Is Geopolitical Penis Envy the real reason for Anti-Americanism???

[rikzilla]

Obviously.


Saddam Hussein influences world affairs. Why? Because he has some very nasty weapons programs and has demonstrated his willingness to use them to bully his neighbors and destroy his internal enemies. He has no military to speak of anymore, and even less of an economy...his WMD capability and willingness to use it is all he has left to bolster his own giant ego.

This makes Saddam relevant on the world stage. If this fellow was satisfied being "dear leader" to his people he would be merely the dictator of an obscure patch of desert. He hates America mainly because America has all the military capabilities he'd like to have for himself. He hates America because we used this capability (with restraint) to decimate his Armies and remove him from Kuwait.

America is a world power....The last superpower. People all over the globe despise America's use of military and economic power while coveting that same power. The one place that seems not to be overtly anti-American on the issue of Iraq is China. (well, no more anti-American than they usually are that is) Is it perhaps that China feels itself to be a relevant counterweight to American power?? I think it might.

I believe people from smaller and less militarily capable countries have anti-American attitudes out of envy. Just that. When it comes to smaller nations that actually enjoy the benefits of positive American intervention the attitudes seem to change.

Afghanistan....Kosovo....Kuwait.....all are free of invaders, and living under the rule of law because coalitions led by the US cared enough to shed their own blood in order to cause these changes.

This world needs a leader. If the US is too arrogant...self interested....and greedy to be trusted to act in this role, then who would you suggest would be better? Why?

-zilla

[arcticpenguin]

I think there are many legitimate reasons for anit-American sentiment.

Here's one: the U.S. demands cooperation from the world when it wants it; e.g. the 'War on Terror' and Iraq, but when the world wants something in return (Kyoto accord, ABM treaty compliance) suddenly internationalism isn't popular with the current administration.

[rikzilla]

I agree AP...

As a fan of Carl Sagan I could not help being influenced by his wonderful and intelligent opinion on the enviroment.

I have read many books on Iraq and Saddam and consider myself informed enough on the issues to stand firmly in favor of GWB's Iraq policy. But I cannot say the same for his enviromental policy. His trashing of Kyoto is indefensible. :( As a world leader we need to take the initiative and champion enviromentally sound policy. GWB is dead wrong on that one.

-zilla

edited to add: That is still not a rational reason to be anti-American though. I guess there is no such single issue that fuels anti-Americanism then?? If not would it not seem to bolster my theory of the all-around emotion of envy being experienced by less influential nations???

[DanishDynamite]

rikzilla:Saddam Hussein influences world affairs. Why? Because he has some very nasty weapons programs and has demonstrated his willingness to use them to bully his neighbors and destroy his internal enemies. He has no military to speak of anymore, and even less of an economy...his WMD capability and willingness to use it is all he has left to bolster his own giant ego.He has an influence on world affairs because he presides over a country with the second largest oil reserves around.
This makes Saddam relevant on the world stage. If this fellow was satisfied being "dear leader" to his people he would be merely the dictator of an obscure patch of desert. He hates America mainly because America has all the military capabilities he'd like to have for himself. He hates America because we used this capability (with restraint) to decimate his Armies and remove him from Kuwait. He probably hates America because they threw his forces out of Kuwait and are massing forces to attack his country. Anything else is speculation.
America is a world power....The last superpower. People all over the globe despise America's use of military and economic power while coveting that same power. People despise the unilaterilism of the US.
The one place that seems not to be overtly anti-American on the issue of Iraq is China. (well, no more anti-American than they usually are that is) Is it perhaps that China feels itself to be a relevant counterweight to American power?? I think it might.How is China's stance any different from Russia's or France's?
I believe people from smaller and less militarily capable countries have anti-American attitudes out of envy. Just that. When it comes to smaller nations that actually enjoy the benefits of positive American intervention the attitudes seem to change. You may of course believe what best fits your worldview. I realize this question may seem irrelevant to you, but do you have any...well...facts to substantiate this claim?
Afghanistan....Kosovo....Kuwait.....all are free of invaders, and living under the rule of law because coalitions led by the US cared enough to shed their own blood in order to cause these changes."Living under the rule of law"? Are you joking? Or do you find that laws decreed by warlords and dictators are as valid as democratic laws?
This world needs a leader. If the US is too arrogant...self interested....and greedy to be trusted to act in this role, then who would you suggest would be better? Why?The UN.

[crackmonkey]

The UN did a hell of a job in Kosovo and Rwanda, huh? Without the muscle of the US, the UN is nothing more than a debating society. Like it or not, without credible military might to back it up, the UN is powerless to coerce rogue nations... even if they can manage to build a concensus to do so.

[DanishDynamite]

crackmonkey:The UN did a hell of a job in Kosovo and Rwanda, huh? Without the muscle of the US, the UN is nothing more than a debating society. Like it or not, without credible military might to back it up, the UN is powerless to coerce rogue nations... even if they can manage to build a concensus to do so. Yes, the UN only has the forces allotted to it by member countries. Much like NATO.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by DanishDynamite
rikzilla:He has an influence on world affairs because he presides over a country with the second largest oil reserves around.

Fair enough....but does the leader of that nation which actually HAS the first largest oil reserves occupy the world's attention like Saddam does? Obviously not. Your theory seems invalid to me for this reason.


He probably hates America because they threw his forces out of Kuwait and are massing forces to attack his country. Anything else is speculation.

true

People despise the unilaterilism of the US.

Why? Unilateralism only means that they act on their own. It does not speak to the correctness or necessity of such action. Besides, the US has taken great pains to form a coalition against Iraq. The charge of unilateralism does not wash unless the US just baldly goes it alone. Wouldn't this entire question be moot by now if the US was truly unilateralist?


How is China's stance any different from Russia's or France's?

China has not been as active in it's stance against war in Iraq....as a matter of fact I will show my ignorance by going to Google to insure that they even are against the coming war. Simply, the mass media has not recently informed me of China's opinion, or I have somehow missed it myself. However, I am well aware of Russia and France's opinion...no research needed.


You may of course believe what best fits your worldview. I realize this question may seem irrelevant to you, but do you have any...well...facts to substantiate this claim?

I am merely testing my theory on this forum. I have this worldview/theory..( obviously not fact)....I am posting this here in order to have it shown up as either valid or invalid. If you manage to trash my opinions logically I will be forced to change my opinion, simple as that...my ego can stand being wrong.


"Living under the rule of law"? Are you joking? Or do you find that laws decreed by warlords and dictators are as valid as democratic laws?

Now it's time for you to provide a few facts. We all know Afghanistan is not a democracy....but it is indeed on the path to democracy. Kuwait has reformed dramatically....and Kosovo....can you honestly say Kosovo is being ruled by anything other than the rule of law at this time??


The UN.

Now I have to ask if you are joking! Why the UN? Please tell me how the UN is capable of any meaningful leadership.

[Supercharts]

Regarding China...
It is a mistake to consider China's political stance in terms of western logic. China, as well as all of East and South Eastern Asia shares little with the West in terms of politics and government. Even at the most basic formal institution such as the family Asians view society differently.
I have found through travel that most 'westerners' view modern infrastructures in Asia as being modern like in the west and take this as a move towards westerization. This is false. Improvements in the standard of living in Asia do not make those areas of the world 'western'. They are asian and reflect asian values and culture.
The west is viewed as a source of power and goods. Trade does not mean the political and cultural values in asia are shifting towards western values.
China wants to control and influence the Pacific. It wants to replace the US in terms of influence - both political and economic. It will do this very shortly because the cultural values it has are shared throughout the region.
Iraq to China is a western problem. It may even decline to vote in the UN Security Council because it offers no value to China itself.

