Why Do They Hate Us?

[zakur]

Why Do They Hate Us?
Warren S. Apel
American Embassy School, New Delhi, India

Americans like to believe that the United States is a great country. And in many respects we are correct. Compared to many countries in the world, we are lucky to have the political freedoms, the quality medical care, education system, and low poverty that we enjoy. We figure that no one should hate us – they should all want to be more like us. It’s this belief that caused George W. Bush to make his famous quote: "I'm amazed that there is such misunderstanding of what our country is about, that people would hate us. . . like most Americans, I just can't believe it. Because I know how good we are. . ."

Why was America a target of terrorism? For the last year, just the act of posing this question has been tantamount to justifying the actions of those terrorists who struck the United States. If asking the question was excusing the terrorists, then changing our attitudes or conduct was "giving in to their demands." Until recently, there has been no chance of actually changing the way America conducts itself at home or abroad. Now that we’ve had more than a year to calm down, perhaps it’s time to change our way of thinking, our attitudes, and our actions.

When we ask the question "why do they hate us?" we don’t want a complicated answer. Americans don’t want to hear that we’ve been doing anything wrong. We want to hear "they are jealous of our freedoms." We want to generalize that Arabs are crazed and violent, acting without logical motivation. U.S. Congressman Brad Sherman stated in a meeting of the Committee on International Relations that "we are resented for our power, envied for our wealth and hated for our liberty." This kind of placating reassurance may comfort Americans, but it is far from the truth. Other countries have freedoms, wealth and liberty. Why weren’t Sweden, Canada, or Holland the target of any recent terrorism?Read the rest of essay here (http://www.nesacenter.org/Services/2003winning.essay.html).

[eli54]

From the body of the essay:
"For many people in Europe, Americans are bumbling tourists, complaining that waiters in France don’t speak English well enough – then returning home to vote on English-only legislation."

Anyone know how many languages the French driver's license application provides?

:confused:

[Jon_in_london]

Same old same old.

American: "I honestly wonder why they hate us so? Hah! I know! must be because they are jealous"

Non-American: "Well actually its because [insert long list of double-dealings, double standards, state sponsored terrorisms, bullyings, bombings, commercial and military imperialism and general nefarious behaviour in this space]"

American: {sound of crickets chirping} "Nope! must because they are jealous!"

:rolleyes:

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Non-American: "Well actually its because [insert long list of double-dealings, double standards, state sponsored terrorisms, bullyings, bombings, commercial and military imperialism and general nefarious behaviour in this space]"



Yep...:) And it pisses em' off cause they can't do a damn thing about it...

In other words... They're jealous..

[DanishDynamite]

Using my psychic powers I predict that one of our resident "America Can Do No Wrong" disciples will pounce on the author's references to Global Warming, claim that GW is clearly bunk and thus, by extension, is the entire article.

[DanishDynamite]

Diogenes:
Yep...:) And it pisses em' off cause they can't do a damn thing about it...I'm not sure the families of the people killed on Sept. 11 will agree.

In any case it is a quite a change to see that you agree with Jon's analysis.

[Frostbite]

Good healthcare? Low poverty? A capitalist economy? Ok then why aren't people angry at Europe? The US culture is generally intolerant of things which are different. Not everyone wants to live in a suburb and mow their lawn and walk their dogs. Not everyone dreams of Hollywood, of material belongings and celebrities. And the money flows to the US because they're using cheap labor in poor countries. That makes a lot of frustrated people, and the US only responds by pounding them into the ground with force. I see no wisdom in the "american dream". Eventually it'll die.

[Segnosaur]

Although there may be some good stuff in the article, I have found several problems with it:

- A lot is made of "test ban treaties" and such... While the US may not have signed on to all treaties in this area, it should be noted that they have not engaged in nuclear tests for something like a decade. (Guess what? France, that bastion of peace, has actually tested nuclear weapons more recently than the US has.)

- While research into alternative fuel sources is necessary, many of the existing agreements are, shall we say, lacking. Kyoto is the best known of these; although it may have lofty goals, it was designed to pretty much punish the US for its success. (3rd world countries were exempt, and many European countries, because of recent histories, would not have to cut back on emissions at all.) It should also be noted that Europe, champion of Kyoto, will fail to live up to its obligations. So which is worse... a country who withdraws from a treaty, or one who signs on to it then fails to live up to its obligations? See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2996219.stm

- It is suggested that the US military presence in the middle east is to protect oil supplies. However, if oil supplies were the only concern, why bother with the military at all? Later in the article he talks about how America is willing to ignore suffering in the world... Should they be willing to buy oil from whatever dictator is in power, regardless of their human rights?

- So much is made of American ignorance of the rest of the world. There is some truth to that; yet are things really that much better in the 3rd world? How does an American knowing where the Congo is on the map prevent the Congoese person from hating the American? (Note: The article talks about the Egyptian cab driver who is knowlegeable about all the leaders; however, the average Egyptian is just as likely to get their information from the sources that claim Jews use the blood of Muslim children in their rituals; hardly an 'enlightened' source of information.)

