Why they Hate America [Archive]

Trawler

08-Apr-2003, 18:29

Here's another:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/04/08/1049567687503.html

Anonymous US officials are quoted saying that on Monday they had received intelligence of a high-level meeting in Mansour of Iraqi intelligence officials and, "possibly", Saddam and his two sons, Qusay and Uday.

But that cuts no ice with the neighbours. The nearest house has stood for 43 years but now it is on the verge of collapse and the adult children of the blood-splattered engineer Fadel al-Imam, aged 75, are working to convince him he must leave.

With his back to the door of his wrecked library, where floor-to-ceiling shelves bulge with a lifetime's collection of engineering texts and there is a shattered photo of his policeman father in the service of the last Western occupiers of Iraq, the British, he says: "I reserve the right not to obey any government.

"This will create more enemies for the Americans. Even those who were feeling good about the arrival of the Americans will want to fight now."

Silent_One

08-Apr-2003, 18:56

Great article Joe

pascal

08-Apr-2003, 18:57

I think Arab hates Israel because their continued acts.
In fact the invasion and settlements continue:http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,931141,00.htmlJews settle in Palestinian Jerusalem

Sharon tests Bush, Blair and the road map by letting families occupy contested district

Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Monday April 7, 2003
The Guardian

Ariel Sharon has brushed aside an appeal by the White House to stop an unprecedented move by Jewish settlers into a Palestinian district of Jersualem which his critics say will further hinder a political settlement. Arab hate americans because they see US as having a double standard. Just to start US used the veto power 35 times in the UN security council in favor of Israel.

With all this peace talk and Israel just promote settlements in Jerusalem?

EU looks like more concerned and neutral:http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,2763,932117,00.htmlFischer rejects talks venue

Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Tuesday April 8, 2003
The Guardian

The German foreign minister, Joschka Fischer, provoked a new row about the status of Jerusalem yesterday when he refused to attend a meeting at the Israeli justice ministry because it is in the occupied east of the city.
He asked the justice minister for an alternative venue for today's talks, but Yosef "Tommy" Lapid insisted that the meeting must take place in his east Jerusalem ministry.

Visiting ministers from EU and other countries routinely refuse to attend meetings with Israeli ministers in east. Jerusalem. A European diplomat said other venues had been found in the past and that Mr Lapid had chosen to make a statement by insisting that this one take place at this office. But Mr Lapid's spokesman, Tsahi Moshe, said: "It is not up to Germany to decide where Israeli sovereignty lies. But this has nothing to do with Mr Fischer personally or Germany."

kyleb

08-Apr-2003, 19:11

Great article Joe

if you dig propaganda and hate-mongering that i suppose. :?

Silent_One

08-Apr-2003, 19:20

if you dig propaganda and hate-mongering that i suppose

LOL!, Your funny. :lol:

Joe DeFuria

08-Apr-2003, 19:24

I think Arab hates Israel because their continued acts.

And Israel hates "Arabs" because of their continued acts of suicide bombings?

Arab hate americans because they see US as having a double standard.

Key being they see us as having a double standard. We can see ANYONE with a double standard. I can say that "Muslims" have a double standard because on one hand, they say they preach "peace" and on the other hand, call for "Jihad". Does that make it a real double standard? Or a double standard based on misinformation or "selective" infomration?

The article is not about simple appearances.

Here's another...

Yeah, a baath party suburb....great place for objective and honest viewpoints. You might as well start quoting the Iraq Information Ministry. :roll:

Barnabas

08-Apr-2003, 19:25

I'd say that article is right in so far as the antagonistic feelings against the USA stems from the anger about US wealth and success. The point of it all, however, is not the fact of being successful per se but the way how this success is achieved.
All i can say is that i think it is right to oppose success and freedom when it's gained mostly or exclusively at the expense of others.

Joe DeFuria

08-Apr-2003, 19:36

All i can say is that i think it is right to oppose success and freedom when it's gained mostly or exclusively at the expense of others.

Agreed.

Are you implying though, America's success and freedom is gained mostly or exclusively at the expense of others?

Or is it that others just being "left behind" because their own policies or drive doesn't lead to their own success?

Of course, I wouldn't say that the U.S. is squeaky clean in terms of its road to "success." (Just as with any other country / nation or successful person, for that matter.) I would reject the notion that our success is gained "mostly or exclusively" at the expense of others. Just as I would argue that capitalism in general isn't "the few gaining wealth and power at the expense of the oppressed workers."

It becomes even more cloudy when you try and define "success". If other's don't value "success" in terms of economic welath / power (but something less tangible such as self-defined spiritual, artistic, or intellectual superiority or "rightness"), then why are others concerned if they are not as "successful" as defined by those terms?

kyleb

08-Apr-2003, 19:37

Joe DeFuria

08-Apr-2003, 19:43

that might apply to some Arabic people Barnabas, but the quality of life in much of Europe is on par with America and even a little better some places. to say they are jealous of us is not just propaganda and hate-mongering; it is straight up delusional narcissism.

First, saying the "quality of life" is better or worse in any given state is subjective. It depends entirely on what you define as what contributes to "quality."

It's not just a simple matter of "quality of life", kyle. It's our economic and military power and above all ability to influence others.

Or do you think it's "delusional narcissism" to believe that the U.S., as a singlular state, doesn't have such a uniqe position in the world? Do you think it's delusional to believe that others are "afraid" of how the U.S. will wield that power, or "impose" our culture on others?