France, on the other hand, views the Iraq issue as a threat to it's self-view of being an influence for the West. If Iraq didn't 'owe' France $3.4B I suspect France would fold in it's opposition to war.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Supercharts
Regarding China...
It is a mistake to consider China's political stance in terms of western logic. China, as well as all of East and South Eastern Asia shares little with the West in terms of politics and government. Even at the most basic formal institution such as the family Asians view society differently.
I have found through travel that most 'westerners' view modern infrastructures in Asia as being modern like in the west and take this as a move towards westerization. This is false. Improvements in the standard of living in Asia do not make those areas of the world 'western'. They are asian and reflect asian values and culture.
The west is viewed as a source of power and goods. Trade does not mean the political and cultural values in asia are shifting towards western values.
China wants to control and influence the Pacific. It wants to replace the US in terms of influence - both political and economic. It will do this very shortly because the cultural values it has are shared throughout the region.
Iraq to China is a western problem. It may even decline to vote in the UN Security Council because it offers no value to China itself.

France, on the other hand, views the Iraq issue as a threat to it's self-view of being an influence for the West. If Iraq didn't 'owe' France $3.4B I suspect France would fold in it's opposition to war.

Thanks....those are good points.

My view was not that China is westernizing tho...it was more along the lines of China is not so intimidated by America's influence and strength, mostly because of it's own influence and strength.

I knew about Frances $$ motives....Elf Aquitane has lost Billions due to the sanctions....but your post was otherwise informative.

Thanks for sharing.

-zilla

[Mike B.]

Why about French unilateralism?

Rik

Americans think everyone envies them.

They don't.

Geoff.

[Jedi Knight]

Is Geopolitical Penis Envy the real reason for Anti-Americanism???

I completely agree.

JK

[Jim Lennox]

You do realise that an average Englishman's penis is twice as long as the average american's.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Obviously.
America is a world power....The last superpower. People all over the globe despise America's use of military and economic power while coveting that same power.


-zilla

how do you know that? if that is incorrect, and i believe it is, then this whole thread is pointless.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Rik

Americans think everyone envies them.

They don't.

Geoff.

that's because that is what their leaders are always telling them.

[rikzilla]

Geoff, A_U_P,

This is just my attempt to understand the phenomenon. I find it hard to believe that on a skeptical board there could be so many people who are truly knee-jerk anti-American. As a skeptic I understand that culture has a vast influence on how our attitudes are shaped. Thus I am not anti-Arab, or even anti-Muslim. I understand that as a human I have more in common with these folks than not.

So, if my attitude as I have explained it is common among skeptics why is it that there are so many here who believe Americans can do no right?

I have tried very hard to understand the geopolitical situation we now find ourselves in. If indeed we are only going to Iraq out of the need for cheap oil....(which seems to be the rallying cry of those who believe America is evil)...then why now? Why not in '95 when the Hussein Kamal defection provided all the evidence we'd ever need to use force?

I believe it is because of 9/11. Sure, the links to al-Qaida are nebulous....but it is not so very far fetched to believe Iraq had much to do with the 9/11 attacks. He has plenty of motive, and a competent intelligence arm which is schooled in terrorist tactics and in running false-flag operations.

It is the false-flag operation that, when successful, leaves the US in the position of having to prove/explain it's motivations to a skeptical/envious world. And yes, I do believe the US is envied...but not for the reasons you may suspect Geoff. Thanks to my earlier interactions with yourself and Claus I have had to rethink and re-examine my own ideas about my country in particular, and world politics in general. I thank you both for that.

I've lived in Germany and the UK and I understand these places to be more free and desireable to live than in the US in many respects. The standard of living is comparable...etc... Not much there to envy.

But when we speak of American influence around the globe....there's where the envy pops up...big time. There is no country on this planet that does not envy the economic and military power of the US. Not one. This attitude filters down to the common guy in the street as well, why? Because we all in some way have nationalistic tendencies. Some more than others.

Therefore, though I find it obvious that the only real and recent world event which is driving the American push to war in Iraq is the 9/11 attack, we see the communist-driven anti-war movement focusing on oil.

Now I am not so stupid to believe oil is not a consideration, of course it is. But it's not the driving factor. They've always had this oil....the real change tho has ben 9/11.

-zilla

[Wolverine]

Originally posted by rikzilla
I find it hard to believe that on a skeptical board there could be so many people who are truly knee-jerk anti-American.

Skepticism only goes so far. Beliefs have a nasty habit of getting in the way, particulary in this category.

I thought the anti-Americanism came about because the US has made a lousy name for itself the world over??

Isn't that the reason? Because many people don't like US policies?

Nice to believe it's jealousy, if that's what you like to believe...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Geoff, A_U_P,

This is just my attempt to understand the phenomenon. I find it hard to believe that on a skeptical board there could be so many people who are truly knee-jerk anti-American. As a skeptic I understand that culture has a vast influence on how our attitudes are shaped. Thus I am not anti-Arab, or even anti-Muslim. I understand that as a human I have more in common with these folks than not.



i think i have said before that i am not anti-american. i have met some very nice americans, and some that fill the sterotype of the bad american, as well as too many mormons.

there are plenty of americans on this board you would classify as anti-american, and most of the 'anti-american' information i read is produced by americans. E.g. the vietnam war history 'bright shining lie' was written by an american. i will never foget watching the first moon landing live.



So, if my attitude as I have explained it is common among skeptics why is it that there are so many here who believe Americans can do no right?



never said that. it's just that as the most powerful country on the earth, the wrongs tend to be a bit worse than other countries. also, i think we would expect more from a democracy (please, no more lectures about constitutional republic, that is one topic that makes me think that perhaps anti-americanism has something going for it), with free speech. china, russia, nk, saddam, all have massive internal problems. when they screw up, it all appears to be a part of an ongoing result of a dysfunctional political system. The US is educated, democratic, and spending far more than it needs on military forces, that then appear to need something to do to justify all the expenditure.



I have tried very hard to understand the geopolitical situation we now find ourselves in. If indeed we are only going to Iraq out of the need for cheap oil....(which seems to be the rallying cry of those who believe America is evil)...then why now? Why not in '95 when the Hussein Kamal defection provided all the evidence we'd ever need to use force?



why now, and why saddam? that is the question.



I believe it is because of 9/11. Sure, the links to al-Qaida are nebulous....but it is not so very far fetched to believe Iraq had much to do with the 9/11 attacks. He has plenty of motive, and a competent intelligence arm which is schooled in terrorist tactics and in running false-flag operations.



a pattern appears. much as texas is quite happy to execute people it cannot be sure are guilty of murder, as long as it executes someone, the US is out to get Saddam because he is the next best thing to osama. not a very good reason to get him. and plenty of other people appear to wonder that if that is the real reason, it isn't good enough, that he is the next best person.



It is the false-flag operation that, when successful, leaves the US in the position of having to prove/explain it's motivations to a skeptical/envious world. And yes, I do believe the US is envied...but not for the reasons you may suspect Geoff. Thanks to my earlier interactions with yourself and Claus I have had to rethink and re-examine my own ideas about my country in particular, and world politics in general. I thank you both for that.



the US is 'envied', perhaps in a 'wow, how about that' way, not in any deeper way. i would love to take a trip to NASA, grand canyon etc. I have met plenty of people who have worked over there, as i work in the computer area. they all say it's a great place to vist, but they wouldn't raise their kids there.



I've lived in Germany and the UK and I understand these places to be more free and desireable to live than in the US in many respects. The standard of living is comparable...etc... Not much there to envy.

But when we speak of American influence around the globe....there's where the envy pops up...big time. There is no country on this planet that does not envy the economic and military power of the US. Not one. This attitude filters down to the common guy in the street as well, why? Because we all in some way have nationalistic tendencies. Some more than others.



how do you know we envy america's military power? i don't. the only person who appears to is our current prime minister, and a lot of people hate him for it. it reminds us of other times our leaders have sucked up to britain and america.

he made a complete fool of himself when he got to address a joint sitting of congress. too bad most of the seats were taken not by senators and congressmen, but aids and other fillers in. then at the end of a long and impassioned speech, he says it is the most important moment of his political career. well, i didn't vote for him.



