation brought up to hate us. Stopping genocide, Let's see I would call the war on terrorism a way to stop genocide. THey kill non - muslims which is genocide so therefore stopping that is stopping genocide. So far we meet all of your requirements!! Protecting the environment! Funny how we are currently keeping up with international standards for air pollution when countries such as China are not. yet somehow America doesn't care about pollution, haha. For persuing human rights all around the globe we do that too!!! I'm surprised you support that. GETTING RID OF SADDAM was persuing human rights for the opressed Kurds in Iraq. Well now for the at-home comments. We do have a free education for everyone, up until 12th grade, that seems pretty good. Justice, everyone gets justice. You don't have to have money to go to our court system. Even if you commit a crime a lawyer is appointed to you. As for healthcare the hospitals are REQUIRED to help anyone until they are at least stabilised and OK. But the hospitals don't have the means of giving everyone in the country multi million dollar care for free!

Now you claim it is George W. Bush who has given America a bad name. That's funny, because then who's fault is it that september 11th occured? That was in the works during the Clinton administration, long before President Bush came to power.

Let's see, Clinton cut funding for a CIA program tracking bin laden. Not to mention he was with Monica the whole time he didn't care about the ocuntry or what was going on. President Bush at least is concerned with making Americans safer worldwide and stopping terrorists.

1993 - WTC bombings #1 Clinton did hardly anything

USS Cole - Bombed by terrorists - Clinton did nothing

It seems to me that Clinton was apathetic and that President Bush is being criticized because he cares.

If you want I can continue to prove you wrong, but I don't see the need since I have proven that everything you wrote has no factual references and it is all opinionated and unfair. Turn off al jazeera!!
You know that what you wrote was wrong which is why you added a "dont ban me" message. Face the facts, you know it's true.

Freedom Tower
March 14th, 2004, 10:25 AM
There are two basic facts in international relations. All nations do what they perceive as being in their own best interests. Almost as universal is the zero some game of international diplomacy as each nation jockies to get a little more clout for itself, usually at the expense of another.

The only debate is whether, in 20-20 hindsight or future hypothesizing, the overall positives of an action outweighed the overall negatives.


I'd agree with that 100% JMGarcia, but why is it that when the United States tries to look out for it's best interests there is always opposition? Other countries do it and people dont care, but when the US is in it for the US and not for some other country automatically the cause seems wrong. Thats the sad state of affairs the world is in right now.

BrooklynRider
March 14th, 2004, 12:03 PM
I don't know where to start, so I'll start from the top. What situations are there that we could have helped out but didn't? Let's see there's Haiti, oh wait no, we are helping Haiti right now! There is Liberia, oh wait, no, we sent a small team of men to help fix up the country. Wait, who HAVEN'T we helped? Oh I know Africa, wait we give billions of dollars a year in aid to Africa because of the "AIDS crisis". We help out everywhere. For a world where many people hate this country we sure do help a lot of them out. And so what if it's in our own interest? We are not allowed like any other country to have interests? Not to mention, how does giving billions to Africa in AIDS money help us out? It doesn't.

So now the Bush administration decided we were the most powerful nation in the world? Funny, I can remember us being called that many years before he ever came to power.

Let's see, I'm going to requote you for a second "If we were the most powerful nation in the world, we would be creating peace, feeding the hungry, stopping genocide, protecting the environment and pursuing human rights for all around the globe. Everyone would have access to healthcare, education and justice. We don't do this for our own people, let alone the people of the world at large."

We are trying to create peace between Israel and the Palestinians, it just isn't going to well. So we already meet your first requirement for being the most powerful nation. Second requirement, feeding the hungry. Let's see, here at home they are called food stamps. Internationally we give more to Africa for food than any other country in the world. Not to mention we are CURRENTLY giving food to North Korea, because despite hte political problems we are still stupid enough to feed a nation brought up to hate us. Stopping genocide, Let's see I would call the war on terrorism a way to stop genocide. THey kill non - muslims which is genocide so therefore stopping that is stopping genocide. So far we meet all of your requirements!! Protecting the environment! Funny how we are currently keeping up with international standards for air pollution when countries such as China are not. yet somehow America doesn't care about pollution, haha. For persuing human rights all around the globe we do that too!!! I'm surprised you support that. GETTING RID OF SADDAM was persuing human rights for the opressed Kurds in Iraq. Well now for the at-home comments. We do have a free education for everyone, up until 12th grade, that seems pretty good. Justice, everyone gets justice. You don't have to have money to go to our court system. Even if you commit a crime a lawyer is appointed to you. As for healthcare the hospitals are REQUIRED to help anyone until they are at least stabilised and OK. But the hospitals don't have the means of giving everyone in the country multi million dollar care for free!

Now you claim it is George W. Bush who has given America a bad name. That's funny, because then who's fault is it that september 11th occured? That was in the works during the Clinton administration, long before President Bush came to power.

Let's see, Clinton cut funding for a CIA program tracking bin laden. Not to mention he was with Monica the whole time he didn't care about the ocuntry or what was going on. President Bush at least is concerned with making Americans safer worldwide and stopping terrorists.

1993 - WTC bombings #1 Clinton did hardly anything

USS Cole - Bombed by terrorists - Clinton did nothing

It seems to me that Clinton was apathetic and that President Bush is being criticized because he cares.

If you want I can continue to prove you wrong, but I don't see the need since I have proven that everything you wrote has no factual references and it is all opinionated and unfair. Turn off al jazeera!!
You know that what you wrote was wrong which is why you added a "dont ban me" message. Face the facts, you know it's true.

Freedom Tower, problem seems to be that you believe every sound bite you hear and haven't fully educated yourself on the issues.

1. With regard to Haiti , the world Bank had approved a $900M loan to Haiti that would have significantly helped that country. The democrartically elected president, Aristide, was left leaning politically, and the Bush administration refused to approve the loan because of this. Yes, we are there now, but that is because the situation finally made the front pages of all major news publications. The fact that Bush did nothing for years set aside, how do you square his repeated calls for democracy around the world with the fact that he encouraged and then physically removed a democratically elected president from a sovereign country? Read the news - any news source. Most estimate the "rebel" force to be nothing more than 1,000 or so men who are well-arrmed. As with most situations aroundthe world, the administration REacted. It has no policy for active ongoing engagement anywhere.

2. In Liberia, if you recall CORRECTLY, as murder and mayhem were going on, the Bush administration took (using their own words) a "wait and see approach". It wasn't until, once again, the situation began getting front page coverage that the administration sent in, as accurately describe, a very small team of "advisors". Look up the Liberia conflict and see how long it was going on, then try to defend the lack of engagement by the administration on that issue. See how many innocent civilians were killed as we took a "wait and see" approach.

3. In Africa, the president PROPOSED $15Billion in Aid to fight the disease. Only problem is, the president and the Republican Congress have refused to fund the proposal. Again, I challenge you to look it up and educate yourself, to date the U.S. has sent zero in aid. The legislation that has been batted around seeks to siphen funding from fighting AIDS in the U.S. and send it to Africa. He made the propsal on the big stage of the State of the Union, but, if you were better informed, you'd understand that there has been NO movement on this to date. In addition, the U.S. vigorously fought to protect the patents of pharmaceutical countries from threats by African nations to produce drugs generically. The cost of one months supply of AIDS medications exceeds the yearly income of the average African. I think you statement., "Not to mention, how does giving billions to Africa in AIDS money help us out? It doesn't." is very indicative of the right-wing mind set. The hell with the big picture and that fact that this world is shared by 5 billion human beings, you want to look at your bank account, your ability to go on vacation, your 401K, your health and, if it is all ok, then the world is ok.

4. With regard to Israel and Palestine, we have tried nothing. We introduced the "roadmap to peace" - that's it. The past four presidents were actively engaged wit the leaders of both sides. When's the last time you saw Bush or Colin Powell meeting with both leaders of the opposing sides. You say, "it just isn't going to well". Active disengagement saw the rise of suicide bombings, an increase in the "threat" of terorism, and instability in the Middle East. The only reason the Israeli/Palestinian issue reaches the front page these days is when violence erupts. It hasn't made the news because of the administrations efforts there.

5. Feeding North Korea is hardly "addressing hunger" around the world. In your statement, " we are still stupid enough to feed a nation brought up to hate us", reflects the exact constituency that is represented by this administration. They won't do as we say, act as we say, speak as we say, so let them starve. And, if you want to be accurate in your description, the North Koreans have been taught to fear us - not hate us. Why wouldn't they? We sent more troops there than we did to Vietnam. We drooped two nuclear bombs on one of their neighboring countries.

6. You say, "Stopping genocide, Let's see I would call the war on terrorism a way to stop genocide. THey kill non - muslims which is genocide so therefore stopping that is stopping genocide". I am hardpressed in understanding what you are saying here. You don't have a clear understanding of genocide, which is the planned systematicextermination of an entire racial, ethnic, political or ethnic group. The war on terror is rather amorphous. I'm not sure what it is myself, I do know that, three years after we sent in troops, our primary target Osama Bin Laden is still at large and we have just seen another bombing in Madrid. Politically motivated bombings aka terrorism is not akin to genocide. Genocide is when Saddam Hussein systematically killed Kurds in Northern Iraq in the 1980's, which the U.S. did nothing about. Genocide is what took place during the Rwandan civil war, which the U.S. did nothing about. Genocide is what took place in the Balkans, which Bill Clinton reacted to unilaterally with the introduction of U.S. troops to the scorn of congressional republicans. By the way, "non-muslims" wouldn't constitute a racial, ethnic, political or ethnic group.