Frankly, the article sounds like one big long call for America to become the world's "lap dog"... problem is, sometimes you need a pit bull.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
Same old same old.

American: "I honestly wonder why they hate us so? Hah! I know! must be because they are jealous"

Non-American: "Well actually its because [insert long list of double-dealings, double standards, state sponsored terrorisms, bullyings, bombings, commercial and military imperialism and general nefarious behaviour in this space]"

American: {sound of crickets chirping} "Nope! must because they are jealous!"

:rolleyes:

Jeebus Jon...

You used to make great posts on here.
What are you now going for the record of how many couple line, snide, simplistic, anti-American posts you can put up in one month in as many threads?

Don't you think you are being as simplistic as any yahoo that says everyone is jealous of America?

(and for the record, I do not claim everyone is jealous and that America can do no wrong...)

[DanishDynamite]

Segnosaur:
- A lot is made of "test ban treaties" and such... While the US may not have signed on to all treaties in this area, it should be noted that they have not engaged in nuclear tests for something like a decade. (Guess what? France, that bastion of peace, has actually tested nuclear weapons more recently than the US has.)
From this random site: (http://www.counterpunch.org/krieger0614.html)
Since becoming president, Bush has waged a campaign against international law. Withdrawal from the ABM Treaty is but one of a series of assaults he has made, including pulling out of the Kyoto Accords on Climate Change, withdrawal of the US from the treaty creating an International Criminal Court, opposing a Protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention that would allow for inspections and verification, and failing to fulfill US obligations related to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
- While research into alternative fuel sources is necessary, many of the existing agreements are, shall we say, lacking. Kyoto is the best known of these; although it may have lofty goals, it was designed to pretty much punish the US for its success. (3rd world countries were exempt, and many European countries, because of recent histories, would not have to cut back on emissions at all.) It should also be noted that Europe, champion of Kyoto, will fail to live up to its obligations. So which is worse... a country who withdraws from a treaty, or one who signs on to it then fails to live up to its obligations? See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2996219.stmGiven that the US is the world's largest producer of CO2 there is nothing odd about them being the hardest hit. Saying that the treaty was "designed to punish the US for its success" is laughable, and pure JK. In regard to the EU not living up to its obligations, that is simply wrong:

1. According to your linked article, the Treaty in not in force yet since not enough signatories have signed up.
2. According to your linked article, the point at which compliance is measured has not yet occured.

- It is suggested that the US military presence in the middle east is to protect oil supplies. However, if oil supplies were the only concern, why bother with the military at all? Later in the article he talks about how America is willing to ignore suffering in the world... Should they be willing to buy oil from whatever dictator is in power, regardless of their human rights?I don't understand your point regarding "why bother with the military at all". And in regard to buying oil from whatever dictator is in place, this is a fact.
- So much is made of American ignorance of the rest of the world. There is some truth to that; yet are things really that much better in the 3rd world? How does an American knowing where the Congo is on the map prevent the Congoese person from hating the American?? Your point?
(Note: The article talks about the Egyptian cab driver who is knowlegeable about all the leaders; however, the average Egyptian is just as likely to get their information from the sources that claim Jews use the blood of Muslim children in their rituals; hardly an 'enlightened' source of information.):D Sorry, but this is just pure irrelevant speculation.
Frankly, the article sounds like one big long call for America to become the world's "lap dog"... problem is, sometimes you need a pit bull. Frankly, this article asks a relevant question and instead of spouting the same old, tries to dig a little deeper.

[Tony]

Why should the US conform to the will of the world?

[Captain_Snort]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


- It is suggested that the US military presence in the middle east is to protect oil supplies. However, if oil supplies were the only concern, why bother with the military at all? Later in the article he talks about how America is willing to ignore suffering in the world... Should they be willing to buy oil from whatever dictator is in power, regardless of their human rights?


And absolutely nothing to do with the regime in Iraq refusing to sell their oil for dollars, only accepting euros.

[Zep]

Perhaps I see it more simply as this: The majority of the US population knows very little about the outside of the USA. It is a very inward-looking and egocentric view of life, where anywhere else in the world is just a vague blur. It goes to explain some of the following (recent) observations:

1. "Is English your first language in Australia?"

2. <heard on the phone> "Why were you asleep? It's midday here in New York!"

3. "I'm so surprised most people in Australia don't have handguns."

At a more serious level, I note that, until he was president, Dubya had rarely left the USA. I understand Cheney never has...doesn't even have a passport! What does this say to the rest of the world about the most powerful nation on earth? That international statesmanship is low priority, in fact no priority.

You might care to recall that the wars of the last few years have been fought with TV, on TV. Which is where America sees the world. I saw an interesting comment elsewhere too that I think is appropriate here: "A war is America's way of teaching themselves geography." Think about that...

There is no doubt that the USA is a militarily strong and technically advanced country, and also that the majority of its population are "just ordinary happy folks living everyday lives". There are also some outstanding exceptions to the above situation. It's just a pity that they don't get to be the statemen of the USA.

Zep

[WildCat]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
From this random site: (http://www.counterpunch.org/krieger0614.html)
Since becoming president, Bush has waged a campaign against international law. Withdrawal from the ABM Treaty is but one of a series of assaults he has made, including pulling out of the Kyoto Accords on Climate Change, withdrawal of the US from the treaty creating an International Criminal Court, opposing a Protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention that would allow for inspections and verification, and failing to fulfill US obligations related to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.
Given that the US is the world's largest producer of CO2 there is nothing odd about them being the hardest hit.

The Kyoto Treaty called for the US reducing emissions to 1990 levels, there is no way to do this without devastating the economy. Even if Bush hadn't pulled out it would have never passed in the Senate (the US president can only negotiate treaties, only the Senate can ratify them under the US Constitution) no matter which party held it. The US produces the most CO2 emissions simply due to the fact that we are the most prosperous country on earth. Our pollution laws here are quite strict, AFAIK no car made for the European market would come close to passing American emissions standards. Distances between cities in the US are far greater than in Europe, and the population is much less dense. For this reason a car is essential for most Americans, and yes they do produce CO2.

The ICC would have been used to prosecute US soldiers for every errant missle, bomb or shot fired. This is not speculation, remember how there was a lawsuit in Belgium charging Colin Powell and others for the bombing of an air raid shelter in Baghdad in GWI? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2886931.stm) I doubt the ICC would go after the limb hackers in Africa (trained by the UN Human Rights Commission chair Libya), no political axes to grind there.

The ABM treaty was between the US and the USSR, it could be argued that it was null and void as soon as the USSR ceased to exist. Even so, it was meant to assure the destruction of a country that dared to use nukes. W/ Islamic radicals more than willing to martyr themselves for Allah destruction is hardly a deterrent.

Originally posted by Zep:
Perhaps I see it more simply as this: The majority of the US population knows very little about the outside of the USA. It is a very inward-looking and egocentric view of life, where anywhere else in the world is just a vague blur. It goes to explain some of the following (recent) observations:

1. "Is English your first language in Australia?"

2. <heard on the phone> "Why were you asleep? It's midday here in New York!"

3. "I'm so surprised most people in Australia don't have handguns."

At a more serious level, I note that, until he was president, Dubya had rarely left the USA. I understand Cheney never has...doesn't even have a passport! What does this say to the rest of the world about the most powerful nation on earth? That international statesmanship is low priority, in fact no priority.

You might care to recall that the wars of the last few years have been fought with TV, on TV. Which is where America sees the world. I saw an interesting comment elsewhere too that I think is appropriate here: "A war is America's way of teaching themselves geography." Think about that...
Well, you sure demonstrated an ignorance of Americans w/ that statement. Americans may not get to other countries as much as others, but remember that to go anywhere besides Canada or Mexico requires an 8,000+ mile round trip for most of us. Hardly an option when you only get a week or two of vacation per year.

Yes, I do think jealosy is involved, and instead of raising yourselves up economically you'd rather bring us down.

[reprise]

Once - just once - I'd like to see a discussion of this topic not degenerate into a pissing contest between Americans and non-US citizens.

[jimlintott]

Firts off I've met very few Americans that I didn't like. Some of the nicest people I've met in fact. I've met Americans that could name all of Canada's provinces and capitols. To paint them all as ignorant is, well, ignorant.

I'm going to make a little analogy that I think might explain why America (the county) is often hated.

Let's use a home as an anology for a country. First off the non-american country. The front yard is fairly well kept. It has a few weeds and could be mowed more often. The back yard is the same. Some weeds some mess but the same as the front.

Next door is Home America. The front yard is pristine. No weeds. Every blade of grass attended to. A beautiful display. America likes to stand in his front yard and criticise his neighbours. "You should cut your grass. You should pull those weeds." Neighbour country listens and tries but can't help getting angry at the fact that in Americas back yard the weeds are four feet tall.

I had a grade three teacher who said that when you point your finger at someone you have three pointed back at yourself. America often seems oblivious to this. I think that makes many people angry at America.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Segnosaur:
From this random site: (http://www.counterpunch.org/krieger0614.html)
Since becoming president, Bush has waged a campaign against international law. Withdrawal from the ABM Treaty is but one of a series of assaults he has made, including pulling out of the Kyoto Accords on Climate Change, withdrawal of the US from the treaty creating an International Criminal Court, opposing a Protocol to the Biological Weapons Convention that would allow for inspections and verification, and failing to fulfill US obligations related to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.

I really don't think that counts as a "Random site".

Anyways, just to cover the points it made:

- I agree, withdrawing from the ABM treaty seems rather pointless. However, the article does mention that either country CAN withdraw at any time if they feel its necessary. I personally think that the US is more at risk from a terrorist group using "suitcase" type nukes smuggled in than a missle, but perhaps they think that there will be a long development time, and they are worried about countries like North Korea (who is working on longer range missles).