Therefore, though I find it obvious that the only real and recent world event which is driving the American push to war in Iraq is the 9/11 attack, we see the communist-driven anti-war movement focusing on oil.



communist? no, just a lot of people who can't see that there is any real, logical reason for the war, other than america's desire to punish someone for 9/11, even if it isn't the right person.



Now I am not so stupid to believe oil is not a consideration, of course it is. But it's not the driving factor. They've always had this oil....the real change tho has ben 9/11.

-zilla

[Wandering_goon]

Hm.

I once had a theory that Australia would be far better off if there were more people who actually sat down and had a think about things.

Im going to have to amend that, thanks to AUP. So far, I have seen you post continual attacks upon the US as a whole.
But have you actually ever provided an alternative idea? Or is it just part of the good ole aussie tradition of "Tall Poppy" syndrome.

As for envying the US military might, Im not sure if envy is the right word. Fear maybe, if it was ever used without discretion, but for now the US armed might is at least tacitly under control of their leaders and agree for the most part to what the International community wants.

Seriously, if the US did not care what the world thought, then I think Iraq would either have been bombed flat, or invaded very soon after the idea had got in their heads. Deployment of troops in itself is not invasion. It is a warning to Saddam to obey the UN mandates.

Saddam needs to be brought to heel, he flouts international conventions, and has committed barbarisms against his citizens.

All very nice thinking of the US as the big bad evil. But who else has the capability of acting as the global police. Australia? :rolleyes: UK? At a pinch perhaps China or Russia might be able to, but they for the most part would only ever act in their own interests. Sure the US has interests in that region as well, but thats politics. So they might gain something from conquest, on the other hand a sadistic regime may fall and the terrorists might lose a base of operations. Doesnt sound too bad to me.

Or maybe you think it would be better to just close our eyes to the whole deal and pretend things arnt as bad as the evil ole US regime says. Neville Chamberlain did that, and look what happened then.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Wandering_goon
All very nice thinking of the US as the big bad evil. But who else has the capability of acting as the global police. Australia? :rolleyes: UK? At a pinch perhaps China or Russia might be able to, but they for the most part would only ever act in their own interests. Sure the US has interests in that region as well, but thats politics. So they might gain something from conquest, on the other hand a sadistic regime may fall and the terrorists might lose a base of operations. Doesnt sound too bad to me.

A global police force is an old idea. But is the US acting like Judge Dredd? Where is the jury of peers and code of law. The US, last time there was an attempt to introduce a global law, snubbed the whole concept.

[American]

That's a good question. China had that problem many years ago. They had a large revolution, and many things changed. Now look- they are the "super power" of the East! When Russia fell, that also strengthened their power.

Many people are saying that Iraq, along with the apologist French and German people are guilty of the same penis envy that you describe. They are using the United Nations as their main platform for speaking. This is a good thing. Their militarys are vastly inferior to the American war machine. The three nations combined could not equal the National Guard of Texas. George Bush is from Texas. When you put two and two together, you get four! Do the math, people. Iraq's days are numbered, and I wouldn't be buying French or German property soon, if you know what I am saying.

[Wandering_goon]

The three nations combined could not equal the National Guard of Texas. George Bush is from Texas. When you put two and two together, you get four! Do the math, people. Iraq's days are numbered, and I wouldn't be buying French or German property soon, if you know what I am saying

?????
Are you implying that the next target of the US is France or Germany? As in once Iraq is done away with they will turn their armies towards europe?

Possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard. And as for saying that the three nations combined forces wouldnt equal the Texas Nat guard.....words fail me..

[Jim Lennox]

Maybe the rest of the world should have spent trillions on big exploding penises...

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Wandering_goon


?????
Are you implying that the next target of the US is France or Germany? As in once Iraq is done away with they will turn their armies towards europe?

Possibly the stupidest thing I have ever heard. And as for saying that the three nations combined forces wouldnt equal the Texas Nat guard.....words fail me..

you aren't getting a tad anti-american now, are you. there are some other prime time crackpots on this forum, if you look around a bit.

[BillyTK]

Originally posted by Jim Lennox
Maybe the rest of the world should have spent trillions on big exploding penises...

I don't think it's the rest of the world that's got a problem with over-compensation and transference ;) :D

[Jon_in_london]

Originally not posted by rikzilla
Obviously.


George Bush influences world affairs. Why? Because he has some very nasty weapons programs and has demonstrated his willingness to use them to bully his neighbors and destroy his internal enemies. He has a huge military to speak of somemore, but less and less of an economy...his WMD capability and willingness to use it is all he has left to bolster his own giant ego.

This makes Bush relevant on the world stage. If this fellow was satisfied being "dear leader" to his people he would be merely the dictator of an obscure patch of North America. He hates Iraq mainly because America has all the military capabilities and he'd like to use them to kill Some people. He hates Iraq because Saddam tried to kill his Daddy.

America is a world power....The last superpower. People all over the globe despise America's use of military and economic power while coveting that same power. The one place that seems not to be overtly anti-American on the issue of Iraq is China. (well, no more anti-American than they usually are that is) Is it perhaps that China feels itself to be a relevant counterweight to American power?? I think it might.

I believe people from smaller and less militarily capable countries have anti-American attitudes out of fear and resentment at American commercial and military imperialism. Just that. When it comes to smaller nations that actually enjoy the benefits of positive American intervention the attitudes seem not to change.

Afghanistan....Kosovo....Kuwait.....all are free of invaders (Except for US troops), and are not living under the rule of law because coalitions led by the US didnt care enough to pour money into them once all the glorious, photogenic bombing was over.

This world needs a leader. If the US is too arrogant...self interested....and greedy to be trusted to act in this role, then perhaps we should have a union of nations who could act as a form of global parliament such that quarels and disputes could be solved without resorting to base violence? Why not?

-zilla

Zilla- I have made some correction to your original post. Read above.

This is the way most anti-americanism threads seem to go:

American chap: Why do people hate us? We are perfect, beatific in fact!! It must be because they are jealous!!!!! let me ask a foreigner!

Foreigen chap: Ermmm... well actualy it has more to do with (insert list of American Inconsistancy/Attrocities/propping up and inserting brutal dictators when it suits them/Commerical cultural and military imperialism/treaty burning/intenational law violations etc etc..).

American chap: *thinks* No, none of that is true because we are perfect as angels, therefore you are all just jealous!!!!!

Honestly, If you arent going to listen to what people from the rest of the world think then why bother asking?

:rolleyes:

[Dazza]

IN 'Why do people Hate America?' by Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies (2002, Icon Books) the authors suggest 4 main reasons:

1. American economic dominance has resulted in the global economy being slanted to give Ameican capital access to world markets, while denying full participation to developing countries.

2. The cultural dominance of America crowds out other cultures. The arrogance of American culture 'terrifies most of the rest of the world'

3. Hypocrisy. America seeks to impose standards for truth, justice and responsibility on the rest of the world while failing to abide by those standards itself.

4. America seeks to impose its own view of what is democracy, justice, freedom, human rights etc on the rest of the world. These things are defined by America in terms of its own self-identity and history leaving countries who don't follow that pattern to be defined as 'evil'

A key theme of the book is that America just doesn't seem very aware of the rest of the world, which may be a nice place to visit, or to buy cheap goods from, but in some way is not 'real'

These are the conclusions, not the arguments. I'm not making the arguments myself, but I recommend the book as an interesting read.

What is quite clear I think is that envy is not the reason that people hate America. Indeed the fact that many americans will think that anyone who doesn't like them must just be jealous of them is a good illustration of the sort of mindset that this book suggests as one of the reasons that America is hated as much as it is.

FWIW, I agree with much of what is in the book, but love visiting America, and married an American. Americans seem fine when I meet them as individuals, but as a world power they combine ignorance with arrogance - a deadly combination.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Zilla- I have made some correction to your original post. Read above.