I'm not sure you read the article, kyle. Read this passage again:

They look at us uncomprehendingly when our leaders declare a global assault on terror and evil. They see us as a mindless Rambo, a Mike Tyson with rippling muscles and no brain. Where the Islamists see us as a decadent slut, the European etherealists see us as a gun-slinging cowboy. The Islamists think we are too spoiled and comfortable, the Europeans think we are too violent and impulsive. Each side's view of us is a mix of Hollywood images (Marilyn Monroe for the Islamists, John Wayne for the Europeans), mass-media distortions, envy-driven stereotypes, and self-justifying delusions. But each side's vision springs from a deeper bourgeoisophobia--the prejudice that people who succeed in worldly affairs must be morally and intellectually backward. This article of faith governs the way even many sophisticated Europeans and Muslims react to us.

The author makes a clear distinction between Islamists and "Europeans." He describes that for "Europoeans" it's less about some envy of "our success", and more about a fear of what we do with it, or that our version of "success" starts to spread and threaten their own.

Gollum

08-Apr-2003, 19:54

Other possible names for this article would be "Why we are better than the rest of the world" or "Why we hate Europeans and Arabs". ;)

While obviously from a source that doesn't exactly represent a particularly unbiased view of the world, the article is rather well written IMO. There are a number of accurate and true observations in it, it brings up some interesting points and the historic context, media and philosophical sources they are drawn from are explained a little. It does go over the top by over-generalizing when applying this information though, leaping all over time, countries and people to point out connections, drawing conclusions that appear more as a kind of self-affirmation than anything else, dismissing opposing viewpoints as inherently wrong and suggesting motives of hate or jealousy to further invalidate differing opinions. It is also written in a very polar way, putting Americans on one end of a pole and much of the rest of the world at the other, a view of the world I personally don't share nor like very much as it isn't an accurate representation and doesn't work very well as a base for discussion.

The article seeks to re-affirm some very simple points behind all the intellectual eyewash (followed by my opinion):
A) America is the greatest nation on this world (probably true); B) Americans are the chosen people (I doubt it); C) they have a mission to build a new Rome (dangerous thinking); D) their way is the right way (maybe, but neither the only nor the best); E) others are just jealous (only one out of many possible reasons); F) foreigners despise capitalism, wealth and military might in general (I don't think so); G) the rest of the world has had their chance, now its America's turn (yeah right); H) the rest will just have to accept our leadership and bend over, its best for them anyway (not gonna happen so easily); I) beware of politically left individuals, intellectuals, artists and french and arabs in general (trust no one with a mustache!)...
BTW, don't take this little list too seriously, okay? ;)

RussSchultz

08-Apr-2003, 20:00

Well, in Star Trek, you couldn't trust anybody in a goatee.

Tahir2

08-Apr-2003, 20:41

I will say there is one MAJOR state of constant terror that is the 'only democracy in the Middle East.' The fact that it can be called a democracy is a sham, the fact that the US is so proud of this 'democracy' in the midst of 'dictatorships' is not only laughable but sends a message to the rest of the 'Muslim states' that the US are EVIL and sponsors of terrorism. Laughable..well shocking more like to the people that are affected. So when phrases like 'Moral Highground' are spouted like buzzwords, Muslims will spit at them and they WILL burn US flags and they WILL celeberate when there are attacks on the US.
A quote from some US guy in the Iraq war was, again laughable, "We underestimated how much the Iraqi's hate the US." Why is it laughable.. because it shows the mentality of the US and it shows the lack of understanding the US have of their image around the world. The US is not seen by MOST of the countries of the world as the 'Land of the Free' but the 'Land of the incarcerators/enslavers/money worshippers'. The US are seen as smug and oppurtunists. The US are seen as being evil overlords...however if you were to ship someone from one of these 'other' nations (lets not narrow it to the Middle East..lets include most of Asia and almost all of Africa too) most would forget about the problems in their homelands and enjoy the Coke, and MTv and McDonalds and the sexy, sexy.. hehe that's the irony of human nature for you.

If this problem of Israel finally gets solved (as in there is REAL PEACE AND REAL RESPECT shown for the Palestinians - as in they are treated like HUMAN BEINGS at the very least) I think you will be surprised at how many problems will simply disappear around these hotbeds of the moment. I know, I know most people in the US do not see the problem with what the Israeli govt is doing to the Palestinians and most dont care anymore if they ever did. I mean you may totally disagree yourself, but I am showing you my perspective and my perspective as a Muslim. Unfortunately for the Palestinians it's been a problem for so long it seems like it is just the Status Quo. Israel/Palestine was during the Caliphates peaceful for hundreds of years with all major 3 religions living together in PEACE.

But thats just one problem ... being the boss is not an easy job.

kyleb

08-Apr-2003, 20:55

First, saying the "quality of life" is better or worse in any given state is subjective. It depends entirely on what you define as what contributes to "quality."

no more subjective than any of the assertations i am refuting though; less so than many of them.

It's not just a simple matter of "quality of life", kyle.

that would be a subjective opinion too, Joe. :P

It's our economic and military power and above all ability to influence others.

for people like you i suppose; but many of us do not get off on the ability to manipulate people, by military force or otherwise.

Or do you think it's "delusional narcissism" to believe that the U.S., as a singlular state, doesn't have such a uniqe position in the world?.

we are all in uniqe postions, indivudals as well as states.

Do you think it's delusional to believe that others are "afraid" of how the U.S. will wield that power, or "impose" our culture on others?

no i think that is not an example of delusional behavior, but it is a common result of it.

as for the comments on the article, that was one of the better points in it; but it does little to redeem the rest of it for me.

Joe DeFuria

08-Apr-2003, 21:00

So when phrases like 'Moral Highground' are spouted like buzzwords, Muslims will spit at them and they WILL burn US flags and they WILL celeberate when there are attacks on the US.

Agree. However, I don't recall anyone saying that the U.S. / Israel has a moral high-gound over Palestinians, any more than we have a moral high-ground over Iraqis.