7. You say, "Funny how we are currently keeping up with international standards for air pollution". The first sign of a chasm in our international relations was the Bush Administrations decision not to sign the Kyoto Accords, which dealt with pollution, greenhouse gasses and global warming. If you are referring to the administrations "Blue Skies Initiative", a little education on the bill would reveal it proposes to scale back, weaken or remove pollution controls set forth 30 years ago in the Clean Air Act. Typical Bush to call the bill by one name when the purpose of it is to do the exact opposite.

8. With regard to education, the president keeps spouting off about "no child left behind". It is a federal mandate that the administration has failed to fund and that has come under attack and criticism from both sides of the aisle. Twelve states to date have passed laws that refuse to use state funds to fund it - leaving it D.O.A. Free education up to 12th grade sounds good - but all education is not equal. I grant you that it might never be able to be equal, but funding makes a difference. You fail to address higher education. That too must be made affordable. Tuitions these days keep graduates in debt for ten, fifteen and twenty years to pay off education bills - as the average starting salary IF YOU CAN FIND A JOB keeps falling.

Your arguments about removing Saddam being equivalent to pursuing human rights, hospitals treating any patient being equivalent to healthcare, and receiving legal aid being equivalent to equal justice for all just smack of naivete.

I do think you are entirely free to your own opinion, but you didn't back up any of your assertions with a reference or argument. Saying something doesn't make it true.

Finally you say, "If you want I can continue to prove you wrong, but I don't see the need since I have proven that everything you wrote has no factual references and it is all opinionated and unfair. Turn off al jazeera!!
You know that what you wrote was wrong which is why you added a "dont ban me" message. Face the facts, you know it's true. "

You proved nothing beyond the fact that you are the epitome of the typical person voting for Bush with a genuine ignorance about the issues and the attitude that if you are alright, then the world is alright. Even your inability to comprehend a tongue in cheek toss off remark conrtibutes to an overall picture of someone who is sadly out of touch.

I generally stay away from the Politics forum andthis exchange reminds me of why I must continue to do so. Freedom Tower, I trust we will move forward, particularly in the Architecture forums, in a civil manner that doesn't drag these issues along. Upfront, I am steering clear of this forum for a long time, so any lack of response from me in no ways spells agreement with anything you might respond. I just don't wish to be frustrated by discssions like this.

Peace.

JMGarcia
March 14th, 2004, 12:52 PM
There are two basic facts in international relations. All nations do what they perceive as being in their own best interests. Almost as universal is the zero some game of international diplomacy as each nation jockies to get a little more clout for itself, usually at the expense of another.

The only debate is whether, in 20-20 hindsight or future hypothesizing, the overall positives of an action outweighed the overall negatives.


I'd agree with that 100% JMGarcia, but why is it that when the United States tries to look out for it's best interests there is always opposition? Other countries do it and people dont care, but when the US is in it for the US and not for some other country automatically the cause seems wrong. Thats the sad state of affairs the world is in right now.

The US has the where-with-all to do a lot of things for others. It is the nature of international diplomacy to try to cajole the premier power (currently the US) to do things in your country's interests. Therefore, the US is a lightning rod for anyone and everyone with a plan or an ax to grind.

Couple that with the fact that there is a substantial percentage of the US population the thinks the US should be more altruistic and that public opinion does count for something in the US. This is used by other countries to sway US opinion and hopefully thereby influence US policy.

Unfortunately, the populace at large rarely sees the big picture. What good has come from many of the US's foreign policy moves is taken for granted and the "comprimises" that had to be made to achieve them are often looked at in a vacuum rather than a necessary evil to achieve some other goal. It is all a game of costs and rewards. A good foreign policy initiative reaps greater rewards that its cost. A bad one is the opposite.

Not that I've totally agreed with all US foreign policy initiatives, far from it, but the current manipulation of public opinion world wide for self-interested political ends is somehwat shocking IMO.

RandySavage
March 14th, 2004, 12:54 PM
The Arab world hates us because of the Isreal-Arab conflict of the past 50 years. That conflict has been more about class than religion. When modern Isreal was created after World War II, it's Jewish people quickly became dominant in the economic/political strata of the Middle East, while the Arabs became disenfranchised. This caused a lot of resentment/fear amoung Arabs and hence the Yom Kippur War and the Six Days War in which Israel embarrassed the Arab nations, occupied Arab territory (Sinai, Gaza, West Bank) and became the military as well as economic power of the Middle East.

In the late 70's radical and militant Islamic groups began to spring up in Iran, Israel, and Lebenon and their aim was to contain or weaken Isreal and help the Palestianian Muslims who had now become the lower classes in what was their own former country. All the while the United States - more interested in containing the Soviet's interests in Middle Eastern oil fields than any Isreal-Arab conflict - was busy arming Iraq and Iran (pre-Khomeni) and putting people like the Shah and Saddam Hussein into power.

Anyway, to make a long story short, deep Arab resentment towards Isreal has been brewing for half a century. Arabs and many others see the modern United States as the big bully on the block ready to flex their muscle when the boss (Isreal) gives word. Many prominent and visible leaders in American government, business and media are Jewish, and the rest of the world sees this as a devout and permanent marriage between Isreal and the United States - one country being an extension of the other. Much of the world sees our latest war in Iraq, not as a reaction to terrorism or a quest for WMDs, but as a military campaign executed on behalf of Isreali security interests, secretly crafted by a group of American Likudniks(Wolfowitz, Pearle, etc.) with close ties to the Bush White House.

This is part of the reason why the World hates America.

TonyO
March 14th, 2004, 03:51 PM
I liken the hatred to the US as the hatred towards Microsoft. Both are the big players, both have a tendency to drown out dissent with their economic, political and (now with Bush) brute force. Its very easy to hate the one on top. A balance both need to make is to be seen as leading with their own self-interest in mind, while improving the lives of the people they affect.

When the Russian Federation was the Soviet Union, there was a counter-point to US power. Now that is gone as a "block" for us from scrutiny. We are seen as the enemy because of scapegoating...but we also have a history of questionable policies and decisions.

Just as Microsoft and IBM battled it out in the late 80's and early 90's, Microsoft emerged on top. Now they are picked apart for everything they do. Some is justified, most is not. Microsoft has done more to increase productivity of workers than any other advance since the industrial revolution.

History will not look kindly on our reactionism following 9-11, namely Iraq. We swung too far and it is going to come back to us. The burden of being on top is what we are fighting now, terrorism is just its current incarnation.

Jasonik
July 13th, 2004, 09:30 AM
IT'S NOT ALWAYS ABOUT YOU! http://www.mmorning.com/issues/1646/1646-2-1.jpg (http://www.mmorning.com/default.asp)
* You can never say this without hurting the feelings of at least some Americans, but it needs to be said. At the stone-laying ceremony on July 4, on the site where the World Trade Center towers formerly stood, New York State Governor George Pataki dedicated the building which is to replace them with the rhetoric that is standard in the United States on such occasions: “Let this great Freedom Tower show the world that what our enemies sought to destroy -- our democracy, our freedom, our way of life -- stands taller than ever”. But 9/11 wasn’t really about any of that.
Imagine the scene: it’s 1999, and a group of wild-eyed, bushy-bearded fanatics are pacing a cave somewhere in Afghanistan planning 9/11. “We must destroy American democracy!”, declares one. “An America run by a dictator would be a much better place”.
“Yes”, says the second, “and we must also curtail their freedom. Americans have too many television channels, too many breakfast cereals, and far too many kinds of make-up to choose from”.
Then the third chimes in: “While we’re at it, let’s destroy their whole way of life. I’ve always hated American football, Oprah Winfrey sucks, and I can’t stand Coca-Cola!”
No? This scene doesn’t ring true? Then why does almost all public discussion in the United States about the goals of the Islamist extremists assume that they are driven by hatred for the domestic political and social arrangements of Americans? Because most Americans cannot imagine foreigners not being interested in the way they do things, let alone using the United States as a tool to pursue other goals entirely.
Public debate in the United States generally assumes that America is the only true home of democracy and freedom, and that other people and countries are ‘pro-American’ or ‘anti-American’ because they support or reject those ideals. Practically nobody on the rest of the planet would recognize this picture, but it is the only one most Americans are shown -- and it has major foreign policy implications.
This is what enables President George W. Bush to explain away why the United States was attacked with the simple phrase “They hate our freedoms”, and to avoid any discussion that delves into the impact of American foreign policy in the Middle East on Arab and Muslim attitudes towards the United States. It also blinds most Americans to the nature of the strategic game that their country has been tricked into playing a role in.
So once more, with feeling: the 9/11 attacks were not aimed at American values, which are of no interest to the Islamists one way or another. They were an operation that was broadly intended to raise the profile of the Islamists in the Muslim world, but they had the further quite specific goal of luring the United States into invading Muslim countries.
The true goal of the Islamists is to come to power in Muslim countries, and their problem until recently was that they could not win over enough local people to make their revolutions happen. Getting the United States to march into the Muslim world in pursuit of the terrorists was a potentially promising stratagem, since an invasion should produce endless images of American soldiers killing and humiliating Muslims. That, Islamists thought, might finally push enough people into the arms of the Islamists to get their long-stalled revolutions off the ground.
Specifically, the Al-Qaeda planners expected the US to invade Afghanistan and get bogged down in the same long counter-guerrilla war that the Russians had experienced there, providing along the way years of horrifying images of American firepower killing innocent Muslims. Ossama bin Laden and his colleagues were simply trying to relive their past success against the Russians and get some more mileage out of the Afghan scenario. In fact, their plan failed: the United States conquered Afghanistan quickly and at a very low cost in lives, and even now, despite vast American neglect, Afghanistan has not produced a major anti-American resistance movement.
The reason Al-Qaeda is still in business in a big way is that the Bush Admnistration then invaded Iraq. The Islamists were astonished, no doubt, but they knew how to exploit an opportunity when one was handed to them. And so the real game continues, while the public debate in the United States is conducted in terms that have only the most tangential contact with strategic reality.
Perhaps it’s unfair to ask Governor Pataki to get into any of this at an emotional ceremony that was in part a commemoration of the lives lost on 9/11, but when will it be addressed, and by whom? What major American public figure will stand up and say that the United States and its values are not really under attack; that the country and its troops are actually just being used as pawns in somebody else’s strategy? Many senior American politicians and military officers understand what is going on, but it’s more than their careers are worth to say so out loud.