This is the way most anti-americanism threads seem to go:

American chap: Why do people hate us? We are perfect, beatific in fact!! It must be because they are jealous!!!!! let me ask a foreigner!

Foreigen chap: Ermmm... well actualy it has more to do with (insert list of American Inconsistancy/Attrocities/propping up and inserting brutal dictators when it suits them/Commerical cultural and military imperialism/treaty burning/intenational law violations etc etc..).

American chap: *thinks* No, none of that is true because we are perfect as angels, therefore you are all just jealous!!!!!

Honestly, If you arent going to listen to what people from the rest of the world think then why bother asking?

:rolleyes:

I don't believe I ever had an exchange such as that.

Your restating of my original post was cute,...but does nothing to refute my theory on anti-Americanism.

What I'm saying in my post is that anti-Americanism is irrational. Your restating of my post is an example of an irrational response.

-z

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by rikzilla

I don't believe I ever had an exchange such as that.
-z

Thas basically the way the threads seem to go.

Originally posted by rikzilla

Your restating of my original post was cute,...but does nothing to refute my theory on anti-Americanism.

What I'm saying in my post is that anti-Americanism is irrational. Your restating of my post is an example of an irrational response.
-z

My restating of your post is no more irrational than the original post itself. Most people across the world would be more inclined to agree with my version than with yours.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london



My restating of your post is no more irrational than the original post itself. Most people across the world would be more inclined to agree with my version than with yours.

Sweeping generalization...this thread will show "how these threads go".....why don't we all just play along? :rolleyes:

If more people in the world agreed that a horse was a dog...they'd all still be wrong. Facts don't change...no matter how many people believe or "agree".

-zilla

Why is it that if anything or anyone does not agree with America, it is classed as anti-american?

America cocks up just as much as the rest of the world and shock horror has been wrong.

America is not a super power it is a country full of people like the rest of the world, and it's not invincible as was shown so very devastatingly and in a most despicable and evil way.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by rikzilla


Sweeping generalization...this thread will show "how these threads go".....why don't we all just play along? :rolleyes:

If more people in the world agreed that a horse was a dog...they'd all still be wrong. Facts don't change...no matter how many people believe or "agree".

-zilla

Its already the way its been going.

Zilla- what I meant was that Americans have realised that much of the rest of the world (ROW) hates them. Then they wonder why and recieve disturbing answers. Hence its easier to blame it all on 'geopolitical penis envy' than accept the uncomfortable truth.

[Mike B.]

Of all the arguments the cultural impearilism is the worst...

In the US there are tons of whatever country's resteraunts.

So many American movies are based on British authors (Tolkein, the Bard, etc.)

In school children have to read mostly literature from England.

People listen to music from European bands.

Of course this is how it should be. The US should be happy to take in the great cultural achievements of other countries.

Yet nobody gets all bent out of shape...

And finally if you are so worried about cultural impearalism, turn off the darn television!!!:D

[Mike B.]

Ummm...
As far as denying access to most of the developing world's production.

I would agree with that to an extent, though not completely.

However, that is certainly not just a US thing.

I believe there are very high agricultural subsidies in Europe to deny most African farmers markets...

(Is this a place for the cliche of people in glass houses?);)

[Mike B.]

There is also a political advantage in some countries of playing the anti-American card.

Look what the President-elect of South Korea recently did.

He gave a speech in which he said he was at a meeting with high level American leaders in which they stated they were about to attack North Korea. Of course that got everyone into the streets, etc.

Now he says,
OOPS
Never happened. I was thinking of what I heard on TV...:rolleyes:

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Pie
Why is it that if anything or anyone does not agree with America, it is classed as anti-american?

I oppose Bush's trashing of the Kyoto treaty. This means I do not agree with America...however, I am not anti-American. Why? Because I don't irrationally hate everything that America does. I don't cop an attitude that "I hate my country"... In other words I think about what I like and dislike about America, and then work within the system to change that which I think needs changing. Anti-Americans just seem to hate the entire "system".

America cocks up just as much as the rest of the world and shock horror has been wrong.

Yes, but no one but a completely irrational fool would hate "the world" just because they've been wrong now and then. Again...these are people with an irrational hatred of the system. Usually losers who are incapable of succeeding within the "system".

America is not a super power

Oh??

it is a country full of people like the rest of the world,

Okay...it's a country full of people like the rest of the world....I agree. So why hate America, and not all the world. After all, we are just people. How are we more worthy of hatred than,say, the people of Belize??


and it's not invincible as was shown so very devastatingly and in a most despicable and evil way.

Nice of you to stick in those qualifiers chum. I guess no one is "invincible" in this day and age. The real problem is tho...if Saddam shows the world he can get away with a false-flag operation like 9/11...what's to stop any other government from packing a nasty and crude little nuke into a diguised passenger plane from, say, Cameroon...passing it off as a plane load of pilgrims to the Haj...and detonating it over the Black Mosque at the height of the pilgrimage?? Letting anyone get away with a false flag operation is dangerous. Governments learn very fast what works and what doesn't and why. What do you think the Arabs would do if such a thing actually happened?

[Thanz]

rikzilla -

Perhaps this is part of the problem. You posted this:

Originally posted by rikzilla
But when we speak of American influence around the globe....there's where the envy pops up...big time. There is no country on this planet that does not envy the economic and military power of the US. Not one. This attitude filters down to the common guy in the street as well, why? Because we all in some way have nationalistic tendencies. Some more than others.

(emphasis mine)

Then later, critisized another poster by saying this:
Sweeping generalization...this thread will show "how these threads go".....why don't we all just play along?

If more people in the world agreed that a horse was a dog...they'd all still be wrong. Facts don't change...no matter how many people believe or "agree".

How is what you say in the first quote not a "sweeping generalization"? You haven't presented any facts to support your envy theory, so the talk of horses or dogs is irrelevant.

And as for a nation that envies neither the economy nor the military of the US, have you considered the Swiss? Good economy, good standard of living, neutral in world affairs. I think that you would be hard pressed to find envy of the US among the Swiss.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Thanz
rikzilla -

Perhaps this is part of the problem. You posted this:

(emphasis mine)

Then later, critisized another poster by saying this:
[B]

How is what you say in the first quote not a "sweeping generalization"? You haven't presented any facts to support your envy theory, so the talk of horses or dogs is irrelevant.

And as for a nation that envies neither the economy nor the military of the US, have you considered the Swiss? Good economy, good standard of living, neutral in world affairs. I think that you would be hard pressed to find envy of the US among the Swiss.

The envy theory is just that...a theory. I doubt whether it can be proved or disproved. It's just a theory proposed in an attempt to understand what makes knee-jerk anti-Americans tick. I'm beginning to come to a different conclusion tho....it seems to me that the "system" is what these folks hate the most. The chief protector of "the system" is the US. So I'm starting to think that the capitalist system is what is alienating these folks who either can't or won't succeed within it. It would explain much about domestic anti-Americanism...and the well documented involvement of communism in the anti-war movement.

-z

Originally posted by rikzilla
I oppose Bush's trashing of the Kyoto treaty. This means I do not agree with America...however, I am not anti-American. Why? Because I don't irrationally hate everything that America does. I don't cop an attitude that "I hate my country"... In other words I think about what I like and dislike about America, and then work within the system to change that which I think needs changing. Anti-Americans just seem to hate the entire "system". Lord hairy feet, firstly I wasn't calling you anti-american it was general why does everybody who says America is doing something wrong etc, called it?

I am in an agreement with you on the Kyoto agreement and Bush's trampling over.

Next part, You say some areas of the US you hate some you like, ok but when anybody else says that same ting they get yelled your anti american. Now why is that?

I hate parts of America too, like that of the Kyoto agreement for one and some of you are all so god dammit tall.

I equally hate my country for its stuck in the last century ways and the fact it is ruled by somebody who has no idea what living here is really like.