Moral high-ground over palestinian suicide bombers? Moral high-ground over Sadam's regime? Yes, we do typically claim that, and I do personally believe that as well. Unfortunately, that message get's "translated" as something else....that we believe we have a moral "high-ground" over Muslims in general.

Joe DeFuria

08-Apr-2003, 21:08

that would be a subjective opinion too, Joe. :P

I'm talking about the points the article is making. The article does NOT simply state that "quality of life" issues is the problem as Euorpeans see it. In other words, you ranted about a point that was not made, and I just cleared it up for you.

for people like you i suppose; but many of us do not get off on the ability to manipulate people, by military force or otherwise.

Um, who said that I get off on any such thing?

I said that there is a general fear that resides in the fact that we have this power.

we are all in uniqe postions, indivudals as well as states.

So then you admit that your assesment is wrong. Thanks.

pascal

08-Apr-2003, 21:13

And Israel hates "Arabs" because of their continued acts of suicide bombings?
What started first?

Key being they see us as having a double standard. We can see ANYONE with a double standard. I can say that "Muslims" have a double standard because on one hand, they say they preach "peace" and on the other hand, call for "Jihad". Does that make it a real double standard? Or a double standard based on misinformation or "selective" infomration?
Selective information? Well, Catholic, Protestants and others preach "peace" too. I am catholic and I believe there are many Christian fundamentalist in US. In fact IIRC the US Christian fundamenlist support Israel.

The undenyable facts is that the settlements continue and US administration say that they not agree with it. What many are waiting are actions more than words.

Also remenber the difference between the Islam and the Islamic Jihad.

The article is not about simple appearances.

Here's another...

Yeah, a baath party suburb....great place for objective and honest viewpoints. You might as well start quoting the Iraq Information Ministry. :roll: :?: :?:

Tahir2

08-Apr-2003, 21:19

[quote]Also remenber the difference between the Islam and the Islamic Jihad.

How an you remember the differences if you don't know much about it in the first place?

I'm curious though, what do you think the differences are?
For example there is a lesser and a greater Jihad.

Joe DeFuria

08-Apr-2003, 21:27

What started first?

Are you really going to try and start a "who started it" debate? :roll:

Selective information? Well, Catholic, Protestants and others preach "peace" too. I am catholic and I believe there are many Christian fundamentalist in US. In fact IIRC the US Christian fundamenlist support Israel.

Point?

The undenyable facts is that the settlements continue

And threats and actions against Israel's right to exist continue...

and US administration say that they not agree with it. What many are waiting are actions more than words.

Right. EVERYONE want's the U.S. actions to occur...as long as they coincide with their own view, right? But when the U.S. does something that they don't agree with...the U.S. should "stay out of it and not take sides" Typical.

I was hoping this thread wouldn't degrade to an Isreal debate. :roll:

Also remenber the difference between the Islam and the Islamic Jihad.

No kidding. That's my point, Pascal. Selective or other forms of misinformation lead to unjustifiably biased viewpoints.

:?: :?:

In other words, do you believe the Iraq Information Ministry has been saying anything but lies since the war began?

pascal

08-Apr-2003, 21:29

Also I dont think US and Israel are comparable and sharing the same values. I dont remenber US doing any large land invasion or settlements.

I think US try to spread its model around the world. I personally think most part of the model is right, but the way it is done (the spread) sometimes is wrong.

I have been around the world and I dont see any reason to europeans been jealous about US. As I said before I think some europeans are just dissapointed and this feeling is really confusing.

What I find interresting is how US want the world public opinion approval and recognition. To be respected because you have money and power is not the same as be respected because you have and exercise good values. The true challenge is be the moral leader of this world.

Joe DeFuria

08-Apr-2003, 21:36

handbrake2

08-Apr-2003, 21:39

To me this article speaks to 1 thing; People (haters) love to blame others for their short comings. That is a fundamental issue and speaks to human nature. The biggest easiest target to blame is the US, so that's what terrorists love to do. However, lots of Americans use that avoid acknowledging that there maybe some truth to the some of the things that are said against them. It is simply easier to believe that either you are a victim of a soulless opressor or that your government exerts its will in global events for purely altruistic reasons.

pascal

08-Apr-2003, 21:41

What started first?

Are you really going to try and start a "who started it" debate? :roll:
No please dont :lol:

Selective information? Well, Catholic, Protestants and others preach "peace" too. I am catholic and I believe there are many Christian fundamentalist in US. In fact IIRC the US Christian fundamenlist support Israel.

Point?
The point is the double standard is in many places and religions but with governments things are different.

The undenyable facts is that the settlements continue

And threats and actions against Israel's right to exist continue...
Then two wrongs makes one right?

and US administration say that they not agree with it. What many are waiting are actions more than words.

Right. EVERYONE want's the U.S. actions to occur...as long as they coincide with their own view, right? But when the U.S. does something that they don't agree with...the U.S. should "stay out of it and not take sides" Typical.

I was hoping this thread wouldn't degrade to an Isreal debate. :roll:

Focus on the double standard. In one hand you say "please kid dont do that" on the other hand you give all money to the kid continue its actions?

Also remenber the difference between the Islam and the Islamic Jihad.

No kidding. That's my point, Pascal. Selective or other forms of misinformation lead to unjustifiably biased viewpoints.
Now we have to agree about what is misinformation.

:?: :?:

In other words, do you believe the Iraq Information Ministry has been saying anything but lies since the war began?Off course not.

RussSchultz

08-Apr-2003, 21:52

Also I dont think US and Israel are comparable and sharing the same values. I dont remenber US doing any large land invasion or settlements.

We're the king of that, baby.