TonyO
July 13th, 2004, 09:51 AM
He makes a good point. The reason those towers were destroyed had nothing to do with freedom or democracy.

Ninjahedge
July 13th, 2004, 10:07 AM
A point, yes, but he misses the mark a bit on the whole thing.

These guys were not hoping for us to come into Afghanistan and make another Vietnam, but I do think they were looking for world-wide recognition AND the presentation of a common enemy.

They have their Flagship.

Unlike all the smaller events like the Embassy bombings and the (Yemen?) attack (the battleship thinger, sorry, I forgot the ships name...) the WTC was something that had DRAMATIC effect.

And dramatic coverage.

Free publicity for all those that somehow resented western culture. Look at what you can do if you put your mind to it. Even the US cannot stand up to what a few dozen poor individuals from the homeland can do!

Afghanistan may have been HOPED for to be another recruiting nexus, but I don't think that was the main push. I believe the recognition of a group that, 3 years ago, 90% of the world did not even know about.

ZippyTheChimp
July 13th, 2004, 10:49 AM
I think it's certain that the intention of Al Qaeda was to draw us into, if not Afghanistan, the Middle East. What else would anyone planning this expect the US to do?

In my opinion, the author is correct about Afghanistan. From a planning perspective, Iraq was too unpredictable. Saddam Hussein was out of the terrorist loop, more concerned with his own power. He could have just backed down. Everyone envisioned a Gulf War One scenario, instead of the guerilla war we now have.

Since this began as a manhunt, Afghanistan was the logical place to go. Unfortunately for Al Qaeda, things did not go well for them in Afghanistan. If we had sent a fraction of the military power and economic aid that we poured into Iraq to Afghanistan, the conflict there may have been over by now. We created another place for them to go.

Jasonik
July 13th, 2004, 11:17 AM
Agreed, but isn't it in our best (strategic) interest to have our militant opponents in one place joining together to fight (and be killed)? These groups will be further marginalized by the new US friendly governments and ultimately rendered enemies to Islamic world advancement. Sorry that I'm not pessimistic about American military superiority, wait... no I'm not.

Johnnyboy
July 13th, 2004, 01:54 PM
I believe the reason why so many other nations don't like America is because we are the only world superpower. We are the richest nation in the world and the most spoile. We also may even be the most advance country in the world. According to a couple of Europeans I know, they claim that american culture spreads though their country very strongly and changes their culture which makes them upset. A great example many of them told me about is Burger King. You see them very often and such name brands as nike and Coca Cola are very popular. Many Europeans don't like that. According to the ones I know, they see that as a cultural invasion. Another reason they mentioned which I find funny is that according to the Europeans I had talked to, they have said that us americans show our military power too much, We also brag too much about our country, And our policies suck. These are the same policies which had kept us together for about 250 years and gave us the freedoms we have today.Many also believe we are impiralists. We all know what that means. Jelousy. It is true that there are some things bad about us but, there is no such thing as a perfect country. If they judge us by a few Americans they had incounter, they must be ignorant because there are millions of us. If they judge us according to hollywood movies and television, they must also be ignorant because none of that usually depict the real world as it is. They can only judge by coming here to america. Its sad many nations feel so negative towards America because America has proven to be very generous with other nations. We help many nations in need but, the world needs to understand we are not responsible for every nation and we must also look after our interests just like every other nation on this planet.

Johnnyboy
July 13th, 2004, 02:06 PM
canceled

Jasonik
July 13th, 2004, 03:47 PM
If the enemy is angry, frustrate him.
If the enemy is weaker, make him arrogant.

Sun Tzu

Jasonik
July 15th, 2004, 02:11 PM
Why Are We Still Debating The Motivations Behind 9/11?
By Brian Wise (07/15/2004)

Though nearly three years removed from the Tragedies, there remains an open question as to the motivations behind the attacks, as though if we arrive at an agreeable answer the Twin Towers will somehow stand again. New York’s Governor Pataki, speaking at the Freedom Tower stone-laying ceremony, is quoted by Gwynne Dyer (“a London-based independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries”) as someone advancing the wrong idea: “Let this great Freedom Tower show the world that what our enemies sought to destroy – out democracy, our freedom, our way of life – stands taller than ever.”
Challenges Dyer: “Imagine the scene: It’s 1999, and a group of wild-eyed and bushy-bearded Islamist fanatics are pacing in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan planning 9/11. ‘We must destroy American democracy,’ says one. ‘An American run by a dictator would be a much better place.’ No? This scene doesn’t ring true? Then why does almost all public discussion in the United Stated about the goals of Islamist terrorists assume that they are driven by hatred for the domestic, political and social arrangements of Americans? Because most Americans cannot imagine foreigners not being interested in the way they do things, let alone using the United States as a tool to pursue other goods entirely.” (Interesting how those based in other countries always manage to have their fingers on the pulse of American discussion.)

Dyer steps on what could have been a fine point about populist fluff and evasive feelgoodism (both of which I despise but allow in Pataki’s circumstance; see below) by misdiagnosing the fanatical Islamic disease. Space restrictions allow only an overview of his theory regarding the attacks: The Tragedies weren’t about American democracy or freedom, they were about “raising the profile of the Islamists in the Muslim world” in hopes of driving the United States into invading Muslim countries. The goal was to get us bogged down in Afghanistan – cf. the Soviet Union – and rally the terrorist troops with several years worth of “horrifying images of American firepower killing innocent Muslims.” That motivation ended up coming in Iraq, with al Qaeda knowing how to “exploit an opportunity when one is handed to them.”

Imagine the scene: It’s 1999, and a group of wild-eyed and bushy-bearded Islamist fanatics are pacing in a cave somewhere in Afghanistan planning 9/11: “We must lure the United States into Afghanistan in order to strengthen the resolve among our brothers,” says one. Eh, never mind. Anyway, was Islamic terrorism suffering from such a drop off in recruitment and lack of Arab State sponsorship in the few years before the Tragedies? Ah, skip that.

At least Dyer suggests it may be “unfair to ask Pataki to get into any of that at an emotional ceremony that was in part a commemoration of the lives lost on 9/11, but when will it be addressed, and by whom?” Governor Pataki may not have gotten into Islamic motivations and complaints because no serious person cares about them. What would Dyer have Pataki say? “If not for the fact America educates females and allows women to live their lives, that it funds and supports the right of Israel to exist, that it manages to integrate different religions into its culture, that it doesn’t behead those in dissent or hang the burning carcasses of innocents from bridges to make its point, the Twin Towers might still be standing today.” Well, that’s what I would have had him say, but the point of the ceremony was to comfort, not incite, which is why I’m not a speechwriter.

This idea of the Tragedies not being about America’s “domestic, political and social arrangements” would be a little more palatable had the hijacked planes been flown into mountain ranges and oceans. As it turned out, they were aimed at targets representing America’s, well, domestic, political and social arrangements: the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, with the third plane aimed at either the White House or the Capital building.

Who will speak to Gwynne Dyer’s idea? I will: It’s silly and unintelligent. Were the Tragedies a singular event – in other words, if we didn’t have decades worth of Arab terrorist attacks to reflect upon as a source of reference – his theory could be more seriously discussed. But 9/11 was one strike in a continuing battle against this country. The motivations behind those attacks may not ever be as clear as we’d like, but knowing them is secondary to ending the next terrorist attack before it ever comes to fruition.

http://www.americandaily.com/article/4330

Ninjahedge
July 15th, 2004, 02:30 PM
Oh give me a break.

They are both silly.

If you were a suicide bomber and you were in NYC, what would you go for? The Domino Sugar Factory?

No, one of the largest buildings inthe world.

this was a PR ploy. It was a frontal attack on a very visible target. If you have a billboard to post, you do not post it in Rural Nebraska unless you really like Cows. You post it where everyone will see it.

These guys posted theirs right at WTC plaza. And EVERYONE saw it.

Did they think that this would get us to come into Afghanistan and they would be able to use that as a recruiting cause? maybe, but I doubt it. If anything Ideas like that would be seen as side-effects. Unpredictable and unreliable.

They basically struck the infidels in their homeland. they showed that no matter HOW powerful a goliath is, a stone can be thrown that, although it does not kill him, definitely puts an eye out.

Jasonik
July 15th, 2004, 02:54 PM
Thanks for clearing that up, I didn't really understand Wise's last paragraph.

Ninjahedge
July 15th, 2004, 03:35 PM
As for the last paragraph:

Knowing the motivation behind an attack is like knowing the motivation of a killer.

It helps you predict what is coming up next in time to prevent it.

In times of war it is important to know yourself. And to know your enemey even better.

Jasonik
July 15th, 2004, 04:24 PM
I guess I'm still foggy on the implied primary preventative premise of the closing statement.