Yes change is good, if you can change it.

I'll be back to edit and add.

Watch this space.

[Jon_in_london]

The real problem is tho...if Saddam shows the world he can get away with a false-flag operation like 9/11...

So now Saddam is responsible for 9/11 :rolleyes:

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


So now Saddam is responsible for 9/11 :rolleyes:

According to Mylroie (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/006009771X/qid=1044890698/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/002-6316401-1359211?v=glance&s=books&n=507846)

An Eye-Opening Book, July 23, 2002
Reviewer: Alan Miller (see more about me) from Charlotte, NC
I first read this book in the aftermath of September 11th. Those who argue against a US invasion of Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein should read "Study of Revenge" first. Written well over a year or so before 9-11, its author makes a compelling argument that Saddam Hussein was the mastermind behind the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, virtually every terrorist event orchestrated against the United States since that time, and that his influence and direction is the real power behind the Al-Qaeda terrorist network - not Bin Laden.

For anyone interested in Tom Clancy, spy novels, or books on espoinage, this is a great read. Laurie Mylroie illustrates the phases of the original WTC bombing plot, the arrival of two mysterious men (who she proves were agents of the Iraqi intelligence), and the elaborate construction of the bomb itself. She talks about the components of the bomb which included a hydrogen cyanide solution the bombers hoped would create a giant poison gas cloud to rise up through the towers and kill everyone. Had their plot worked, over a 100,000 people would have died, and 9-11 would have come eight years earlier in the first months of the Clinton administration. The transition of power would have left America is a more vunerable state than we find ourselves today.

In addition, Mylroie examines the Al-Qaeda network and its dwindling influence prior to the Iraqi defeat in the 1991 Gulf War. She posits that Saddam Hussein is providing training, money, and intelligence to Bin Laden in order to exact revenge on America. Bin Laden gets the glory he craves, and Saddam gets the revenge he craves without incurring the wrath of the world at large. She points out that Iraq and Al-Qaeda's interests conveniently intersect at key points, such as the demand US troops leave the Holy Land. Bin Laden wants infidels out of the land of Mecca. Saddam wants the Saudi oil fields unguarded so he can move in and take them.

After reading this, you will find yourself waiting impatiently for George Bush to send troops into Iraq, for our sake and for the sake of the oppressed Iraqi people..


Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense:
"...argues powerfully that the mastermind of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing was actually an agent of Iraqi intelligence."

Is it so very far fetched that if he was behind the first WTC bombing...he could be behind the second attack??

-zilla

Originally posted by rikzilla

This is just my attempt to understand the phenomenon. I find it hard to believe that on a skeptical board there could be so many people who are truly knee-jerk anti-American.


I think you may find that this anti-Americanism is absolutely endemic throughout the entire globe. And I am not-sure there is anything 'knee-jerk' about it. Rather I think it has been brewing for a very long time.


As a skeptic I understand that culture has a vast influence on how our attitudes are shaped. Thus I am not anti-Arab, or even anti-Muslim. I understand that as a human I have more in common with these folks than not.

So, if my attitude as I have explained it is common among skeptics why is it that there are so many here who believe Americans can do no right?


We don't believe Americans can do no right. We see the American government doing some things we consider VERY wrong, and we see a large amount of ignorance amongst the American public with regard to Americas relationship with the outside world. The real problem is hypocrisy - the US attitude is "WE make the rules. YOU follow them."


I have tried very hard to understand the geopolitical situation we now find ourselves in. If indeed we are only going to Iraq out of the need for cheap oil....(which seems to be the rallying cry of those who believe America is evil)...then why now?


If it was about WMDs then the real enemy is North Korea. This war is both about oil and about American political control of the middle east, not to mention a little bit of "We haven't kicked enough asses since september 11th, we can't find Osama so let's attack Iraq."


I believe it is because of 9/11. Sure, the links to al-Qaida are nebulous...


They are ******* non-existent, Rik! Al-Qaeda are a bunch of religous fundamentalists. Saddam Hussein is the closest thing to a secular leader anywhere in the middle east. Al-Qaeda hates Iraq almost as much as the US do. There are no links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam.


but it is not so very far fetched to believe Iraq had much to do with the 9/11 attacks.


Sounds pretty far-fetched to me.


There is no country on this planet that does not envy the economic and military power of the US. Not one.


You talking about the people or the government? I think you don't understand the difference between US and non-US attitudes to military power. You think the GERMANS envy US military power? Really? :eek:


Therefore, though I find it obvious that the only real and recent world event which is driving the American push to war in Iraq is the 9/11 attack, we see the communist-driven anti-war movement focusing on oil.


Communist-driven anti-war movement? :confused:

NOBODY I speak to supports this war. NOBODY. Just about the only person in the UK that does support it is vice-president-poodle-Blair. It isn't just 'communists' who think this war is unjustified. It is 95% of the population of Western Europe, including half of the British Cabinet!



Now I am not so stupid to believe oil is not a consideration, of course it is. But it's not the driving factor. They've always had this oil....the real change tho has ben 9/11.


This is true. 9/11 changed everything. But if you think that Iraq has real links with Al-Qaeda then you have been duped. Iraq is just a soft target - it is about revenge, about kicking some Arab ass, about US political control and self-image, about control of oil supplies, it is about the US throwing its weight around like the Alpha-male in a troop of chimpanzees.

You really want to understand anti-Americanism?

All countries to a certain extent act in their own interests. Ultimately the US is also just acting in its own interests, but there are some additional factors at work. The cold war is over - the US has the military strength to take out any opponent it chooses. So the US has the ability to impose whatever solution serves its own best interests whever and whenever it wants to. And it has a proven track record of doing this over and over again, for decades, with no regard for the consequences in the regions where it intervenes. This on its own is bad enough, but nothing that no other powerful Empire hasn't also done. What is different about the US is the accompanying belief that they are actually the good guys. It is not enough for them to throw their weight around and **** up regions from one end of the Earth to the other - they actually want everyone to like them as well!. They actually believe that they are HELPING the rest of the world, by dropping bombs on innocent people to serve US interests, by forcing regime change to serve US interests (including the removal of a democratically elected government in Chile and the replacement with a US-backed dictatorship which murdered hundreds of thousands of people!), by trashing international treaties on everything from climate change to chemical weapons. Now - to put a cherry on the icing on the cake - the US is has declared that it is going to attack IRAQ even if this means directly ignoring the wishes of the UN security council.

Anti-Americanism exists for many reasons, but the one that stands above all others is the hypocrisy. It is the combination of inflicting global terrorism on the rest of the world at the same time that they try to convince everyone that they are the knights in shining armour protecting the rest of the world from global terrorism. To most of the rest of the world, the US is the terrorist.

PLEASE don't take this personally. I do not hate all Americans, and I certainly don't hate you. Americans tend to interpret an intellectual attack on their nations values as a personal attack. That is also part of the problem. Tony Blair doesn't represent me. Why should Bush represent you?

I am a human being much more than I am English.

11th Septermber 1973

http://www.parallelo-distance.net/claudia/S11/11-SEPTEMBER01.jpg

Assassination of democatically elected President Salvador Allende by the CIA, after the US tried and failed to rig the election. Allende was replaced by General Pinochet whose regime brutalised and traumatised the people of Chile for the next 17 years, murdering hundreds of thousands of people, many of them supporters of the democatically elected government the US brought down.

http://www.parallelo-distance.net/claudia/assassination.htm#14

Do you think this action was morally or ethically justified?
Do you think this atrocity was a one-off or indicative of US behaviour over many years all over the world?
Do you think the American public is aware of the US record on things like this, or do you think they live in blissfull ignorance?

I am particularly interested in your response to this, because you are openly anti-communist and the democratically-elected Chilean president that was murdered by the CIA was a communist. Yep - the Chilean people VOTED for a communist government and the US decided it had the right to go in there, assasinate the president and inflict General Pinochet on the people of Chile for the next 17 years. All because the Chilean people VOTED for a communist government and the US deemed that this wasn't in its interests.