Just ask the Cherokees, or the Pawnees, or the Apaches, or the ....

There's a whole lists of 'ees' that we've forcefully land grabbed from.

I personally think that the US/UN should stop protecting Israel in the way that it does. There should be a forced division of states, with a UN peacekeeping presence to enforce it. The "settlements" should be abandoned, and any military threats to Israel should be dealt with by threat of the superior might of the US or UN.

Once everybody over there hates us, they'll stop hating each other. ;)

Tim

08-Apr-2003, 21:54

And Israel hates "Arabs" because of their continued acts of suicide bombings?

Israel uses Apache helicopters to bomb Palestinian civilians, the Palestinians use suicide bombs. When you look at the end results; they both kill civilians, the only deferens is that it is Israeli government who bombs Palestinian civilians, but a limited group of fanatics that bomb Israeli civilians.

Key being they see us as having a double standard. We can see ANYONE with a double standard. I can say that "Muslims" have a double standard because on one hand, they say they preach "peace" and on the other hand, call for "Jihad".

You realize that this is exactly what the USA does at the moment, going to war in the name of peace. The fact that Israel breaks hundreds of UN resolutions including resolutions 687 that prohibit weapons of mass destruction in the middle east, bombs civilian targets (they have killed around three time as many Palestinian civilians as Islamic extremists has killed Israeli civilians), the reaction form George W. Bush is declare that the convicted war criminal Sharon is “a man of peace”.

Does that make it a real double standard? Or a double standard based on misinformation or "selective" information?

It is a real double standard, no doubt about it.

The article is not about simple appearances.

I know, the article is all about camouflaging a simplistic nationalistic message and unbased attacks on Europe and Arabs, as being intelligent and well based by long words and quotes from great (and not so great) thinkers.

Tahir2

08-Apr-2003, 21:57

Also I dont think US and Israel are comparable and sharing the same values. I dont remenber US doing any large land invasion or settlements.

But do you see why certain people around the world will believe that the US and Israel = the same?

There are plenty of reasons to hate .. major one being that hate is easy to do.

And Joe the suiciding bombings are bad, evil, self-defeating but when you are doing the same thing from the safety of a tank, rather than with Semtex strapped to your abdomen, it becomes even more cowardly and easier IMHO.

There are two faces to every coin - one does not exist without the other. We may take sides we may understand one party better than the other but sometimes things are indeed black and white. Murder is murder except in war when it is acceptable and necessary... see? Bulldozing someones home, making them destroy their own livelihoods, not allowing them to travel and removing their human rights is acceptable for the progression of 'settlements' and to stop 'terrorism' (with terrorism).
The 'Axis of Evil' - it is time the US put Israel there too... :roll:

What's my view? Both are not acceptable and should be ceased immediately. How many times has the US Veto'd resolutions it SOLELY did not agree with concerning Israel? What of the International law and the 10's of Resolutions against Israel? It sound slightly contradicting when my Ministers in Britain go on about how we should uphold International Law when it suits 'our' political agenda's but not when it doesn't. That is the moral highground I speak of.

One man's hero is another mans war criminal. :roll:

It is easy for you to come up with examples tit-for-tat and easy for me to do the same as I have just done so. Unfortunately none provide a solution or a way forward. They just provide more bait for hatred to develop.

Edit.. stuff

Tahir2

08-Apr-2003, 22:00

OK, thanks Russ and thanks Tim.

You put it much more simply than I did in one sentence each. :D

Pascal, thanks your a bro'. 8)

And Joe.. thanks too for being civil at least. :wink:

Barnabas

08-Apr-2003, 22:24

AAAAAARRRRRGH!!! 1 1/2 hours of typing just went down the drain thanks to session timeout. GRRRRR!

Ok, here's the whole thing in a nutshell:

Are you implying though, America's success and freedom is gained mostly or exclusively at the expense of others?

No, i don't think so. You had a huge landmass with a lot of natural resources at your disposal so you could concentrate on yourself for a long time. From what i remember from my history lessons the USA have been a self centered nation for a long time. That only changed when you could be threatened by military forces from abroad. (Correct me if i'm wrong)

Or is it that others just being "left behind" because their own policies or drive doesn't lead to their own success?

... or maybe because they just started to persue these goals a lot later than you did.

I think it all boils down to the way we perceive other nations. (I mostly talk about the german view here because that's what i'm most familiar with.) The USA is a nation we've been looking up to because of its radiating example of a stable democracy and free society although we never believed we should follow every trend from over there. Then again what we knew about the USA came from TV and other media, not from real live experience. I remeber a light feeling of disappointment when i found out that you didn't really live up to your own hype, that what we thought was America in fact was some of the extremes in the west coast cities. However this didn't cause me to sway to the opposite point of view that everything american is bad.
I remember reading a very intersting article written by an american who lived in germany for along time. He tried to explore the reasons behind the recent disharmonies between germans and US americans. He arrived at the conclusion that the roots of the problem lie in the success of the attempted social engineering of the allied forces after WWII. In an attempt to avoid the creation of another aggressive german totalitarian state they were too successful in teaching us to be anti-militaristic, anti-racist and anti-elitist. The nowadays consequences are a climate of being anti-anything, unwillingness to committ to a cause and unability to deal with the pressing problems of the near futere in a reasonable way. And the conclusion that something needs to be done about this fast or the consequences will be disastrous. Sadly, i don't have a link to an english version.
A major issue is the last presidential election in the USA, BTW. A common perception is that Bush is president although he did't actually win the election (perception, remember, not (necessarily) fact). By fighting the issue through in the courts instead of having another election run immediately he has (unknowingly) opened a whole can of worms in a large part in the rest of the wolrd. A sometimes encounterd point of view is that if the leading example of democracy doesn't honor its values what's the worth of democracy in itself? Blame it on the media, blame it on us being stupid germans, blame it on whatever you deem appropriate, the reputation of democracy has suffered (overproportionally) around the world.