The motivations behind those attacks may not ever be as clear as we’d like, but knowing them is secondary to ending the next terrorist attack before it ever comes to fruition.

While your rousing platitudes purport to clarify, they do provide means for inference.

Ninjahedge
July 15th, 2004, 05:13 PM
I guess I'm still foggy on the implied primary preventative premise of the closing statement.


The motivations behind those attacks may not ever be as clear as we’d like, but knowing them is secondary to ending the next terrorist attack before it ever comes to fruition.

While your rousing platitudes purport to clarify, they do provide means for inference.

My reading of this is that they are inferring "preemptive" action.

Do something now, don't study it until it happens.

Thing is, I don;t totally agree with that. We do not need to go in without knowing everything , or we get stuck in messes like we are now. You make sure you have what you need, and/or weigh it against what is at risk THEN mark that against the possibility of it happening and then go for it.

This guy seems to be tacitly approving the war on Iraq ;) Sort or building a logic stream that warrants us goingthere in the first place.

He is (he?) saying it without actually saying it.

i think.

Patrick Pearse
June 14th, 2006, 03:15 PM
The rest of you are entitled to your opinion, but this is what I think.
The United States is trying to spread Democracy and Freedom the world over.

Ninjahedge
June 14th, 2006, 03:26 PM
The irony being, Democracy whether you want it or not... ;)

Patrick Pearse
June 14th, 2006, 03:29 PM
The United States has freed many states from oppressive goverments.

SilentPandaesq
June 14th, 2006, 05:23 PM
^^ Just about as many as we have left to rot because it was expedient to do so. We are a little hit or miss when it comes to the "beacon of freedom" thing.

kz1000ps
June 14th, 2006, 09:18 PM
Patrick, did you notice that this conversation died almost 2 years ago?

I applaud you for going through 6 pages of threads to find this gem of a discussion, but there's not much sense in starting it up again. Especially if all you have to say is ... America spreads freedom. Doesn't exactly lead to constructive conversations.

Dutch Dave
June 15th, 2006, 03:42 AM
Patrick, did you notice that this conversation died almost 2 years ago?

I applaud you for going through 6 pages of threads to find this gem of a discussion, but there's not much sense in starting it up again. Especially if all you have to say is ... America spreads freedom. Doesn't exactly lead to constructive conversations.


Ouch! My first visit to this forum and I detect "Cad'ish putdowns", oh dear...

Patrick Pearse
June 15th, 2006, 06:31 AM
Patrick, did you notice that this conversation died almost 2 years ago?

I applaud you for going through 6 pages of threads to find this gem of a discussion, but there's not much sense in starting it up again. Especially if all you have to say is ... America spreads freedom. Doesn't exactly lead to constructive conversations.

I didn't read the dates.

Bright Lights, Big City
June 15th, 2006, 07:11 AM
It's interesting that almost everyone who has contributed to this thread is an American living in America.

I don't know how those living in the US can gain perspective on this issue, but it's kind of funny that people who are rarely exposed to anti-americanism outside their own country would be debating the reasons for it.

A brief review of world socio-political-economic history during the last fifty years should shed some light on the matter. I can tell you that right now (and for the last forty years), many people are angered by the US's persistent, almost universal support of repressive, undemocratic regimes while it simultaneously claims to be the only real country interested in bringing democracy to developing countries.

Furthermore, as far as terrorism is concerned, the US has never been afraid to use terrorism or support terrorist groups in the past when it has suited them, but when the same terrorists they armed, financed and trained came back to attack them, everyone was scratching their heads. As Noam Chomsky once said, if the US really, truly wants to end terrorism, the best thing it can do to achieve that end is stop participating in it. One who participates in terrorism or supports terrorist groups can hardly claim the moral authority to condemn others who do the same.

These are just a few of the unfortunate contradictions and hipocracies people around the world see in the the US conducts its foreign policy.

Nevermind the economic stranglehold US MNC's have gained over developing countries. Under the guise of development, big business has moved into these countries and devastated local economies overnight. Then, when the government makes any move to tax or regulate those companies, they are gone the very next day. Now it's not just American MNC's that do this, but they are certainly the most frequent perpetrators.

Also, for those of you who keep saying that undeveloped countries are the largest polluters, you're wrong. Proportionately, undeveloped countires create far less pollution than the US, the largest polluter in the world. If developing countries had the same proportional emissions as developed countries, none of us would be able to breathe. And plus, these developing countries can't even feed their people; how the hell are they going to invest in emission reductions. Oh, I know - the World Bank can lend it to them! What a great idea! Or is it?

Perhaps the most widely-cited reason for anti-americanism is the fact that most americans are both oblivious to and unconcerned by the enormous influence their country can have on other countries. It's not superpower jealousy as one poster suggested, but rather a defensive reaction to a nation that tends to do what it wants when it wants while expecting other countries to follow a specific script. I guess hipocracy sums it up pretty well. People are pissed about the hipocracy, and they're pissed that most americans don't even see it, and certainly aren't doing anything to stop it - at least from their point of view.

These are just a few of the reasons for anti-americanism at this point in time in many parts of the world.

Oh, and you'd be surprised by the kind of Americans who wash up overseas. You shouldn't worry about the "backwoods" types that another poster worried would tarnish Americans' reputations abroad. In fact, it's usually certain middle and upper class Americans who make the worst impressions as they often tend to carry around with them a sense of entitlement that doesn't sit well with other cultures, particularly in developing countries. You wouldn't believe some of the things I've seen in my travels, and always well-dressed, well-off people were the culprits.

How about the time when I was in Yucatan walking around at night and two very well-dressed older American men stumbled out of a bar and started flashing twenty-dollar bills in all the pretty mexican girls' faces, saying only "chupa, chupa?" as if every mexican woman could become an instant whore when a few american dollars were flashed in their face. And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

peace

BL BC

MrSpice
June 15th, 2006, 10:42 AM
Mr BL BC: Do you really think that the average French citizen would have a much more positive view of the US if our country did not do what you claim causes all that anti-americanism? During the Clinton years, we did not see Europeans embracing the US even thought Clinton's foreign policy was very much inclusive bad based on consensus (which I think was much better than the current administration's approach). The US did support some opressive regimes - you're right. But even more so it supported the democratic regimes. And most of the time the US supported those opressive regimes (like Iraq duriong the Iraq-Iran war or Afghanistan's muhajedin during the Soviet invasion) was because the other side was arguably more evil. I was born in the former Soviet Union and I know what I am talking about...

Fabrizio
June 15th, 2006, 11:11 AM
Everything BL says is true.

And that´s the way "empires"...the biggest and most powerful...do things. If France were in America´s place? China? England? Italy?

Actually, at least with Italy, everyone would have nice shoes and stylish sunglasses.

MidtownGuy
June 15th, 2006, 11:45 AM
BL BC-great, well written post.


Mr BL BC: Do you really think that the average French citizen would have a much more positive view of the US if our country did not do what you claim causes all that anti-americanism?

Of COURSE!

Ninjahedge
June 15th, 2006, 12:29 PM
The bad thing is, in general, that tourists in and of themselves generally do not leave the best of impressions when they go somewhere.

The whole run about "Fat German Buisnessmen" in the monty python sketch is remarkably similar to what "Fat American Tourists" also do when on vacation.

As for the upper class vacationers... That is a difficult one in that most of the hoity-toity people DO think they are above the common man, but few, if any, come out of a cantina waving money at random women. That guy is an ass. He does not need a nationality.

The main problem that we have now comes in several different fronts. First is the inherent feeling of "freedom" imparted by vacations. Like you somehow do not need to follow all the rules. This is more recationary the more repressive or demanding the work environment is. Wall street types have been known to be very reckless on vacation.

The second comes from the inherent feeling of American Superiority. Americans feel like the #1 country in technology, finance, military, and just about any major field. Thing is, in many of those assertions, they are correct. But that does not mean we are BETTER. Just liek having the better soccer team does not mean you can play any better than the next man (I am talking to all you world cup fans out there!) the fact that Johnson and Johnson kicks butt in the pharmeceutical market does not mean that we can design even a band-aid.

The third is the recent xenephobia and party splitting that has been used in politics as of late. The fact that the US even used it on its own people is a sign of what is happening here. They pitted American against American, unsing such sophisticated arguements as "If you do not like it here, move!" and changing the name of "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries". WTH kind of stupidity is that?

Fourth would probably be the last notable reason (generically). The US, for the most part, has much less manners than the rest of the world. We have a tendency to be SLIGHTLY less snooty about our history (seeing how we are still a youngster in the global arena) but at the same time that also does not make us any more savvy about international relations in general. We only have Mexico and Canada bordering us, and we did not spend 1000 years fighting people right next door to develop our own sense of propriety and political aplomb.

Combine all this with the inherent human qualities of Idiocy and Cluelessness and you can see where you get one drunken buisnessman coming out of a bar waving wads of cash at women and inferring his superiority over them.




Then again, it could be the food.

MrSpice
June 15th, 2006, 12:35 PM
BL BC-great, well written post.
Of COURSE!

I think you should not be so sure. Some of the hatered is based on cultural differences and envy. It's not just the foreign policy that gets critisized. The whole image of the average American in the eyes of many European is a fat guy in a baseball cap that knows nothing about the world and has a lot of money. While we have a lot of people in this country, their percentage is simlar to those in most European countries. Yet, many Europeans have this strange superiority complex when the compare themselves to the Americans. There's a lot of hate towards the US in France because it invades their cultural domain with food (McDonalds, Starbucks, etc.) and movies (Hollywood, TV shows, etc.) and displaces their beloved language from the map of the world. They also are afraid of the US system of capitalism that is become more and more widespread in Europe - especially the "new Europe" (Estonia, Hungary, etc.) where people have fewer social guarantees but enjoy lower taxes, less ergulation, non-unionized workforce, etc. They cannot compete with this kind of free society because of their restrictive labor laws, high taxes and short work days and they don't like that development. They often blame America for spreading this kind of lifestyle ("work and nothing but work").