- Wildcat has already pointed out problems with the criminal court. (Haven't some groups also suggested indicting Sharron or Kissinger? Yet I never hear of them indicting Assad, Castro, etc.)

In the past few years, the US has destroyed much of its chemical/biological stocks. They have made moves to cut down on many types of polution. Some of this was done unilaterally, some was done as part of treaties. Either way, I would rather see a country that actually takes action (with or without a treaty), instead of a country that signs treaties and then doesn't live up to them.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
Given that the US is the world's largest producer of CO2 there is nothing odd about them being the hardest hit. Saying that the treaty was "designed to punish the US for its success" is laughable, and pure JK. In regard to the EU not living up to its obligations, that is simply wrong:

1. According to your linked article, the Treaty in not in force yet since not enough signatories have signed up.
2. According to your linked article, the point at which compliance is measured has not yet occured.


Here are the problems with Kyoto:
- Very limited in scope... Covers only CO2
- No real 'punishments' given for failure to live up to its standards
- Many countries (mostly 3rd world) are not covered, and since they contain large populations and want to industrialize, they can quickly become the major source of CO2.
- Many of the European countries did not have to do much to really meet their targets; Since targets were based on 1990 standards, East european countries have already met much of their targets simply by shutting down inefficient industries. Britian had a similar reduction when they got away from coal mining.

Now, you are right... the 'deadline' for compliance has not yet passed... who knows? Maybe something will happen which will unexpectly allow them to pass; however, the article suggests that is not likely to happen.

As for your argument about the treaty not being in force... Well, frankly that doesn't wash. Yes, it may not be in force, but it was Europe that was championing it. Shouldn't they at least be setting an example by meeting interim targets?

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

I don't understand your point regarding "why bother with the military at all". And in regard to buying oil from whatever dictator is in place, this is a fact.


My point was... The US is getting criticized for interfeering in the Middle East (for example, by invading Iraq), and people are saying "Its all about OOOOIIILLLLL!" I was just pointing out that if oil were really the only thing of concern, they wouldn't have to interfere with the Middle east... They could have simply lifted sanctions on Iraq, or even let Iraq keep Kuwait, because they could buy oil from Saddam just as easily as from other people. So, there is more point to keeping a military presence in the region than just oil interests.

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

:D Sorry, but this is just pure irrelevant speculation.
Frankly, this article asks a relevant question and instead of spouting the same old, tries to dig a little deeper.

It may ask a relevant question, and it may even have some truth in it, but the errors in it, and the focus of the arguments ("The US must play nicer") are, in my opinion, too naieve.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Tony
Why should the US conform to the will of the world?

Do you think the rest of the world should conform to the will of the US?

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Yep...:) And it pisses em' off cause they can't do a damn thing about it...

In other words... They're jealous..

Well, things are done, only they aren't too popular when they are things like crashing jets into skyscrapers.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by reprise
Once - just once - I'd like to see a discussion of this topic not degenerate into a pissing contest between Americans and non-US citizens.

Which is an interesting point, why the the US vs The Rest of the World?

[EvilYeti]

I caught part of a PBS program a few weeks ago that had an academic discussion of the roots of Islamo-fascist hatred of America. I wish I had more details but I didn't get the name the program.

According to the academic interviewed, the hardcore Islamic mullahs feel threatened by our culture. Its hard to convince muslim teenagers to follow the word of Mohammed when we keep distracting them with thong bikinis and double-bacon cheeseburgers. So they get cranky and blow up the building where we trade thong bikinis and double-bacon cheesburgers with the rest of the world.

Unfortunately, the only solution is either to turn America into a fundamentalist Islamic state or shut down the extremists. I'm in favor of the latter.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by EvilYeti

According to the academic interviewed, the hardcore Islamic mullahs feel threatened by our culture. Its hard to convince muslim teenagers to follow the word of Mohammed when we keep distracting them with thong bikinis and double-bacon cheeseburgers.

Why would the cheeseburger be wearing a thong bikini?

[reprise]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Do you think the rest of the world should conform to the will of the US?

And there, I suspect, we have the central question. Many people outside of the US perceive that to be precisely what the US government - and by extension, those who elect it - thinks.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by KelvinG


Do you think the rest of the world should conform to the will of the US?

You know, this is a good question, but I don't think there's an easy answer...

What if the 'will of the US' is that every nation should have a free and democratic governemt, while every other country was run by corrupt dictatorships? Would the rest of the world conforming to the will of the US be a good thing or bad thing?

(I know its not that black and white, but I do think there are cases where the US can and should 'improve' the world in spite of what world opinion wants.)

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


You know, this is a good question, but I don't think there's an easy answer...

What if the 'will of the US' is that every nation should have a free and democratic governemt, while every other country was run by corrupt dictatorships? Would the rest of the world conforming to the will of the US be a good thing or bad thing?

(I know its not that black and white, but I do think there are cases where the US can and should 'improve' the world in spite of what world opinion wants.)

I'm not saying that there aren't great things about the US that other countries might be wise to adopt.
However, I think one of the big reasons that other countries despise the US is that they feel the American agenda is being shoved down their throat.
Remember the phrase "New World Order."

Sticking your nose into other people's business rarely makes friends.
I think most of the countries that truly hate America would cite this a as major reason. It is a valid reason? Maybe, but certainly not valid enough to justify crashing planes into the WTC.

Myself, I don't hate the US. I'm often critical of America, but it usually because my political ideologies don't gel with the conservatism of the current government.

I'm also very critical of many aspects of Canadian government too, but that never comes up on this board for obvious reasons.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Segnosaur


You know, this is a good question, but I don't think there's an easy answer...

What if the 'will of the US' is that every nation should have a free and democratic governemt, while every other country was run by corrupt dictatorships? Would the rest of the world conforming to the will of the US be a good thing or bad thing?

(I know its not that black and white, but I do think there are cases where the US can and should 'improve' the world in spite of what world opinion wants.)
You're right that there is no easy answer. The US has plenty of problems of its own, many of which are unique.
Still, there is much in the US to emulate. A lot of it, though, is due to the unique position of the US. They have more resources than any other country in the world, especially in arable cropland. Our industrialization is far above that of most nations. Let's face it. Different regions of the world have different problems and there isn't a single solution that will fix them. If we have better ideas, let's encourage them, not shove them down others' throats. The same could be said in reverse. Other parts of the world may have some solutions that the US could learn from (handgun control comes to mind) but nobody is going to convince us by shoving it down our throats, even if they could.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Tricky

You're right that there is no easy answer. The US has plenty of problems of its own, many of which are unique.
Still, there is much in the US to emulate. A lot of it, though, is due to the unique position of the US. They have more resources than any other country in the world, especially in arable cropland. Our industrialization is far above that of most nations. Let's face it. Different regions of the world have different problems and there isn't a single solution that will fix them. If we have better ideas, let's encourage them, not shove them down others' throats. The same could be said in reverse. Other parts of the world may have some solutions that the US could learn from (handgun control comes to mind) but nobody is going to convince us by shoving it down our throats, even if they could.
Bingo! Would that this was made obvious to the US leaders who feel that their agenda is ours. By all means, let the USA run itself as it sees fit (and we do have much to learn from the US in this regard), but I happen to have elected an Australian government, not a US one, to run my country. So, I imagine, did the Canadians. Would the US like us to come and tell you how to run your country?

Incidentally, the US doesn't necessarily have more resources than any other country in the world - depends on what resources you speak of. Eg. both Canada and Australia have more wheat lands than the 48 states. I understand South Africa mines approx 80% of the world's gold, something like 75% of the world's diamonds, etc. But that's another, different topic!

Zep

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by jimlintott
Firts off I've met very few Americans that I didn't like. Some of the nicest people I've met in fact. I've met Americans that could name all of Canada's provinces and capitols. To paint them all as ignorant is, well, ignorant.

I'm going to make a little analogy that I think might explain why America (the county) is often hated.

Let's use a home as an anology for a country. First off the non-american country. The front yard is fairly well kept. It has a few weeds and could be mowed more often. The back yard is the same. Some weeds some mess but the same as the front.

Next door is Home America. The front yard is pristine. No weeds. Every blade of grass attended to. A beautiful display. America likes to stand in his front yard and criticise his neighbours. "You should cut your grass. You should pull those weeds." Neighbour country listens and tries but can't help getting angry at the fact that in Americas back yard the weeds are four feet tall.

I had a grade three teacher who said that when you point your finger at someone you have three pointed back at yourself. America often seems oblivious to this. I think that makes many people angry at America.

Truth is a double-edged sword that cuts on the backstroke as well as the forestroke.

[athon]

Originally posted by Tony
Why should the US conform to the will of the world?

The question is, why should the rest of the world conform to the will of the US?

That is what lies at the core of the issue.

Athon

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Segnosaur
What if the 'will of the US' is that every nation should have a free and democratic governemt, while every other country was run by corrupt dictatorships? Would the rest of the world conforming to the will of the US be a good thing or bad thing?

(I know its not that black and white, but I do think there are cases where the US can and should 'improve' the world in spite of what world opinion wants.)

Thats a good 'what if'

The reality is that the will of the US is that every nation should have a free and democratic governemt so long as it suits US political and commercial interests. If it doesnt then the US will use everything from trade warfare to overt bullying and covert, state sponsered terrorism to overthrow free and democratically elected governments and install brutal puppet tyrants to do their bidding.

Yes there are "cases where the US can and should 'improve' the world" and its very unfortunate that the current US admin is solely concerned with American commercial interests. A far cry from the lofty, morally inasailable stance adopted by the likes of Wilson.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Mike B.


Jeebus Jon...

You used to make great posts on here.
What are you now going for the record of how many couple line, snide, simplistic, anti-American posts you can put up in one month in as many threads?

Don't you think you are being as simplistic as any yahoo that says everyone is jealous of America?