You think this sort of thing might have something to do with anti-americanism?

BTW...

I am NOT a communist. I just believe the people of any independent nation have a right to elect their own government.

[Megalodon]

Originally posted by rikzilla

Is it so very far fetched that if he was behind the first WTC bombing...he could be behind the second attack??

-zilla

You of course understand that would make the US invasion of Afghanistan an unmotivated and illegal invasion, don't you?

[The Don]

Originally posted by Megalodon


You of course understand that would make the US invasion of Afghanistan an unmotivated and illegal invasion, don't you?

And that would be a deviation from the standard MO in what way ?

[The Don]

For the record, my reasons for my periodic anti-Americanism are as follows:

The dismissive way in which alternative opinions are dealt with on the world stage

The simplistic approach taken to assess people and cultures (good/evil)

A refusal to do things which are not in the U.S. immediate self interest

The gradual re-writing of history in an American fashion by means of Hollywood

The spinelessness of the rest of us which leta the U.S. get away with it

America's Penis (up to 1999) :

American Foreign Policy (http://kosovo99.tripod.com/us2.htm)


American Foreign Policy

The engine of American foreign policy has been fueled not by a devotion to any kind of morality, but rather by the necessity to serve other imperatives, which can be summarized as follows:

1) making the world safe for American corporations;

2) enhancing the financial statements of defense contractors at home who have contributed generously to members of congress;

3) preventing the rise of any society that might serve as a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model;

4) extending political and economic hegemony over as wide an area as possible, as befits a "great power."

This in the name of fighting a supposed moral crusade against what cold warriors convinced themselves, and the American people, was the existence of an evil International Communist Conspiracy, which in fact never existed, evil or not.

The United States carried out extremely serious interventions into more than 70 nations in this period. Among these were the following:

China 1945-49: Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of Chiang Kai-shek against the communists, even though the latter had been a much closer ally of the United States in the world war. The U.S. used defeated Japanese soldiers to fight for its side. The communists forced Chiang to flee to Taiwan in 1949.

Italy 1947-48: Using every trick in the book, the U.S. interfered in the elections to prevent the Communist Party from coming to power legally and fairly. This perversion of democracy was done in the name of "saving democracy" in Italy. The Communists lost. For the next few decades, the CIA, along with American corporations, continued to intervene in Italian elections, pouring in hundreds of millions of dollars and much psychological warfare to block the specter that was haunting Europe.

Greece 1947-49: Intervened in a civil war, taking the side of the neo-fascists against the Greek left which had fought the Nazis courageously. The neo-fascists won and instituted a highly brutal regime, for which the CIA created a new internal security agency, KYP. Before long, KYP was carrying out all the endearing practices of secret police everywhere, including systematic torture.

Philippines 1945-53: U.S. military fought against leftist forces (Huks) even while the Huks were still fighting against the Japanese invaders. After the war, the U.S. continued its fight against the Huks, defeating them, and then installing a series of puppets as president, culminating in the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos.

South Korea 1945-53: After World War II, the United States suppressed the popular progressive forces in favor of the conservatives who had collaborated with the Japanese. This led to a long era of corrupt, reactionary, and brutal governments.

Albania 1949-53: U.S. and Britain tried unsuccessfully to overthrow the communist government and install a new one that would have been pro-Western and composed largely of monarchists and collaborators with Italian fascists and Nazis.

Germany 1950s: The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961.

Iran 1953: Prime Minister Mossadegh was overthrown in a joint U.S. and British operation. Mossadegh had been elected to his position by a large majority of parliament, but he had made the fateful mistake of spearheading the movement to nationalize a British-owned oil company, the sole oil company operating in Iran. The coup restored the Shah to absolute power and began a period of 25 years of repression and torture, with the oil industry being restored to foreign ownership, as follows: Britain and the U.S., each 40 percent, other nations 20 percent.

Guatemala 1953-1990s: A CIA-organized coup overthrew the democratically-elected and progressive government of Jacobo Arbenz, initiating 40 years of death-squads, torture, disappearances, mass executions, and unimaginable cruelty, totaling well over 100,000 victims -- indisputably one of the most inhuman chapters of the 20th century. Arbenz had nationalized the U.S. firm, United Fruit Company, which had extremely close ties to the American power elite. As justification for the coup, Washington declared that Guatemala had been on the verge of a Soviet takeover, when in fact the Russians had so little interest in the country that it didn't even maintain diplomatic relations. The real problem in the eyes of Washington, in addition to United Fruit, was the danger of Guatemala's social democracy spreading to other countries in Latin America.

Middle East 1956-58: The Eisenhower Doctrine stated that the United States "is prepared to use armed forces to assist" any Middle East country "requesting assistance against armed aggression from any country controlled by international communism." The English translation of this was that no one would be allowed to dominate, or have excessive influence over, the middle east and its oil fields except the United States, and that anyone who tried would be, by definition, "communist." In keeping with this policy, the United States twice attempted to overthrow the Syrian government, staged several shows-of-force in the Mediterranean to intimidate movements opposed to U.S.-sported governments in Jordan and Lebanon, landed 14,000 troops in Lebanon, and conspired to overthrow or assassinate Nasser of Egypt and his troublesome middle-east nationalism.

Indonesia 1957-58: Sukarno, like Nasser, was the kind of Third World leader the United States could not abide by. He took neutralism in the cold war seriously, making trips to the Soviet Union and China (though to the White House as well). He nationalized many private holdings of the Dutch, the former colonial power. And he refused to crack down on the Indonesian Communist Party, which was walking the legal, peaceful road and making impressive gains electorally. Such policies could easily give other Third World leaders "wrong ideas." Thus it was that the CIA began throwing money into the elections, plotted Sukarno's assassination, tried to blackmail him with a phoney sex film, and joined forces with dissident military officers to wage a full-scale war against the government. Sukarno survived it all.

British Guiana/Guyana, 1953-64: For 11 years, two of the oldest democracies in the world, Great Britain and the United States, went to great lengths to prevent a democratically elected leader from occupying his office. Cheddi Jagan was another Third World leader who tried to remain neutral and independent. He was elected three times. Although a leftist -- more so than Sukarno or Arbenz -- his policies in office were not revolutionary. But he was still a marked man, for he represented Washington's greatest fear: building a society that might be a successful example of an alternative to the capitalist model. Using a wide variety of tactics -- from general strikes and disinformation to terrorism and British legalisms, the U.S. and Britain finally forced Jagan out in 1964. John F. Kennedy had given a direct order for his ouster, as, presumably, had Eisenhower.

One of the better-off countries in the region under Jagan, Guyana, by the 1980s, was one of the poorest. Its principal export became people.

Vietnam, 1950-73: The slippery slope began with siding with the French, the former colonizers and collaborators with the Japanese, against Ho Chi Minh and his followers who had worked closely with the Allied war effort and admired all things American. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of communist. He had written numerous letters to President Truman and the State Department asking for America's help in winning Vietnamese independence from the French and finding a peaceful solution for his country. All his entreaties were ignored. For he was some kind of communist. Ho Chi Minh modeled the new Vietnamese declaration of independence on the American, beginning it with "All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with ... " But this would count for nothing in Washington. Ho Chi Minh was some kind of communist.

Twenty-three years, and more than a million dead, later, the United States withdrew its military forces from Vietnam. Most people say that the U.S. lost the war. But by destroying Vietnam to its core, and poisoning the earth and the gene pool for generations, Washington had in fact achieved its main purpose: preventing what might have been the rise of a good development option for Asia. Ho Chi Minh was, after all, some kind of communist.

Cambodia 1955-73: Prince Sihanouk, yet another leader who did not fancy being an American client. After many years of hostility towards his regime, including assassination plots and the infamous Nixon/Kissinger secret "carpet bombings" of 1969-70, Washington finally overthrew Sihanouk in a coup in 1970. This was all that was needed to impel Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge forces to enter the fray. Five years later, they took power. But five years of American bombing had caused Cambodia's traditional economy to vanish. The old Cambodia had been destroyed forever.