No doubt, foreign affairs play an important role in the perception that people have about the US. But it's only one variable in this complicated equation.

Fabrizio
June 15th, 2006, 01:10 PM
What? Again Mr. Spice basically making thing up.

"They also are afraid of the US system of capitalism that is become more and more widespread in Europe - especially the "new Europe" (Estonia, Hungary, etc.)"

The capitalism in Eastern Europe has NOTHING to do with American style capitalism. In many places it is a super corrupt, mafia-style 1910-style "capitalism". One that is causing hordes of Eastern Europeans to flee to Western Europe....where more opportunity exists. And this is also why Eastern Europeans want to become a part of the European Union, want to live under it´s social guarantees and general affluence.

Mr Spice mentions Hungary. LOL:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4935474.stm
-------------

About American tourists. Yeah....the hordes can get ugly...especially young Americans, American students who are often the worst, along with their English cousins.

But believe me, at least here in Italy....the tourist that people like the MOST are Americans (and Japanese). There is a certain type that are very gracious, sophisticated, curious, willing to learn and try new things, enthusiastic...just generally very cool.

----------

ryan
June 15th, 2006, 01:31 PM
The whole image of the average American in the eyes of many European is a fat guy in a baseball cap that knows nothing about the world and has a lot of money.

Sounds about right to me. I'm continually appaulled by our country's willfull ignorance of the rest of the world, and the pathetic coverage of international news in the MSM.

MrSpice
June 15th, 2006, 01:46 PM
What? Again Mr. Spice basically making thing up.

"They also are afraid of the US system of capitalism that is become more and more widespread in Europe - especially the "new Europe" (Estonia, Hungary, etc.)"

The capitalism in Eastern Europe has NOTHING to do with American style capitalism. In many places it is a super corrupt, mafia-style 1910-style "capitalism". One that is causing hordes of Eastern Europeans to flee to Western Europe....where more opportunity exists. And this is also why Eastern Europeans want to become a part of the European Union, want to live under it´s social guarantees and general affluence.

Mr Spice mentions Hungary. LOL:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4935474.stm
-------------

About American tourists. Yeah....the hordes can get ugly...especially young Americans, American students who are often the worst, along with their English cousins.

But believe me, at least here in Italy....the tourist that people like the MOST are Americans (and Japanese). There is a certain type that are very gracious, sophisticated, curious, willing to learn and try new things, enthusiastic...just generally very cool.

----------

You should read the Economist magazine more often. Maybe Hungary is a bad example (sorry for being incorrect on this one), but Estonia is a good example. You're picking on the small details and overlook the overall context of what I am talking about. If you followed the debate on European constitution in France, one of the things there were afraid of is that it will create a threat to France's security net where welfare benefits are generous, work hours are limited to 35 and unions are very strong. They were afraid of "polish plumbers", if you heard the term. The system of taxation and social protection in many of the developing european countries is ineed similar to the US. And the results of it are obvious: Estonia with its unbridled capitalism enjoyed the best growth rates of any country in Europe in 2005.

There in Italy where you are, the economy is one of the worst and slowest and overregulated in Europe. The government is one of the most corrupt among the developed countries. Italy is one of the friendliest countries towards the US and Americans, because of many reasons. First of all, the US is home to many Italians and Italy has a unique connection to the US on many levels. Better example of European hostility are Germany and France where the large percentage of population shares anti-American views and has done so for many decades.

Ninjahedge
June 15th, 2006, 02:32 PM
The system of ... social protection in many of the developing european countries is ineed similar to the US.

Or lack thereof.


Better example of European hostility are Germany and France where the large percentage of population shares anti-American views and has done so for many decades.

So ignore parts of Europe that DO like us to make the argument of Europe in general hating us stronger.

I also hate to tell you, but Germany has quite a few people living here in the states. Try going out to Pennsylvania and the like and let me know if you see and Schwartz families or similar names. Better yet, go in September, swing a dead cat and see if you don't hit an Oktoberfest celebration (or notice of one, at the very least). The hatred of Germany for the US is not as prevalent as you profess....

MS, you are making blanket statements again. Over-generalization only works in elections, try to be a little more conscientious on the boards here, will ya?

MrSpice
June 15th, 2006, 02:48 PM
I also hate to tell you, but Germany has quite a few people living here in the states.
MS, you are making blanket statements again. Over-generalization only works in elections, try to be a little more conscientious on the boards here, will ya?

It's a matter of pecentages. Clearly, the number of Italian Americans is much higher than the number of German Americans. I am not making any blanket statements. I am presenting my personal opinion. If you disagree, feel free to present your argument. I don't see any generalizations in what I said.

JMGarcia
June 15th, 2006, 02:55 PM
Actually, there are way more german americans than italian americans. Look at www.census.gov. The difference is that german americans do not retain the connections to Germany that itialian americans retain with Italy.

lofter1
June 15th, 2006, 02:58 PM
Clearly, the number of Italian Americans is much higher than the number of German Americans.
German descendants started arriving in the USA @ 1710 -- settled much of what is now Pennsylvania then moved on to settle Ohio, Indiana and places west.

For the most part the Italians started arriving in large numbers @ 1890s.

If you extrapolate that out and do the math (all those babies, all those cousins) I think you'll find that "German-Americans" far outnumber "Italian-Americans".

MrSpice
June 15th, 2006, 03:27 PM
German descendants started arriving in the USA @ 1710 -- settled much of what is now Pennsylvania then moved on to settle Ohio, Indiana and places west.

For the most part the Italians started arriving in large numbers @ 1890s.

If you extrapolate that out and do the math (all those babies, all those cousins) I think you'll find that "German-Americans" far outnumber "Italian-Americans".

Is this high school? I am not talking about those who arrived 200-300 years ago? Obviously, those people mixed in with the general populationo much better than the 2nd generation Italians living in Bensonhurst. And no one had "Germans do it better" on a T-shirt like Madonna. And there was never a German movie hero similar to Rocky Balboa. And there was never so many movies where characters were so genuinely Italian. Not to mention De Niro, Al Pacino, Jay Leno, etc. who are proud to be italians and talk about it on every corner. I am not talking about genes and who came from where originally. Do we have a "Little Germany" neighborhood here (please don't mention Yorkville as a possibility - virtualy no more Germans there)? How many german restaurants do we have here in the US? How about Italian ones and pizza places? It seems like pontless facts are more important to some of the posters here than the point of the discussion and what people are trying to say.

Ninjahedge
June 15th, 2006, 03:38 PM
Is this high school? I am not talking about those who arrived 200-300 years ago? Obviously, those people mixed in with the general populationo much better than the 2nd generation Italians living in Bensonhurst.

Populationo? Are you trying to speak Italian?


And no one had "Germans do it better" on a T-shirt like Madonna. And there was never a German movie hero similar to Rocky Balboa.

Why bother when you are the norm throughout most of the country.

People wanted to see someone different, not their neighbors the HappenHeimers... ;)


And there was never so many movies where characters were so genuinely Italian. Not to mention De Niro, Al Pacino, Jay Leno, etc. who are proud to be italians and talk about it on every corner.

You are associating vocality and public appearance to percentage in the US?

I know a better way to associate what you are feeling with actual fact, but I am going to let you squirm a bit with these ill-fitted examples... ;)



I am not talking about genes and who came from where originally.

So where we came from has no bearing on where we came from.

K.


Do we have a "Little Germany" neighborhood here (please don't mention Yorkville as a possibility - virtualy no more Germans there)?

Why do you need a "little Germany" if most of an area is of German decent?

Hell, places like VERNON VALLEY NJ used to be pronouncedly german, with Oktoberfests at Action Park FCS!!!!


How many german restaurants do we have here in the US? How about Italian ones and pizza places?

What about Taco Bells? Or French restaurants?

Sorry, but Pizza Huts, Dominos, Olive Gardens, Taco Bells and other true "ethnic" places of that calibur do not equate to a cultural dominance.

And theer are a lot of german influenced places. The thing is, when all you have is potato salad and sauerbroten to serve, there are not a hell of a lot of places you can get to.

You should be asking how many German BARS are there in the US, not restaurants.



It seems like pontless facts are more important to some of the posters here than the point of the discussion and what people are trying to say.

Mr. Pot, be careful who you are calling Black. Especially amongst a bunch of Stanless Steel cookware.

YOU are the one pointing all this stuff out to try to back up your incorrect assement. We just keep peeling them off to show you that they really do not stick! ;) (You have met the Teflons, Mr. Pot?)

ryan
June 15th, 2006, 04:02 PM
Reluctantly, I have to support MrSpice in this particular quibble. Especially after WWII German-Americans distanced themselves from Germany and assimilated more than Italians (like a friend who's grandfather changed the family name from Schmidt to Smith). So I'd buy the argument that there's more of a contemporary connection between the Italian American community and Italy than the German American community and Germany. Saying that closer relationship is responsible for less anti-americanism (an assertion that while I don't disagree with, I would like to see data) is tenuous at best.

Here's some shiny new[/URL] Anti-American data from [URL="http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252"]Pew (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252):

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/252-1.gif

Fabrizio
June 15th, 2006, 04:24 PM
Estonia? you´re talking about a country with a little over a million people (!) that even under the USSR was traditionally well off...(this is Northern Europe after all):

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-37286


Even so, with all of it´s reforms and high economic growth rate, it´s population is still a lot poorer than Western Europe´s. (BTW Estonia became an EU member in 2004).