(and for the record, I do not claim everyone is jealous and that America can do no wrong...)

Thanks for the compliment, and Im sorry, I have just been in a sardonic mood of late ;) Nonetheless, my post still stands. Just because its simplistic doesnt make it false.

PS: whats with this "jeebus" thing?

[Martin]

Originally posted by Zep
I happen to have elected an Australian government, not a US one, to run my country. So, I imagine, did the CanadiansThe Canadians elected an Australian government? :confused:

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Thanks for the compliment, and Im sorry, I have just been in a sardonic mood of late ;) Nonetheless, my post still stands. Just because its simplistic doesnt make it false.

PS: whats with this "jeebus" thing?
Sometimes we have time for a detailed, well thought out post, with point-by-point discussions and links to sources, and sometimes we only have time for a drive-by, pie-in-the-face posting.

(and "Jeebus" is a euphemism for "Jesus", when used as an exclamation, often an exclamation of frustration. In the deep south (of the US), evangelists are known to shout Mr. Christ's name, but pronounce it like "Jayzus".)

[Mike B.]

Sorry got the Jeebus thing from Homer Simpson :D

Isn't there a major contradiction staring us all in the face.

1. American are incredibly ignorant of the rest of the world and don't care about it.

2. Americans want every country to be like them.

:confused:

As far as any EU or Australia or whatever...

How has the US interfered in the elections of these countries as is being insinuated?

Germany elected Schroeder, a very anti-Bush leader.

[KelvinG]

Originally posted by Mike B.
Sorry got the Jeebus thing from Homer Simpson :D

Isn't there a major contradiction staring us all in the face.

1. American are incredibly ignorant of the rest of the world and don't care about it.

2. Americans want every country to be like them.


I think the average American is incredibly ignorant of the rest of the world, whereas it is the American government that thinks it has to stick its paws into other countries business.

Personally, I have never made an issue about the fact that most Americans don't know much about the rest of the world. So what.
Whenever someone I know complains about how Americans don't know anything about Canada I usually ask them "who's the president of Mexico?" Usually they don't know, and I point out that "Mexico is a NAFTA partner and you don't even know who their president is!!"
So, it cuts both ways. It's naive and unfair to expect Americans to be highly educated about the rest of the world. The only reason the rest of the world knows so much about the US is because of the media, and exposure to American culture is so heavy.

[rustypouch]

If you want a reason why other people think ofAmericans as ignorant, check out Rick Mercer's special Talking to Americans (http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/thismorning/sites/a&e/mercer_010330.html) .

It can be quite amusing if you don't get offended.

As for the idea of Canadians being as ignorant as Americans, look at the quote from this article (http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/story.asp?id=5F121AF5-4842-45AF-9A78-90BD60782F08) :

Speaking to a delighted but sparse audience during a Salute to Excellence seminar in honour of Mercer, he recalls his foray into the States with his 22 Minutes segment, Talking to Americans.

"It resonated with Canadians because they knew the tables couldn't be turned, the show could never happen in the reverse," he says. " You might stump them on the capital of Iowa, but you're not going to convince them that the president of the United States is a Chinese man."

"Most of the news shows covered it and they all sent crews to Canada to do the reverse," Mercer says, with a-matter-of-fact glint in his eye. "They all came back empty-handed."

[King of the Americas]

...and my grandmother finds him to be an 'oily man'.

However, your point is well made. I don't know who is running Canada, but I must say I do enjoy it when C-span airs the British's House of Commons. I find the cheers and jeers to be uplifting, as opposed to our siltent empty halls of our legislative branch.

I probably know a lot more about other countries than most people, but I still don't know enough. And language...LOTS of people around the world speak English, because American money speaks English...

And what do 'average' Americans know...?

Very little. They are 'programmed' as to what to think by their stupid boxes.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by rustypouch
If you want a reason why other people think ofAmericans as ignorant, check out Rick Mercer's special Talking to Americans (http://radio.cbc.ca/programs/thismorning/sites/a&e/mercer_010330.html) .

It can be quite amusing if you don't get offended.

As for the idea of Canadians being as ignorant as Americans, look at the quote from this article (http://www.canada.com/calgary/calgaryherald/story.asp?id=5F121AF5-4842-45AF-9A78-90BD60782F08) :



At first I rather liked the Rick Mercer specials. Later, when I thought more of it, I realized that more than exposing the Americans as ignorant, it showed how many were friendly and good natured. It also shows how overly "self important" we are... America is a country with 10 times as many people as Canada has; why should we think we are important enough to warrant that much attention?

And he is right, an American crew could not come in to Canada and do the same thing; however, its not really a fair comparison. America is a huge country, and we get a large amount of our news coverage from there.

What if, for example, a crew from Europe or Australia came over and tried to make a "Talking with Canadians" video? I strongly suspect that the results would be equivalent of the "Talking with Americans" show that Mercer did.

[DanishDynamite]

WildCat:The Kyoto Treaty called for the US reducing emissions to 1990 levels, there is no way to do this without devastating the economy. Even if Bush hadn't pulled out it would have never passed in the Senate (the US president can only negotiate treaties, only the Senate can ratify them under the US Constitution) no matter which party held it. The US produces the most CO2 emissions simply due to the fact that we are the most prosperous country on earth. Our pollution laws here are quite strict, AFAIK no car made for the European market would come close to passing American emissions standards. Distances between cities in the US are far greater than in Europe, and the population is much less dense. For this reason a car is essential for most Americans, and yes they do produce CO2.The pros and cons of the Kyoto Treaty in regard to the US is immaterial (to this thread, anyway). The point is that the US was at the negotiating table, a Treaty text was arrived at, and the US signed the Treaty. Subsequently, the US president announced that no attempt will be made to ratify.

(The EU countries have ratified. In fact countries covering 2/3 of the world's population have ratified.)
The ICC would have been used to prosecute US soldiers for every errant missle, bomb or shot fired. This is not speculation, remember how there was a lawsuit in Belgium charging Colin Powell and others for the bombing of an air raid shelter in Baghdad in GWI? (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2886931.stm) I doubt the ICC would go after the limb hackers in Africa (trained by the UN Human Rights Commission chair Libya), no political axes to grind there. The point is that the US was at the negotiating table, a Treaty text was arrived at, and the US signed the Treaty. Subsequently, the US president announced that no attempt will be made to ratify.

(89 countries have ratified, including the EU.)

BTW, I offer this site for your perusal:

Myths and Fact about the International Criminal Court (http://www.hrw.org/campaigns/icc/facts.htm)
The ABM treaty was between the US and the USSR, it could be argued that it was null and void as soon as the USSR ceased to exist. Even so, it was meant to assure the destruction of a country that dared to use nukes. W/ Islamic radicals more than willing to martyr themselves for Allah destruction is hardly a deterrent.The point is that the US withdrew from the Treaty when it saw the chance.

[DanishDynamite]

Segnosaur:
I really don't think that counts as a "Random site".It is random in the sense that it was the first one in my Google search which enumerated the international Treaties which Bush has opted out of.
- I agree, withdrawing from the ABM treaty seems rather pointless. However, the article does mention that either country CAN withdraw at any time if they feel its necessary. I personally think that the US is more at risk from a terrorist group using "suitcase" type nukes smuggled in than a missle, but perhaps they think that there will be a long development time, and they are worried about countries like North Korea (who is working on longer range missles).They opted out because they want to build their Star wars system.
- Wildcat has already pointed out problems with the criminal court. (Haven't some groups also suggested indicting Sharron or Kissinger? Yet I never hear of them indicting Assad, Castro, etc.)Who is "them"?
In the past few years, the US has destroyed much of its chemical/biological stocks. They have made moves to cut down on many types of polution. Some of this was done unilaterally, some was done as part of treaties. Either way, I would rather see a country that actually takes action (with or without a treaty), instead of a country that signs treaties and then doesn't live up to them.I agree that countries that sign treaties should live up to them.
Here are the problems with Kyoto:
- Very limited in scope... Covers only CO2
- No real 'punishments' given for failure to live up to its standards
- Many countries (mostly 3rd world) are not covered, and since they contain large populations and want to industrialize, they can quickly become the major source of CO2.
- Many of the European countries did not have to do much to really meet their targets; Since targets were based on 1990 standards, East european countries have already met much of their targets simply by shutting down inefficient industries. Britian had a similar reduction when they got away from coal mining.See my answer to WildCat.
Now, you are right... the 'deadline' for compliance has not yet passed... who knows? Maybe something will happen which will unexpectly allow them to pass; however, the article suggests that is not likely to happen. You said, without qualification, that "Europe, champion of Kyoto, will fail to live up to its obligations". Is this psychic claim now reduced to "the article suggests...."?
As for your argument about the treaty not being in force... Well, frankly that doesn't wash. Yes, it may not be in force, but it was Europe that was championing it. Shouldn't they at least be setting an example by meeting interim targets?I was pointing out that your claim that Europe wasn't living up to its obligations, was wrong. The fact that Europe isn't under any obligations yet, seems to "wash" very well.
My point was... The US is getting criticized for interfeering in the Middle East (for example, by invading Iraq), and people are saying "Its all about OOOOIIILLLLL!" I was just pointing out that if oil were really the only thing of concern, they wouldn't have to interfere with the Middle east... They could have simply lifted sanctions on Iraq, or even let Iraq keep Kuwait, because they could buy oil from Saddam just as easily as from other people. So, there is more point to keeping a military presence in the region than just oil interests.OK. And what exactly is that military presence protecting? The democratic freedom of Saudia Arabia?
It may ask a relevant question, and it may even have some truth in it, but the errors in it, and the focus of the arguments ("The US must play nicer") are, in my opinion, too naieve. Yes, you are probably right. The US refusal to be bound by international treaties, the finger-flipping at the UN, the invention of "non-combatants", etc, etc, have nothing to do with animosity towards the US. The world is just jealous of their microwave ovens and their SUVs.