Of course, I wouldn't say that the U.S. is squeaky clean in terms of its road to "success." (Just as with any other country / nation or successful person, for that matter.) I would reject the notion that our success is gained "mostly or exclusively" at the expense of others. Just as I would argue that capitalism in general isn't "the few gaining wealth and power at the expense of the oppressed workers."

The colonial era was not one of europes brightest moments. No ones hands are free of blood if you look in the past far enough. Therefore i'd suggest we abstain from any mud slinging on this account, it won't get us anywhere.

It becomes even more cloudy when you try and define "success". If other's don't value "success" in terms of economic welath / power (but something less tangible such as self-defined spiritual, artistic, or intellectual superiority or "rightness"), then why are others concerned if they are not as "successful" as defined by those terms?

Because they may view a society persuing material wealth as misguided or even evil if it tries to spread its views. They may even regard conquest of this other civilization as 'liberation'. :wink:

Not that i believe matters are remotly that simple regarding the current situation.

horvendile

08-Apr-2003, 22:37

I've read the first article now.
As an answer to the topic question or its own headline, I wouldn't recommend anyone to read it. Why?
It has some valid points, but overall, it's BS*. It talks about me and the people around me, so I should have some saying about that. Its main point that I see is that
a) USA is generally hated
b) this is because people are envious of its economical strength
It's of course possible that some people reason like that, but for all, yes all, people I know, it's simply wrong. It has no connection to the reality I'm living in, and they are talking about my reality.

So, if you read it, please don't draw any conclusions with regards to Europeans based on it.

*I tried to find a prettier equally fitting word, but failed.

Barnabas

08-Apr-2003, 22:49

The article seeks to re-affirm some very simple points behind all the intellectual eyewash (followed by my opinion):
A) America is the greatest nation on this world (probably true); B) Americans are the chosen people (I doubt it); C) they have a mission to build a new Rome (dangerous thinking); D) their way is the right way (maybe, but neither the only nor the best); E) others are just jealous (only one out of many possible reasons); F) foreigners despise capitalism, wealth and military might in general (I don't think so); G) the rest of the world has had their chance, now its America's turn (yeah right); H) the rest will just have to accept our leadership and bend over, its best for them anyway (not gonna happen so easily); I) beware of politically left individuals, intellectuals, artists and french and arabs in general (trust no one with a mustache!)...

Ok, one after another:

A) Highly subjective. No point in commenting on it.
B) No way. That claim goes to Israel.
C) They may beleive they have to do it before anyone else does. And they may be right. In fact i believe they are.
D) At least it's a very good way materially.
E) See other post
F) Pile of bull droppings. Maybe they hate someone else being better at it or trying to force these things on them.
G) :D
H) Surrender or the Russians will attack... or the Chinese
I) No way leftist folks are bad. At least they care for others (money). Intellectuals are a clear necessity. Who else would give us the next Playstation? Actors are artists and i just love Arnie blowing things up. The arabs. I knew a few arab students and worked with them. They have to be handled with care because they are very proud people, though. But i really liked them. With that out of the way however, let's spend a few lines on the subject of the nefarious eaters of frogs from our neighbouring country! To even have to touch the keyboard to write about those disgusting..., revolting..., ungodly..., satanic..., degenerate caricatures of a shadow of a human being makes me sick to my stomach. They are the anti-thesis of intellect! They are the negation of decency and good taste! They are... the French (urk, even to have to type that name). :lol:

Personally, i hope to see a unification of France and germany in my lifetime. :wink:

RussSchultz

08-Apr-2003, 22:57

Personally, i hope to see a unification of France and germany in my lifetime. :wink:

Ha. So did Hitler! But I don't think the French would acceed to any unification, unless it was done at the end of their bayonet.

pascal

08-Apr-2003, 22:57

What I find interresting is how US want the world public opinion approval and recognition.

Huh?

We seem to be getting heavy criticism precisely because it seems we "don't care" about world public opinion or approval. And personally, I DON'T REALLY CARE what the public opinion of the U.S. is. And if I had to guess, nor does Bush. He cares, as I do, about doing what he thinks is morally right.
Then why you started a thread like this one?
I think you care and honestlly think the position of some other people is not fair.

To be respected because you have money and power is not the same as be respected because you have and exercise good values.

Agreed. However, to assume that one does not have good values because one has money and power is the heart of the problem, IMO.I dont think anyone really think like that. In fact US has been the best imperialistic nation we ever had in the world history. It has some reasonable self control.

On the other hand US behave like a big Corporate America in a monopolist environment (capitalist talk). What is needed is some good competition and the divided EU, the new China and the reborn Russia *edited* are not capable to do that. Is more like people who complain about Ms.

The true challenge is be the moral leader of this world.

Agreed. Unfortunately, your idea of "morals" is apparently different than mine or Bush's. So while you probably see him as a failure in that respect, I see him as a success.Well Joe, you may share some of his views and give him your support. It is your choice and we have to respect that. Politicians come and go. Please, just separate one thing from another because I dont see it as personal.

To be president of a country is not an easy task, specially with a large country like US and with so many international relations. Bush has some good qualities like be direct. I am not here to say he is a failure but this turbulent world need some agreement and conciliation. IMHO I dont see him as a great conciliator.

Trawler

08-Apr-2003, 22:57

:?: :?:

In other words, do you believe the Iraq Information Ministry has been saying anything but lies since the war began?

:?: :!: Er, this report was lodged by an Australian journalist. I'm not sure why you even brought up the Information Ministry?

I don't think this report's authenticity can be questioned. And the grief caused by this attack (as with all other attacks in this war that have injured or killed civilians) can not be disputed.

What I was trying to highlight by providing that link was a very real situation that has created a very valid reason for someone to hate the US.

Heck, would you like it if a foreign power vaporised your home and members of your family in order to 'liberate' you from your rulers? Even if your country ruled by a nasty piece of work like Saddam?

It's things like this that help you lose your 'war' against terrorism a little bit more every day this invasion drags on...

kyleb

08-Apr-2003, 23:05

Joe, my point was that many people are content with liveing a good life and they do not fear us or anyone else for that matter, and the article is bunk.

pascal

08-Apr-2003, 23:09

Once everybody over there hates us, they'll stop hating each other. ;) :lol:

CosmoKramer

08-Apr-2003, 23:31

Deflection

08-Apr-2003, 23:38

Joe, my point was that many people are content with liveing a good life and they do not fear us or anyone else for that matter, and the article is bunk.

I don't think so. Many of the themes of the article are very real. It seems to have hit close to home judging by how it reflects many of the responses here. I would agree it is over simplistic and isn't representative for everyone.

CosmoKramer

08-Apr-2003, 23:47

I personally think that the US/UN should stop protecting Israel in the way that it does. There should be a forced division of states, with a UN peacekeeping presence to enforce it. The "settlements" should be abandoned, and any military threats to Israel should be dealt with by threat of the superior might of the US or UN.

I'll drink to that (and I can practically guarantee that so would a lot of Europeans) :D

Deflection

08-Apr-2003, 23:56

Here's one point of view...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/001/102gwtnf.asp

Lol! That's the reason why the scared and insecure little americans wants to be the reason for "anti-americanism". Envy :lol:
Most people in Western Europe are pretty content thank you very much. Just a heads up. FYI.

Lol, indeed. If that is all you got out of the article, try reading it again.

These Europeans have assigned themselves the self-flattering role of being Athens to our Rome. That's what all the talk about coalition-building is about; the mindless American car dealer with the big guns should allow himself to be guided by the thoughtful European statesman, who is better able to think through the unintended consequences of any action, and to understand the darker complexities. Much European commentary about America since September 11 has had a zoological tone. The American beast did not know that he was vulnerable to attack (we Europeans have long understood this). The American was traumatized by this discovery. The American was overcompensating with an arms build-up that was pointless since, with his gigantisme militaire, he already had more weapons than he could ever need.

Furthermore, the American doesn't see the deeper causes of terrorism, the poverty, the hopelessness. America should really be spending more money on foreign aid (it's interesting that Europeans, who are supposed to be less materialistic than we are, inevitably think more money can solve the world's problems, while Americans tend to point to religion or ideas).

Seems pretty spot on with some of your previous posts.

Silent_One

09-Apr-2003, 01:31

Deflection wrote:Seems pretty spot on with some of your previous posts.

Correct. In fact, there are quite a few posts from some other people on other threads that are "spot on".

nutball

09-Apr-2003, 08:12

Oh brother, you Yanks aren't going to make very good rulers of the world.
:(

DemoCoder

09-Apr-2003, 08:46

nutball

09-Apr-2003, 10:46

No, we didn't. That wasn't my meaning. (I can't actually think of a truly benevolent empire in history).

If you're going to be top-dog then people are going to hate you. There's no point trying to rationalise it, or try to come up with reasons which put you in a good light and them in a bad light.

Pretty much the entire world hates the Brits to some degree. It dates back to when we ruled the world. Ain't nothin' we can do about it, just have to live with it. Goes with the territory. If you're going to get sensitive about it, you'd better stop being top-dog.

JF_Aidan_Pryde

09-Apr-2003, 15:44

We seem to be getting heavy criticism precisely because it seems we "don't care" about world public opinion or approval. And personally, I DON'T REALLY CARE what the public opinion of the U.S. is. And if I had to guess, nor does Bush. He cares, as I do, about doing what he thinks is morally right.

You have got to be kidding me Joe. There is only one thing that the US does and that's the thing every nation on this planet does: it acts in its own interests. This is usually within very broad and flexible moral boundies. It's always been: establish a clear goal with regards to self interest in the long term, then bend moral arguements around that to make the situation permissible. International war crimes court, hello? Kyoto due to economy or due to science? You have Bush admit in prime time Kyoto is dropped due to 'national interests' yet you still have people arguing over the science of the matter. I can deal with people/nation bending moral issues to suit its interests - it is human nature. I just have a hard time reading posts defending something that is so blatently untrue.

Barnabas

09-Apr-2003, 18:59

Ha. So did Hitler! But I don't think the French would acceed to any unification, unless it was done at the end of their bayonet.
Hitlers way was what i would call assimilation, not unification.

Joe DeFuria

09-Apr-2003, 19:07

Too little time to make many comments at the moment, but this is an easy clarification:

:?: :!: Er, this report was lodged by an Australian journalist. I'm not sure why you even brought up the Information Ministry? I don't think this report's authenticity can be questioned.

I'm not quesitoning the report! I'm questioning the source. ...an apparent resident of the Baath party Suburb that was hit.

Those folks are loyal to Sadam, (as is the Information Misitry, which has been grossly lying as we know since the war started.)

I'm sure the report is legit, just as the reports of what the infomration ministry says are legit. That doesn't make the "facts" legit though.

And the grief caused by this attack (as What I was trying to highlight by providing that link was a very real situation that has created a very valid reason for someone to hate the US.

I'm quite sure Sadam's regime and the Baath party hates the U.S. The fact that we are directly at war against them might have something to do with it. ;)

Unless the U.S. is directly at war with "the rest of the world", it's not useful to use as a valid reason, IMO.

Heck, would you like it if a foreign power vaporised your home and members of your family in order to 'liberate' you from your rulers? Even if your country ruled by a nasty piece of work like Saddam?

I wouldn't like it, but I'd understand it, particularly if my family members had been tourtured by his regime in the past.

Joe DeFuria

09-Apr-2003, 19:12

You have got to be kidding me Joe. There is only one thing that the US does and that's the thing every nation on this planet does: it acts in its own interests.

Yes, we do, as does everyone else (which I'm glad you agree with.)

However, just because we act in our own best interests, doens't mean we're not acting morally or immoraly.

I can deal with people/nation bending moral issues to suit its interests - it is human nature. I just have a hard time reading posts defending something that is so blatently untrue.

I just don't see it as cynically as you do. I do agree that "self-interest" is in the mind and partly motivation for any action of any nation. However, I don't consider it blatantly untrue that some actions are taken based on a moral stance, despite a lack of clarity on whether or not it's actually better or worse (or indifferent) for our self-interest.

Joe DeFuria

09-Apr-2003, 19:16

Joe, my point was that many people are content with liveing a good life and they do not fear us or anyone else for that matter, and the article is bunk.

Right...and those such people don't "Hate Us", though they may disagree with us though.

What about you, kyle? Do you hate or like America? You seem pretty upset about our current action in Iraq. Why? What are you afraid of?

When we talk about "fear" or being "afraid", it's not being fearful that we are going to attack anb kill you. It's that there is a "Fear" that we will spread "our culture" and "our way of life" where it is not wanted.

nutball

09-Apr-2003, 21:20

However, I don't consider it blatantly untrue that some actions are taken based on a moral stance, despite a lack of clarity on whether or not it's actually better or worse (or indifferent) for our self-interest.

You draw a distinction between actions taken in your own self-interest and actions taken on a moral stance based on your own self-interest?

Maybe the ambiguity between your morality and your self-interest answers the question at the head of this thread?

Humus

09-Apr-2003, 23:53

Judging by the performance of the Europeans in the 17th, 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, they wouldn't make good rulers either. I see that the European viewpoint that they are more civilized than the rest of the world's savages hasn't changed much since the 16th century. Only now, we Yanks are the New Savages, that need to be "converted" by European missionaries to their superior culture and politics.

Of course, this superior political viewpoint is the viewpoint of appeasement. To do any and all things to avoid confronting tyrants head on, while they meanwhile conduct activities like this
http://www.msnbc.com/news/897497.asp?0cv=CA00

However, when the US "engages" relations with a tyrant, we are criticized for supporting and propping up corrupt governments. When the French ship in tons of products and assistance, it's called a diplomatic solution.

DC, what's going on here? You used to be rational, but since this war began I've seen nothing but anti-france/anti-germany/anti-europe/anti-russia and so on, and it's getting worse every day. It's getting slightly disturbing.

As for a reply to your post, I don't at all believe in your appeasement theory. The EU just doesn't have the same power to bust into everything in the world, but where it has any power, it uses it appropriately. The EU has for instance made it very clear about what standards need to be met to join the union, a situation where the EU has power to make a difference. For many countries like those in Balticum and east-europe it's just a matter of adjusting the system, human rights are pretty much well respect there anyway. With some countries like Turkey though major improvements are neccesary, and the EU has made it clear that unless these changes are made Turkey can't join. Meanwhile, with Turkey being an important ally, the US has actually complained about this and begged that the EU loosen the requirements.

DemoCoder

10-Apr-2003, 02:11

Pete

10-Apr-2003, 06:12

Humus, the same EU of which members say that if Turkey joins, it would be the end of Europe? If Eastern European countries sided with "America"--or, more accurately, and as many like to overlook, the UN's Resolution 1441--on the Iraqi conflict, they would lower their chances of EU membership?

Personally, I'm very disappointed in France's and Germany's actions over this. Russia and China--well, they're gonna do what they gotta do (like gather and burn/evacuate as many incriminating pieces of evidence as they can from Baghdad), and they know no one's in a position to challenge them. But France and Germany have particularly deep, recent histories with America; they brushed those aside, along with the moral high-ground, when they hid their economic ties to Iraq behind a velvet curtain of pretentious sophistication and unfounded fears of a headless "hyperpower."

The article in question is too much polemic, patriotism, and prose, and too little cohesive substance, IMO. I found Robert Kagan's "Power and Weakness" (http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html) a more thought-provoking and plausible read.

(A cheap shot to finish it off: I'm sure Ambassador Aldouri will fit right in in France's superior culture.)

Joe DeFuria

10-Apr-2003, 14:42

You draw a distinction between actions taken in your own self-interest and actions taken on a moral stance based on your own self-interest?

There is a distinction, yet they are related. A valid moral stance is justification for actions taken that are in our "own self-interest."

Do we have the resources (or even just the will?) to do everything that we feel is morally right? Nope. We can't go into every country where we feel there is wrong-doing or evil, and "fix it."

On the other hand, do we just go and do everything that is in our self-interest, no matter what the morality of it? Of course not.

It's when the two things happen at the same time that you tend to get action. When there are situations where action:

1) Can be morally justified
2) Serves our interest, or at least, does not harm our interests

You tend to get action. This is a realist look at things, something that almost ALL nations cater too. Of course, different nations and cultures have different "moral codes", so there isn't always agreement on moral justification.

handbrake2

10-Apr-2003, 19:37

Let me flip the question then Joe. Do you think that your government, military or intelligence services would do things that are morally wrong but that serves America's best interests - as they see it?