MidtownGuy
June 15th, 2006, 05:16 PM
at least here in Italy....the tourist that people like the MOST are Americans (and Japanese). There is a certain type that are very gracious, sophisticated, curious, willing to learn and try new things, enthusiastic...just generally very cool.

When I arrive in August, I 'll do my best to represent this type!

ablarc
June 15th, 2006, 05:48 PM
When I lived in France as a teenager, anti-Americanism was tangible and near-universal. In the summer of 1999, I was pleasantly surprised by the unaccustomed cordiality with which I was received everywhere. People went out of their way to tell me how much they liked America, and especially our president (Clinton). Ditto Britain. ryan's table shows a (for France) very high approval rating at this time. That has since deteriorated drastically. It's another thing you can lay at the doorstep of G. W. Bush.

lofter1
June 15th, 2006, 05:56 PM
... after WWII German-Americans distanced themselves from Germany and assimilated more than Italians (like a friend who's grandfather changed the family name from Schmidt to Smith).

My great-grandfather did that @ WW1 ...

Ninjahedge
June 15th, 2006, 06:01 PM
When I lived in France as a teenager, anti-Americanism was tangible and near-universal. In the summer of 1999, I was pleasantly surprised by the unaccustomed cordiality with which I was received everywhere. People went out of their way to tell me how much they liked America, and especially our president (Clinton). Ditto Britain. ryan's table shows a (for France) very high approval rating at this time. That has since deteriorated drastically. It's another thing you can lay at the doorstep of G. W. Bush.

They just liked him because he got the bootay. ;)

Ninjahedge
June 15th, 2006, 06:01 PM
My great-grandfather did that @ WW1 ...

Pleased to meet you Mr. Smith!

When are you going to Washington?

lofter1
June 15th, 2006, 06:20 PM
(on me Mum's side ^ ergo: Not a "Smith" meself)

Bright Lights, Big City
June 16th, 2006, 12:53 PM
This is a very interesting thread, and I'm happy to see that it has not degenerated into the kind of defensive name-calling and culture-bashing these debates often bring about. I think that says a lot about the members of this board and the people debating this issue.

I just wanted to add something to my last post that goes along with what some people have been saying. As a dual US/Canadian citizen who was born and raised in Canada, I've had a unique opportunity to observe my culture from the other side of the border and seen the way non-Americans react to America and the kinds of misconceptions that exist about America and Americans. I have engaged in not a few arguments with both friends and strangers who have the impression that all Americans are fat, ignorant, bible-thumping war-mongerers who want nothing more than complete domination over a world they know nothing about.

The fact is that the average American is no more ignorant, fascist, brainwashed, racist, etc. than any other person living in the Western world. Period. It's easy to point the finger at the superpower and claim that they are the root of all evil, but it is certainly much harder to look at onesself and one's own culture and accept the ways in which we are just as bad, if not worse.

Case and point are Canadians, who can be some of the worst American-bashers, because we are so close to the US, both geographically and culturally, and for some Canadians America-bashing is the equivalent of patriotism, when in fact it is little more than a scapegoat - a way for us to pat ourselves on the backs every time the US government makes an unpopular decision so we can reassure ourselves that we are good just because we are not like THEM. In reality, most of the American-bashing Canadians I've met got all their information about the US second-hand and had rarely even travelled south of the border except perhaps to shop at an outlet mall or grab some chicken wings in Buffalo. Meanwhile, Canada has many problems all of its own making that people consistently ignore while pointing their finger south. It's just easier to point the finger than to acknowledge one's own faults.

The fact is, many of the people who attack the US for cultural imperialism and ignorance are guilty of exactly the same thing, even if it is in another context. This is just like Al-Qaeda complaining about American troops killing innocent muslims when they themselves are guilty of murdering thousands of innocent muslims (in the name of Islam, as they say) for belonging to a different sect. How can they accuse Americans of cultural imperialism when they are guilty of the same thing? Hating America is a popular stance for both politicians and civilians, and it is far easier to be anti-american than to try and understand America, and it is certainly easier to bash america than to try and defend it.

Now, this doesn't mean that the US hasn't caused serious problems for many people across the world, but I don't think anti-americanism has anything to do with this, because it is almost always directed at average americans who typically have no say over what their government does or does not do, or did in the past. Anti-americanism is just a scape-goat plain and simple, and I think you'll find that most of the people who profess these views know little or nothing about America or Americans. They're simply picking up bits and pieces they hear from different sources and adopting them as their own because they see how popular such views are. And besides, it's nice to have a single target upon which to place the burden of all your complaints about life and the world.

And as far as ignorant American tourists go, yes there are many of them, but there are also many ignorant Canadian, German, French, British, Australian, Austrian, etc. tourists wandering around the world giving their homelands and cultures a bad name. As far as I'm concerned, all this bad behavior abroad comes from a single source; a feeling of superiority that manifests itself in a sense of entitlement and the belief that the foreign country and its people are little more than an exhibit that exists solely for the tourist's enjoyment, like an exhibit in a museum. When this happens, the country and it's people are little more than inanimate objects - potential hassles or sources of pleasure - to which the tourist feels they should have unlimited access. Even those who are normally well-mannered feel that they do not need to use their manners in these foreign countries (particularly poor ones) because they have paid to be there, it is THEIR HOLIDAY, and they can do whatever they want. I've spent a lot of time in Mexico and so I've unfortunately had to witness a lot of this from American tourists who often think Mexico is little more than their country's brothel / watering hole. When the police come and arrest them, they are always so outraged because they really do believe they should be able to do whatever they want there, that it is their money that keeps the country fed.

Anyways, just some more thoughts.

Great thread guys and girls.

peace

BL, BC

Bright Lights, Big City
June 16th, 2006, 01:02 PM
Oh, and one more thing.....

In regards to Mr. Spice's comment that there are more Italian-Americans than German-Americans, did you know that more Americans claim German ancestry than any other, including British/Scottish/Anglo-Saxon?

Just thought you should know. America is more German than anything else.

peace

BL BC

PS - If you don't believe me, check out this website: http://www.germany.info/relaunch/culture/ger_americans/paper.html

Ninjahedge
June 16th, 2006, 02:00 PM
Stupid Canuck
























;)

Transic
September 11th, 2006, 12:56 AM
The fact is that the average American is no more ignorant, fascist, brainwashed, racist, etc. than any other person living in the Western world. Period. It's easy to point the finger at the superpower and claim that they are the root of all evil, but it is certainly much harder to look at onesself and one's own culture and accept the ways in which we are just as bad, if not worse.

The fact is, many of the people who attack the US for cultural imperialism and ignorance are guilty of exactly the same thing, even if it is in another context. This is just like Al-Qaeda complaining about American troops killing innocent muslims when they themselves are guilty of murdering thousands of innocent muslims (in the name of Islam, as they say) for belonging to a different sect. How can they accuse Americans of cultural imperialism when they are guilty of the same thing? Hating America is a popular stance for both politicians and civilians, and it is far easier to be anti-american than to try and understand America, and it is certainly easier to bash america than to try and defend it.

Now, this doesn't mean that the US hasn't caused serious problems for many people across the world, but I don't think anti-americanism has anything to do with this, because it is almost always directed at average americans who typically have no say over what their government does or does not do, or did in the past. Anti-americanism is just a scape-goat plain and simple, and I think you'll find that most of the people who profess these views know little or nothing about America or Americans. They're simply picking up bits and pieces they hear from different sources and adopting them as their own because they see how popular such views are. And besides, it's nice to have a single target upon which to place the burden of all your complaints about life and the world.


Or they have aims of being a powerful world player themselves and feel the need of bringing down the superpower to achieve that.

Exhibit A: China
Exhibit B: Hugo Chavez

eddhead
September 11th, 2006, 01:01 PM
Reluctantly, I have to support MrSpice in this particular quibble. Especially after WWII German-Americans distanced themselves from Germany and assimilated more than Italians (like a friend who's grandfather changed the family name from Schmidt to Smith). So I'd buy the argument that there's more of a contemporary connection between the Italian American community and Italy than the German American community and Germany. Saying that closer relationship is responsible for less anti-americanism (an assertion that while I don't disagree with, I would like to see data) is tenuous at best.

Here's some shiny new Anti-American data from Pew (http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252):

http://pewglobal.org/reports/images/252-1.gif

Where is italy?

SilentPandaesq
September 11th, 2006, 06:04 PM
^^ Always good to know that good old Turkey (friend and NATO partner) can be counted on to hate us the most.
Seriously, whats up with that? For a country we have not bombed...ever...they sure don't like us.

On the bright side - what ever we are doing, China seams to like it more and more.

Strattonport
September 11th, 2006, 06:42 PM
We have stuff to manufacture, they have the cheap labor.

ryan
September 11th, 2006, 06:45 PM
Perhaps it has something to do with Turkey's Muslim population, or the fact that we've invaded their neighbor?

Ninjahedge
September 11th, 2006, 06:53 PM
Nah.

It is probably because the BS they are hearing our leaders profess is not "conditioned" to their own culture.

Honey coating for some is pig shooooot for others...

Jake
September 11th, 2006, 10:00 PM
Perhaps it has something to do with Turkey's Muslim population, or the fact that we've invaded their neighbor?

heh, yeah they're a tad ticked off about the Iraqi refugees that were (no idea of current status) heading for their border. May I remind everyone that Turkey hates Iraq more than any other country in the area.