Incredibly, the Khmer Rouge were to inflict even greater misery upon this unhappy land. To add to the irony, the United States supported Pol Pot, militarily and diplomatically, after their subsequent defeat by the Vietnamese.

The Congo/Zaire 1960-65: In June 1960, Patrice Lumumba became the Congo's first prime minister after independence from Belgium. But Belgium retained its vast mineral wealth in Katanga province, prominent Eisenhower administration officials had financial ties to the same wealth, and Lumumba, at Independence Day ceremonies before a host of foreign dignitaries, called for the nation's economic as well as its political liberation, and recounted a list of injustices against the natives by the white owners of the country. The poor man was obviously a "communist." The poor man was obviously doomed.

Eleven days later, Katanga province seceded, in September Lumumba was dismissed by the president at the instigation of the United States, and in January 1961 he was assassinated at the express request of Dwight Eisenhower. There followed several years of civil conflict and chaos and the rise to power of Mobutu Sese Seko, a man not a stranger to the CIA. Mobutu went on to rule the country for more than 30 years, with a level of corruption and cruelty that shocked even his CIA handlers. The Zairian people lived in abject poverty despite the plentiful natural wealth, while Mobutu became a multibillionaire.

Brazil 1961-64: President Joao Goulart was guilty of the usual crimes: He took an independent stand in foreign policy, resuming relations with socialist countries and opposing sanctions against Cuba; his administration passed a law limiting the amount of profits multinationals could transmit outside the country; a subsidiary of ITT was nationalized; he promoted economic and social reforms. And Attorney-General Robert Kennedy was uneasy about Goulart allowing "communists" to hold positions in government agencies. Yet the man was no radical. He was a millionaire land-owner and a Catholic who wore a medal of the Virgin around his neck. That, however, was not enough to save him. In 1964, he was overthrown in a military coup which had deep, covert American involvement. The official Washington line was ... yes, it's unfortunate that democracy has been overthrown in Brazil ... but, still, the country has been saved from communism.

For the next 15 years, all the features of military dictatorship which Latin America has come to know and love were instituted: Congress was shut down, political opposition was reduced to virtual extinction, habeas corpus for "political crimes" was suspended, criticism of the president was forbidden by law, labor unions were taken over by government interveners, mounting protests were met by police and military firing into crowds, peasants' homes were burned down, priests were brutalized ... disappearances, death squads, a remarkable degree and depravity of torture ... the government had a name for its program: the "moral rehabilitation" of Brazil.

Washington was very pleased. Brazil broke relations with Cuba and became one of the United States' most reliable allies in Latin America.

Dominican Republic, 1963-66: In February 1963, Juan Bosch took office as the first democratically elected president of the Dominican Republic since 1924. Here at last was John F. Kennedy's liberal anti-communist, to counter the charge that the U.S. supported only military dictatorships. Bosch's government was to be the long sought "showcase of democracy" that would put the lie to Fidel Castro. He was given the grand treatment in Washington shortly before he took office.

Bosch was true to his beliefs. He called for land reform; low-rent housing; modest nationalization of business; and foreign investment provided it was not excessively exploitative of the country; and other policies making up the program of any liberal Third World leader serious about social change. He was likewise serious about the thing called civil liberties: Communists, or those labeled as such, were not to be persecuted unless they actually violated the law.

A number of American officials and congressmen expressed their discomfort with Bosch's plans, as well as his stance of independence from the United States. Land reform and nationalization are always touchy issues in Washington, the stuff that "creeping socialism" is made of. In several quarters of the U.S. press Bosch was red-baited.

In September, the military boots marched. Bosch was out. The United States, which could discourage a military coup in Latin America with a frown, did nothing.

Nineteen months later, a revolt broke out which promised to put the exiled Bosch back into power. The United States sent 23,000 troops to help crush it.

Cuba 1959 to present: Fidel Castro came to power at the beginning of 1959. A U.S. National Security Council meeting of 10 March 1959 included on its agenda the feasibility of bringing "another government to power in Cuba." There followed 40 years of terrorist attacks, bombings, full-scale military invasion, sanctions, embargos, isolation, assassinations ... Cuba had carried out The Unforgivable Revolution, a very serious threat of setting a "good example" in Latin America.

The saddest part of this is that the world will never know what kind of society Cuba could have produced if left alone, if not constantly under the gun and the threat of invasion, if allowed to relax its control at home. The idealism, the vision, the talent, the internationalism were all there. But we'll never know. And that of course was the idea.

Indonesia 1965: A complex series of events, involving a supposed coup attempt, a counter-coup, and perhaps a counter-counter-coup, with American fingerprints apparent at various points, resulted in the ouster from power of Sukarno and his replacement by a military coup led by General Suharto. The massacre that began immediately -- of communists, communists sympathizers, suspected communists, suspected communist sympathizers, and none of the above -- was called by the New York Times "one of the most savage mass slayings of modern political history." The estimates of the number killed in the course of a few years begin at half a million and go above a million.

It was later learned that the U.S. embassy had compiled lists of "communist" operatives, from top echelons down to village cadres, as many as 5,000 names, and turned them over to the army, which then hunted those persons down and killed them. The Americans would then check off the names of those who had been killed or captured. "It really was a big help to the army. They probably killed a lot of people, and I probably have a lot of blood on my hands," said one U.S. diplomat. "But that's not all bad. There's a time when you have to strike hard at a decisive moment."

Chile, 1964-73: Salvador Allende was the worst possible scenario for a Washington imperialist. He could imagine only one thing worse than a Marxist in power -- an elected Marxist in power, who honored the constitution, and became increasingly popular. This shook the very foundation stones upon which the anti-communist tower was built: the doctrine, painstakingly cultivated for decades, that "communists" can take power only through force and deception, that they can retain that power only through terrorizing and brainwashing the population.

After sabotaging Allende's electoral endeavor in 1964, and failing to do so in 1970, despite their best efforts, the CIA and the rest of the American foreign policy machine left no stone unturned in their attempt to destabilize the Allende government over the next three years, paying particular attention to building up military hostility. Finally, in September 1973, the military overthrew the government, Allende dying in the process.

Thus it was that they closed the country to the outside world for a week, while the tanks rolled and the soldiers broke down doors; the stadiums rang with the sounds of execution and the bodies piled up along the streets and floated in the river; the torture centers opened for business; the subversive books were thrown to the bonfires; soldiers slit the trouser legs of women, shouting that "In Chile women wear dresses!"; the poor returned to their natural state; and the men of the world in Washington and in the halls of international finance opened up their check-books. In the end, more than 3,000 had been executed, thousands more tortured or disappeared.

Greece 1964-74: The military coup took place in April 1967, just two days before the campaign for national elections was to begin, elections which appeared certain to bring the veteran liberal leader George Papandreou back as prime minister. Papandreou had been elected in February 1964 with the only outright majority in the history of modern Greek elections. The successful machinations to unseat him had begun immediately, a joint effort of the Royal Court, the Greek military, and the American military and CIA stationed in Greece. The 1967 coup was followed immediately by the traditional martial law, censorship, arrests, beatings, torture, and killings, the victims totaling some 8,000 in the first month. This was accompanied by the equally traditional declaration that this was all being done to save the nation from a "communist takeover." Corrupting and subversive influences in Greek life were to be removed. Among these were miniskirts, long hair, and foreign newspapers; church attendance for the young would be compulsory.

It was torture, however, which most indelibly marked the seven-year Greek nightmare. James Becket, an American attorney sent to Greece by Amnesty International, wrote in December 1969 that "a conservative estimate would place at not less than two thousand" the number of people tortured, usually in the most gruesome of ways, often with equipment supplied by the United States.

Becket reported the following:

Hundreds of prisoners have listened to the little speech given by Inspector Basil Lambrou, who sits behind his desk which displays the red, white, and blue clasped-hand symbol of American aid. He tries to show the prisoner the absolute futility of resistance: "You make yourself ridiculous by thinking you can do anything. The world is divided in two. There are the communists on that side and on this side the free world. The Russians and the Americans, no one else. What are we? Americans. Behind me there is the government, behind the government is NATO, behind NATO is the U.S. You can't fight us, we are Americans."

George Papandreou was not any kind of radical. He was a liberal anti-communist type. But his son Andreas, the heir-apparent, while only a little to the left of his father had not disguised his wish to take Greece out of the cold war, and had questioned remaining in NATO, or at least as a satellite of the United States.

East Timor, 1975 to present: In December 1975, Indonesia invaded East Timor, which lies at the eastern end of the Indonesian archipelago, and which had proclaimed its independence after Portugal had relinquished control of it. The invasion was launched the day after U.S. President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger had left Indonesia after giving Suharto permission to use American arms, which, under U.S. law, could not be used for aggression. Indonesia was Washington's most valuable tool in Southeast Asia.

Amnesty International estimated that by 1989, Indonesian troops, with the aim of forcibly annexing East Timor, had killed 200,000 people out of a population of between 600,000 and 700,000. The United States consistently supported Indonesia's claim to East Timor (unlike the UN and the EU), and downplayed the slaughter to a remarkable degree, at the same time supplying Indonesia with all the military hardware and training it needed to carry out the job.

Nicaragua 1978-89: When the Sandinistas overthrew the Somoza dictatorship in 1978, it was clear to Washington that they might well be that long-dreaded beast -- "another Cuba." Under President Carter, attempts to sabotage the revolution took diplomatic and economic forms. Under Reagan, violence was the method of choice. For eight terribly long years, the people of Nicaragua were under attack by Washington's proxy army, the Contras, formed from Somoza's vicious National Guardsmen and other supporters of the dictator. It was all-out war, aiming to destroy the progressive social and economic programs of the government, burning down schools and medical clinics, raping, torturing, mining harbors, bombing and strafing. These were Ronald Reagan's "freedom fighters." There would be no revolution in Nicaragua.

Grenada 1979-84: What would drive the most powerful nation in the world to invade a country of 110 thousand? Maurice Bishop and his followers had taken power in a 1979 coup, and though their actual policies were not as revolutionary as Castro's, Washington was again driven by its fear of "another Cuba," particularly when public appearances by the Grenadian leaders in other countries of the region met with great enthusiasm.

U.S. destabilization tactics against the Bishop government began soon after the coup and continued until 1983, featuring numerous acts of disinformation and dirty tricks. The American invasion in October 1983 met minimal resistance, although the U.S. suffered 135 killed or wounded; there were also some 400 Grenadian casualties, and 84 Cubans, mainly construction workers. What conceivable human purpose these people died for has not been revealed.

At the end of 1984, a questionable election was held which was won by a man supported by the Reagan administration. One year later, the human rights organization, Council on Hemispheric Affairs, reported that Grenada's new U.S.-trained police force and counter-insurgency forces had acquired a reputation for brutality, arbitrary arrest, and abuse of authority, and were eroding civil rights.

In April 1989, the government issued a list of more than 80 books which were prohibited from being imported. Four months later, the prime minister suspended parliament to forestall a threatened no-confidence vote resulting from what his critics called "an increasingly authoritarian style."

Libya 1981-89: Libya refused to be a proper Middle East client state of Washington. Its leader, Muammar el-Qaddafi, was uppity. He would have to be punished. U.S. planes shot down two Libyan planes in what Libya regarded as its air space. The U.S. also dropped bombs on the country, killing at least 40 people, including Qaddafi's daughter. There were other attempts to assassinate the man, operations to overthrow him, a major disinformation campaign, economic sanctions, and blaming Libya for being behind the Pan Am 103 bombing without any good evidence.

Panama, 1989: Washington's mad bombers strike again. December 1989, a large tenement barrio in Panama City wiped out, 15,000 people left homeless. Counting several days of ground fighting against Panamanian forces, 500-something dead was the official body count, what the U.S. and the new U.S.-installed Panamanian government admitted to; other sources, with no less evidence, insisted that thousands had died; 3,000-something wounded. Twenty-three Americans dead, 324 wounded.

Question from reporter: "Was it really worth it to send people to their death for this? To get Noriega?"

George Bush: "Every human life is precious, and yet I have to answer, yes, it has been worth it."

Manuel Noriega had been an American ally and informant for years until he outlived his usefulness. But getting him was not the only motive for the attack. Bush wanted to send a clear message to the people of Nicaragua, who had an election scheduled in two months, that this might be their fate if they reelected the Sandinistas. Bush also wanted to flex some military muscle to illustrate to Congress the need for a large combat-ready force even after the very recent dissolution of the "Soviet threat." The official explanation for the American ouster was Noriega's drug trafficking, which Washington had known about for years and had not been at all bothered by.

Iraq 1990s: Relentless bombing for more than 40 days and nights, against one of the most advanced nations in the Middle East, devastating its ancient and modern capital city; 177 million pounds of bombs falling on the people of Iraq, the most concentrated aerial onslaught in the history of the world; depleted uranium weapons incinerating people, causing cancer; blasting chemical and biological weapon storages and oil facilities; poisoning the atmosphere to a degree perhaps never matched anywhere; burying soldiers alive, deliberately; the infrastructure destroyed, with a terrible effect on health; sanctions continued to this day multiplying the health problems; perhaps a million children dead by now from all of these things, even more adults.

Iraq was the strongest military power amongst the Arab states. This may have been their crime. Noam Chomsky has written: It's been a leading, driving doctrine of U.S. foreign policy since the 1940s that the vast and unparalleled energy resources of the Gulf region will be effectively dominated by the United States and its clients, and, crucially, that no independent, indigenous force will be permitted to have a substantial influence on the administration of oil production and price.

Afghanistan 1979-92: Everyone knows of the unbelievable repression of women in Afghanistan, carried out by Islamic fundamentalists, even before the Taliban. But how many people know that during the late 1970s and most of the 1980s, Afghanistan had a government committed to bringing the incredibly backward nation into the 20th century, including giving women equal rights? What happened, however, is that the United States poured billions of dollars into waging a terrible war against this government, simply because it was supported by the Soviet Union. Prior to this, CIA operations had knowingly increased the probability of a Soviet intervention, which is what occurred. In the end, the United States won, and the women, and the rest of Afghanistan, lost. More than a million dead, three million disabled, five million refugees, in total about half the population.

El Salvador, 1980-92: Salvador's dissidents tried to work within the system. But with U.S. support, the government made that impossible, using repeated electoral fraud and murdering hundreds of protestors and strikers. In 1980, the dissidents took to the gun, and civil war.

Officially, the U.S. military presence in El Salvador was limited to an advisory capacity. In actuality, military and CIA personnel played a more active role on a continuous basis. About 20 Americans were killed or wounded in helicopter and plane crashes while flying reconnaissance or other missions over combat areas, and considerable evidence surfaced of a U.S. role in the ground fighting as well. The war came to an official end in 1992; 75,000 civilian deaths and the U.S. Treasury depleted by six billion dollars. Meaningful social change has been largely thwarted. A handful of the wealthy still own the country, the poor remain as ever, and dissidents still have to fear right-wing death squads.

Haiti, 1987-94: The U.S. supported the Duvalier family dictatorship for 30 years, then opposed the reformist priest, Jean-Bertrand Aristide. Meanwhile, the CIA was working intimately with death squads, torturers and drug traffickers. With this as background, the Clinton White House found itself in the awkward position of having to pretend -- because of all their rhetoric about "democracy" -- that they supported Aristide's return to power in Haiti after he had been ousted in a 1991 military coup. After delaying his return for more than two years, