Why they Hate America

[Silent_One]

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]

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

 

[DemoCoder]

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.

 

[nutball]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Pete]

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" 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

Germany and France have always seen the European Union as their own private club. In my view they have some difficulty in distinguishing their own interests from those of the other member states of the Union. It's quite natural for them to make statements as if they represent the Union as a whole (because they don't actually give a damn about what other member think).

This is one of the reason that the general publics of the UK and a number of other European countries have been somewhat sceptical about how far the EU project should be allowed to go.

 

[DemoCoder]

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.