[Mike B.]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite

Yes, you are probably right. The US refusal to be bound by international treaties, the finger-flipping at the UN, the invention of "non-combatants", etc, etc, have nothing to do with animosity towards the US. The world is just jealous of their microwave ovens and their SUVs.

How is the US obligated to be bound by a treaty that it never ratified? (Kyoto)

As far as the middle east...Do you really think Kyoto enters into Al Queda's hatred of the US? I doubt the environment is even a blip on their idealogical radar screne.

I mean some people do not like the US because of Kyoto, but I don't think terrorists really care.

[Mike B.]

Another point.

One of the sins of the US, according to this thread, is that it is always telling the world what to do.

Are there not many Europeans on this board who are critical of the US and tell the US what it should do on a daily basis?

[DanishDynamite]

Mike B.:How is the US obligated to be bound by a treaty that it never ratified? (Kyoto)It isn't. It refused to ratify it, which is what I said.
As far as the middle east...Do you really think Kyoto enters into Al Queda's hatred of the US? I doubt the environment is even a blip on their idealogical radar screne.No, I don't think Al Queda have even heard of the Kyoto Treaty. However, Al Queda is not the world.
I mean some people do not like the US because of Kyoto, but I don't think terrorists really care. I agree completely.

[DanishDynamite]

Mike B.:One of the sins of the US, according to this thread, is that it is always telling the world what to do.

Are there not many Europeans on this board who are critical of the US and tell the US what it should do on a daily basis?Firstly, I would just point out that there is a difference between the impact on the world in regard to what the US administration does/says and our discussions on this board. :)

Secondly, I don't feel that non-Americans on here tell the Americans what they should do. They just say whether they agree or not with what the US does and why.

[Zep]

Originally posted by Martinm
The Canadians elected an Australian government? :confused:
Implied shorthand statement. OK, stating the bleeding obvious for you:

Australians elect an Australian government.
Canadians elect a Canadian government.
Japanese elect a Japanese government.
Britons elect a British government.
etc, etc...

Get the drift? :rolleyes:

Zep

[Zep]

Originally posted by WildCat

Well, you sure demonstrated an ignorance of Americans w/ that statement. Americans may not get to other countries as much as others, but remember that to go anywhere besides Canada or Mexico requires an 8,000+ mile round trip for most of us. Hardly an option when you only get a week or two of vacation per year.

Yes, I do think jealosy is involved, and instead of raising yourselves up economically you'd rather bring us down.
No, I'm not ignorant of Americans at all. In my business I deal with them on a daily basis, both here and there, and I have travelled to the USA frequently myself. OK, I don't actually LIVE there as a citizen, but I do get the picture.

Nor am I jealous. If the US lifestyle/economy/real estate was something to be envied so much then I have the wherewithal to move there right now.

It's not a matter of how much Americans travel. My point was that it's commonplace that the US views the rest of the world only through its TV sets, from which a narrow and distorted view of the world is obtained. Often this TV coverage is from war footage. Eg. How much did you REALLY know about Iraq before CNN sent the satellite pictures back a few months ago?

Well, gee - 8,000+ miles. For us to just LEAVE Australia to go ANYWHERE (except perhaps NZ) requires a journey of such magnitude. Yet it is almost a rite of passage for Australians that school-leavers and uni graduates do an "overseas trip" at some time - most Australians have a passport. And we go on "working holidays" so we don't have the two-week holiday restriction...

Fortunately this practice of travelling is becoming more and more popular for young people of all over the world, and understanding and acceptance this travelling and meeting generates is beneficial to everyone. With a few exceptions, most Americans I have met while travelling have been a credit to their country - definitely not the loud Hawaiian-shirt, whining nasal-drawl of the cartoons.

But the basis of my original point was that the incumbent US president and vice-president have rarely/never travelled, so their only view of the world is via TV, and their limited understanding of world affairs is on display. And that it is a pity that some of the more intelligent and travelled US statesmen are not in those positions.

Zep

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by WildCat


The Kyoto Treaty called for the US reducing emissions to 1990 levels, there is no way to do this without devastating the economy.

Some may say that the economy is already hurting. Did discussing Kyoto hurt the US economy? Why can't the US negotiate, present their own solution, I have not heard much in the way of this happening.

American unilateralism and protectionism is the reality.

In trade, the US bullies those foreign companies and industries that would engage in capitalism and perhaps (gasp) compete with American companies and industries.

American corpertations, accounting agencies and individuals have been caught being unethical, lying, participating in insider trading, unlawful conduct, criminal acts, destroying people's hard earned pensions and investments. Perhaps this has done more damage to the American economy than discussing Kyoto, or terrorist attacks.

For perspective, not every company or accounting firm in the US is guilty, but the perceptions of average hard working people are that the American way of doing things needs to be examined.

TO the unemployed, those that are now experiencing poverty, due to these events, the American dream has been a disappointment.