Humus

11-Apr-2003, 00:29

Humus, if you go back and read posts from well before the war in the general forum, I've always been opposed to Euro-snobbery, L233 can tell you that.

This view that Americans are all rednecks, uncouth and uncultured, brutish, and unappreciative of the fine grays of the world. That we are simpletons who see the world in black and white, yadda yadda. Come on, you know, for example, what the French attitude is, not just towards Americans, but even towards others in Europe.

The media doesn't help. European media seems to portray the US as if it is one big inner city, as if we regularly have to dodge gunshots and starvation, and then we can't afford education or health care. The whole notion of "social Europe" is almost predicated on the assumption that we're living in a backwater backwards country.

My take on European views on military force is that the Europeans are tired of war and haven't been responsible for their own security for 50 years. Their will to fight has atrophied, they don't want to rock the boat at all.

That is, Europeans now are much like the US was before WW2. We just wanted to deal economically with people and sell them stuff, and stay out of conflict. Many Americans, in fact, did not care at all about France's position in WW2, and some Americans of German descent were even joining to fight for Germany. We were much more isolationist back then, but 50 years of fighting the cold war has made us, culturally,much more willing to throw out weight around and risk upsetting people.

However, part of my "irrationality" lately is just responding with frustration to some of the outright insults coming from Europeans with respect to the US. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

The Europeans that think Americans are rednecks, uncouth ... etc. are few, but unfortunately very loud. Just as those americans that actually are that way are few, but unfortunately very loud. Which combined builds a horrible political climate.
The "black and white view of the world" that you're talking about, you can blame that solely on Bush who hardly anyone can claim that he has not painted the world in that way, and continue to do so. He may not represent the average American in that aspect, but he surely have not improved the American image in the world.

One problem as I see it is that everyone focuses on France and think that's Europe, and you do the same thing. It's interesting to see that France and Germany was declared to be "old Europe" and much of the east-europe "new Europe". To me it would be very good indeed if the US put more focus into east-european allies and got less dependent on France and Germany. It would level the playing field a little. Still, for most Americans (if politicians, media and forum posters are good indicators) the terms "Europe" and "France" can still be used interchangably. To me this is annoying. It's like getting accused for things that someone else did. I don't think either new-europeans and us noname-europeans who have not yet been assigned to either old or new europe appreciate that much. In this war, it's so easy to point at France and Germany and declare Europe as not supporting the war. Last time I checked the UK was still on the European side of the pond, so was Spain, Denmark and Checz republic. Heck, recent poll shows that the majority of the Swedes support the war, despite clearly worded in a biased way as "Do you think that it's worth killing thousands of people to get rid of Saddam?" Even the state minister and foreign minister has made statement about their happiness and relief about seing Saddam removed from power. But noone in America will care about that, it's still all about France and Germany. And if I were Brittish, I would probably be the most offended by this view. The Brittish contribution is very signficant. In American media the Brittish are almost declared to be American. The war is American in their view. It's not the coalition, it the US.

And even in this post I'm quoting you're using "European" where is should read "France and Germany".

Humus

11-Apr-2003, 00:39

Oh, was also going to say that you can't accuse Europeans for appeasment of dictators in the light of the history of the US. As long as they weren't communistic, dictators have been fine trade partners. 9/11 may have changed this, and if it so is the only thing Bush does right it is the first movement of non-appeasement from American side IMO. And sure I hope it continues, as much as I hope the EU will move in that direction too. Indeed, I think it's time for democracies to unite and declare what standards we expect of our trading partners and just not accept anything we wouldn't accept at home.

Vince

11-Apr-2003, 00:49

Still, for most Americans (if politicians, media and forum posters are good indicators) the terms "Europe" and "France" can still be used interchangably.

Not true bud, we can differentiate between Germany, France, Russian Fed. and the rest of Europe - the problem comes in when people, such as the leaders of said countries, intend to make it appear to be a "European" and thus, by extention, World opinion thats against the United States.

By pushing the mantra that the "US is isolated in the world community" they, not the US, are making it appear that it's 'us' verse 'them'.

If anythign the United States, in it's own interests, are trying to differentiate between countries like Germany, France, and the Russians by labeling them the "old" and "new" Europe... in effect showing they only compose a small and insignificant part.

In American media the Brittish are almost declared to be American. The war is American in their view. It's not the coalition, it the US.

I must deeply object to this as the British (and Australians, Polish) are given their own "sovergnity" if you will when it comes to their accomplishments. Fo example, it's widely know to anyone who watches, reads, or listens to a form of Medium that the British and Austrailians are taking care of Basra themselves and kicking ass in the process. There is no mistake about this - infact the word "coalition" is used most frequently, as it should be to give recognition to all parties.

The Polish Special Ops were all over the news on the opening night when they captured several Oil platforms and associated equiptment out in the Persian Gulf. As were the Austrialians, infact I remember a reporter asking about it specifically.

nutball

11-Apr-2003, 07:41

DemoCoder

11-Apr-2003, 09:34

Humus, I agree with you, but most Europeans also see the US as this homogenous monolithic entity. True, the cultural and language differences aren't as great, but there are definate differences between say, someone living in Manhattan, and someone living in Missouri, vs someone in California, or someone in Wisconsin.

The differences are less in Europe, because Americans move around alot more and resettle. But politically, San Francisco residents (or worse, Berkeley) are closer ideologically to the French, than to say, Texans or Georgians.

The tendency to lump all Americans together as say, southern rednecks, is probably greater than Americans lumping together all Europeans as cheese-eating-surrender-monkeys. We are atleast keenly aware of the large differences in language, culture, and climate in Europe. I'm not sure sure Europeans really understand the differences between culture on the West Coast, Northeast, South, and Mid West.