Glad to see we're a bit more popular in Russia....:p

I propose we run a poll on how much the British love the French and vice versa, also Chinese and Koreans and the Japanese, those guys are just really mellow seeing as Japan still regards Korea is their territory lmao.

In fact, I'll make a little who-was-right wager that America is better liked by many than most neighboring countries are by each other.

Last time I went to Canada I didn't even slow down at the border, on the other hand when I rented a car in Poland to drive into Germany I spent 6 hours at the customs not because I was American but because I was arriving from the wrong side of the border. Similar is the case with the Austria-Hungary border as well as France-Belgium crossing. There was a time in Europe not many years ago when foreign license plates guaranteed you a ticket for no reason. Granted much of that has changed but let's not get all "everybody hates America while the world just waits to give everyone a hug."

Hell, I'm sure many Americans don't like the British, former oppressors with your "wrong"-side roads and those accents...hehe...sorry.
People hate people, it's a fact.

Red Sox fans hate Yankee fans just as much as anyone hates anyone else.

SilentPandaesq
September 12th, 2006, 10:18 AM
^^ Yea, but I think it is funny when people attribute "anti-american" concepts to past actions against a nation. This chart says otherwise. We NUKED Japan...TWICE....and they have a better impression of the US than a country that we have never fought against. Heck, we and the Russians had 80,000 warheads pointed at each other and they still like us more than Turkey.

What gives? Is it really an Islam thing, and Iraq thing. There was a popular movie in turkey that had "fictional" American soliders stealing organs of muslims. When did we become the "bad guys" in the movie?

ryan
September 12th, 2006, 10:34 AM
After we defeated Japan we spent a few generations rebuilding their economy into one of the strongest in the world. And we continue to provide military protection...out of the kindness of our tax money.

SilentPandaesq
September 12th, 2006, 11:32 AM
And what...Turkey is mad we have not bombed and rebuilt them at our expense????

ryan
September 12th, 2006, 01:36 PM
I see I've taken this too seriously. I suspect this Turkish anti-Americanism must have somthing to do with all those Thanksgiving dinners we so gleefully consume. We should switch to chicken.

SilentPandaesq
September 12th, 2006, 02:25 PM
I see I've taken this too seriously.

Possibly :) .

Turkey is quite dry and untasty. Same goes for the food that shares the name.

Seriously, even if Japanese people have made good out of a bad situation, it is not like it happened 100 years ago. There are people alive today that remember being nuked by the US. They have children and grandchildren that are fully aware of that fact. Still, they think we arn't so bad. Contrast that to Turkey who hates the US (according to this poll and the guy in my office that went to Turkey last year) even though the US has never done anything to Turkey.

So in order for other countries to have a high view of us, we need to make them rich? Or more to the point, if the US makes you rich, then you will forget the fact that we might have commited a war crime or 2?

nick-taylor
September 12th, 2006, 05:28 PM
I propose we run a poll on how much the British love the French and vice versaWe love the French!

We send them our elderly to flood the Dordogne, while their entrepreneurs and intellectuals flood to Britain - sounds like a very good deal!

MrSpice
September 12th, 2006, 05:55 PM
Oh, and one more thing.....

In regards to Mr. Spice's comment that there are more Italian-Americans than German-Americans, did you know that more Americans claim German ancestry than any other, including British/Scottish/Anglo-Saxon?

Just thought you should know. America is more German than anything else.

peace

BL BC

PS - If you don't believe me, check out this website: http://www.germany.info/relaunch/culture/ger_americans/paper.html

I don't think it's important in the context of this discussion. German Americans mostly came to the US several generations ago, as noted by several posters here. They may keep some traditions and proud of their heritage. But most of them just consider themselves Americans. There are some German bars and restaurants - but not nearly as many as Italian ones. I would argue that the reason we even have so many German bars is due to the popularity of German bear and the fame that German bars have around the world (together with Munich's bearfest). I don't think it has that much to do with the fact that many Americans can trace their roots back to Germany. Millions of italian immigrants came to the US in the beginning of this century, not 200 years ago. Their influence on the American culture has been profound - from food to movies, to literature to the popular culture. Therefore, Italy does have, in my opinion, as special bond with the US. How many actors can one name who would proudly declare that they are German-Americans? What about Italian-Americans? I think any of us can name dozens of them. What about polititians who are German-Americans are a produly talking about that fact? If you think of Italian Americans, especially in New York, the list would be long - from LaGuardia and Mario Cuomo to Giuliani and Pataki... I think it's a common sense that culturally Itally is much closer to the US than Germany.

Fabrizio
September 12th, 2006, 06:10 PM
Italian-American actors:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWWDAbXLQvU

Jake
September 12th, 2006, 09:32 PM
We love the French!

We send them our elderly to flood the Dordogne, while their entrepreneurs and intellectuals flood to Britain - sounds like a very good deal!

ha, sure, yet the most commonly recognized offensive gesture in the world is specifically aimed at the French by the British, no? I mean all this half-seriously, I don't mean that either side burns the other's flag but there does exist a degree of constant animosity between these countries. Whether it's Manchester playing Marseilles in the Champion's League or British Airways vs Air France both sides often say "oh you French!" or "oh you British!"

America gets screwed in these national popularity contests because all of our military deployments look exactly like those of colonizing powers not so long ago. The problem is that neither Britain nor France ever dealt with the Internet, TV, radio and this kind of freedom of speech. I'm not knocking Britain here but public opinion in Persia was pretty much "who gives a damn"

I'll say this:

According to this poll, America has a better opinion than the elected governments of some of those countries

That's not an entirely great use of that data but it goes to show how much we should trust these little polls.

lofter1
September 12th, 2006, 09:58 PM
ha, sure, yet the most commonly recognized offensive gesture in the world is specifically aimed at the French by the British, no?

... there does exist a degree of constant animosity between these countries.

and that goes way back (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Agincourt) ...

Popular myths

It has long been told that the famous "two-fingers salute (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-fingers_salute)" and/or "V sign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_sign)" derives from the gestures of English archers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archers), fighting at Agincourt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azincourt). The myth claims that the French (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_people) cut off two fingers on the right hand of captured archers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archers) and that the gesture was a sign of defiance by those who were not mutilated.


This may have some basis in fact - Jean Froissart (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Froissart) (circa 1337-circa 1404) was a historian as the author of The Chronicle, a primary document that is essential to an understanding of Europe in the fourteenth century and to the twists and turns taken by the Hundred Years' War. The story of the English waving their fingers at the French is told in the first person account by Froissart, however the description is not of an incident at the Battle of Agincourt, but rather at the siege of a castle in another incident during the Hundred Years War. Also, Froissart is known to have died before the Battle of Agincourt. So, while it may have been used at Agincourt, it was not invented there.

milleniumcab
September 14th, 2006, 07:43 PM
I see I've taken this too seriously. I suspect this Turkish anti-Americanism must have somthing to do with all those Thanksgiving dinners we so gleefully consume. We should switch to chicken.

It is virtually impossible to cook turkey to perfection.. Chicken on the other hand is quite simple to do right..

We as a family highlite our Thanksgiving Dinner with fish, a breast of turkey cooked as a token...But usually is not touched much..

milleniumcab
September 14th, 2006, 08:08 PM
We have invaded a neighbor of Turkey for false reasons.. Israel have bombarded and destroyed much of Lebanon for two kidnapped soldiers..But we are asking Turkey not to go into Iraq to stop PKK terror..

Turkey have been seeing a lot more terrorism from PKK, seperatist Kurdish terrorist group, within their borders..They have always operated from neighboring countries like Iraq and Syria... PKK, labeled by the West and U.S. as a terrorist group, have incraesed their activity again due to lack of inforcement in Iraq.. Their bases in Iraq is well known to Turks, Iraqies and the Americans..Yet America have been asking Turkey not to intervene in Iraq while doing basically nothing to stop PKK from operating from Qandil mountains in Iraq... How do you think this is playing in Turkey..Everyday there is a funeral for many Turkish Soldiers who have been killed by road side bombs..

If we let the Turks clean up the mess on their own, then we will see a big rise in pro American opinions in that country..

By the way, Turks were around 70 percent pro American about 15 years ago.. What the hell did we do wrong to change that opinion so drastically..I think that's the question we should be asking more often..

pianoman11686
September 14th, 2006, 08:33 PM
It is virtually impossible to cook turkey to perfection..

It's virtually impossible to do anything to perfection, if you don't know what you're doing. :D

Try soaking the turkey in a big pot of water overnight, after rubbing it with a lot of salt. Keeps the bird very moist when baking. And for God sake, don't cook it too long! Sample it every now and then...two hours should be enough time (unless it's a really big turkey). Oh, right...that's another thing: the smaller ones are much juicier than the big, old ones.

Last thing: homemade gravy, if it's done right (it's not hard at all), will keep you from ever considering the powdered stuff ever again.

milleniumcab
September 14th, 2006, 09:01 PM
It's virtually impossible to do anything to perfection, if you don't know what you're doing. :D

Try soaking the turkey in a big pot of water overnight, after rubbing it with a lot of salt. Keeps the bird very moist when baking. And for God sake, don't cook it too long! Sample it every now and then...two hours should be enough time (unless it's a really big turkey). Oh, right...that's another thing: the smaller ones are much juicier than the big, old ones.

Last thing: homemade gravy, if it's done right (it's not hard at all), will keep you from ever considering the powdered stuff ever again.

Thanks but no thanks.. We'll stick to fish...

nick-taylor
September 15th, 2006, 06:31 AM
ha, sure, yet the most commonly recognized offensive gesture in the world is specifically aimed at the French by the British, no? I mean all this half-seriously, I don't mean that either side burns the other's flag but there does exist a degree of constant animosity between these countries. Whether it's Manchester playing Marseilles in the Champion's League or British Airways vs Air France both sides often say "oh you French!" or "oh you British!"

America gets screwed in these national popularity contests because all of our military deployments look exactly like those of colonizing powers not so long ago. The problem is that neither Britain nor France ever dealt with the Internet, TV, radio and this kind of freedom of speech. I'm not knocking Britain here but public opinion in Persia was pretty much "who gives a damn"

I'll say this:

According to this poll, America has a better opinion than the elected governments of some of those countries

That's not an entirely great use of that data but it goes to show how much we should trust these little polls.I do wonder whether the British/English-French dispute is possibly the longest in any national history - it must have been going on for several centuries before any European laid eyes on North America!

I don't believe however that this extends to football. Infact most Brits are great admirers of the style played by the French and thats a reason why the Premiership has the highest concentration of French national side players outside the French leagues. Arsenal (a London team) is managed by possibly the current best French manager in the world and captained on the pitch by whom I think is the best player in the world (Henry - far more class than Ronaldinho and I'm a Newcastle fan!).

For club football, its hard to say - I'd be more angled towards the Spanish and Italian teams. Nationally however is where it goes overboard - Germany and Argentina are the main enemies here.

Also we don't tend to be so against each countries companies (French countries for instance have a very large presence in the UK), but the economic business models in use. The French are a bit like the US - they want to protect their national champions from outside competition, but at the same time want other countries to open their markets to their companies. The irony here is that over the last few years, Britain has out-paced France in every conceivable measure and has been able to close the gap on such things like health and transport.

Yet BA and Air France are classic examples of what is wrong with France. Britain has several long-haul carriers that compete with BA (Virgin, BMI, etc...) as well as the multitude of short-haul carriers (Easyject, Ryanair, etc...) - Air France has no such competitors. The result is that the French don't have choice (a common problem within France) of whom to fly with, a choice of tickets or a choice of destinations. The result is that London alone handles more passengers than France (infact I believe more people fly in and out of London than in France and Germany combined). Infact this was an interesting debate over at SSC with several forumers pointing out the vast French HSR network negating the requirement of any other airlines. Even more interesting are the two facts that more people use intercity train services in Britain than in France and more people fly domestically than in Britain!

Also I disagree that the US gets flak because of its military deployments (Britain has far more demployments across the world - probably too overstretched in my opinion). Its because of how they carry out their duties. Lets face the facts here - the US Armed Forces aren't a wholly professional army, because medicare and educational incentives are what pushes the US military forward, not a career. They simply aren't trained mentally to the level of the armies of Britain and France simply because the US is technology centered and not people centered.

There is aferall a reason why Britain ruled over the largest empire: it did it by the occasional use of force but brought about a lot of development. Many transport, educational, political, legal and social networks were created or connected under the British Empire (most exist to this date). And I don't think we should underestimate territories under British control going back centuries - there was immense flows of information. Propoganda was used by the British as well as rebels and local war lords. The US Rebellion was for instance was won by French military intervention (oh how they must regret that now!) and crafty use of propoganda that the British were bloody thirsty murderers.

Granted they didn't have live CNN reports, but news did flow and the Chinese, Indians and others were masters at controlling information long before the internet.

The sad thing is, the US isn't in the business of reconstruction - its in the business of demolition. It thinks in regards to short-term security, but sacrafices that for long-term security and its because of that reason that we now have problems in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I'm not saying that the US should become a new Empire, but that it should pay closer attention to history and how similar situations were handled: build the schools, build the infrastructure, build the political and legal systems: give the people power and give them more and they will support you. Yet that hasn't happened in Iraq as the oil-fields and US forces security was the main concern, not the retaining of the Iraqi Army, the Ba-athist Party (that could later be reformed) and the use of money to win over the people with schools, new railways, new roads, etc...

nick-taylor
September 15th, 2006, 06:39 AM
I'd add also that the US is very contradictory. One of my disgusts is how the US wants other countries to fast-track the extradition of individuals (not just connected to terrorism, but white-collar crimes) and has managed to get countries to sign the treaty but fails to sign the treaty itself in fear of seeing hundreds (perhaps thousands) of so-called Irish-Americans being extradited to Britain to face sentence for funding the IRA in its rampant murder of British armed forces and innocent civillians. I'm half Irish by the way and it makes me sick how the US can claim to be fighting terrorism, but instead plays double standards.

I don't suspect many Americans would have heard about this situation, but its something that has severly dented US support in the UK, especially in educated circles.

Gregory Tenenbaum
September 15th, 2006, 08:28 AM
....but fails to sign the treaty itself in fear of seeing hundreds (perhaps thousands) of so-called Irish-Americans being extradited to Britain to face sentence for funding the IRA

You forgot those US citizens who were funding Nelson Mandela, once an insurgent as well. And what about the German Czech and Hungarian rocket scientists from WWII? And the Japanese as well? The list goes on!

What about just extraditing all of the US citizens responsible for not joining the war earlier than December 1941? Or should it just be limited to those persons who never lifted a finger to make food and weapons sold to the UK for the war effort or just to those sailors who didnt help transport it all over the Atlantic.

I always thought that Nelson the Insurgent had a point myself.

nick-taylor
September 15th, 2006, 10:32 AM
You forgot those US citizens who were funding Nelson Mandela, once an insurgent as well. And what about the German Czech and Hungarian rocket scientists from WWII? And the Japanese as well? The list goes on!

What about just extraditing all of the US citizens responsible for not joining the war earlier than December 1941? Or should it just be limited to those persons who never lifted a finger to make food and weapons sold to the UK for the war effort or just to those sailors who didnt help transport it all over the Atlantic.

I always thought that Nelson the Insurgent had a point myself.I think you're going a bit loopy here. There's a difference between abstaining from war and actively supporting a terrorist organisation.

Jake
September 15th, 2006, 10:27 PM
Well the US doesn't fund or suppy IRA, if we refuse extradition because someone has US citizenship then what's wrong with that? British law allows for an indefinate holding of a citizen without trial, that in my opinion is unfair, while you certainly don't exercise this loophole regularly requesting extradition so a man could be jailed indefinately is unreasonable.

Also don't forget that the US has huge Irish populations, an "American" IRA member would not be uncommon. Just like there are many British and French Islamic terrorists, why don't you deport those guys to Egypt where they can go free?

nick-taylor
September 16th, 2006, 12:02 PM
Well the US doesn't fund or suppy IRA, if we refuse extradition because someone has US citizenship then what's wrong with that? British law allows for an indefinate holding of a citizen without trial, that in my opinion is unfair, while you certainly don't exercise this loophole regularly requesting extradition so a man could be jailed indefinately is unreasonable.

Also don't forget that the US has huge Irish populations, an "American" IRA member would not be uncommon. Just like there are many British and French Islamic terrorists, why don't you deport those guys to Egypt where they can go free?Indeed the US as an entity doesn't fund or supply the IRA; individuals within the US do.

The fault is that the US was the country that put forward the treaty. Other countries then signed expecting the US to sign the vice versa treaty to create a two-way relationship....it hasn't. Now I don't know about you, but I don't know of any relationship that has been great where one party takes all, but gives nothing.

I presume however that you accidently forgot about a certain little place where foreign citizens are placed in a camp with little chance of getting out (even if they are innocent). Not only that but they are then subsequently 'de-humanised' by being humiliated in the media in orange jump suits which makes a mockery of their religion. Do you have any idea what the Islamic world sees from that? Lock them away, but don't make a PR disaster with the Islamic world and give them the inmates, al-Qaeda and other fundamentalist muslims the sympathy votes and ammunition to corrupt others.

And what is 'unfair'. The US takes terrorists and terrorist symapthisers to Guatanamo Bay and the UK is asking for terrorist sympathisers in the US (ie those who actively funded the IRA) to be given over to serve trial in the UK for the murder of armed forces, innocent men, women, children and the elderly as well as property and economical damage amounting to several dozen £bn. Again an anti-americanism situation that could be averted quite easily. The UK has handed over British terrorist/fundamentalist individuals to the US so where exactly is the problem that the same can't be done vice-versa?

Unfortunately for the US, this incident is being portrayed here (and elsewhere) that its okay to be supporting the IRA because they aren't killing American armed forces, American innocent civillians and destroying American property.

Now ask yourself what is more important to the US: supporting the IRA over a lost cause because democracy is prevailing or supporting the UK in putting away terrorist funders residing in the US and actually gaining some respect in the war on terror.

I believed that the Irish population was relatively small in the US, afterall being Irish and 'Irish-American' are two completely different things. One is a nationality, the other a loose disjointed identity. An identity I should remind is the reason why Britain and other European countries are struggling with individuals with disjointed muslim identities.

We also won't deport such individuals because they tend to be British citizens in the first place. The exception however is when they have credible links to committing or planning terrorist acts in those countries and people have been expelled from the country. In return we've got individuals back in return. Its the basic of a relationship: build it and you get respect and power. The US has since 9/11 lost it and its a reason why anti-Americanism has risen and support for the US and its policies has fallen on a global scale.

Gregory Tenenbaum
September 17th, 2006, 07:16 AM
I think you're going a bit loopy here. There's a difference between abstaining from war and actively supporting a terrorist organisation.

Nick, the point is that your government regarded Mandela as an insurgent at one stage. Why not extradite those in the US who supported him? Because that is as inane as your earlier suggestion.

Gregory Tenenbaum
May 27th, 2009, 08:49 AM
I guess that settles it.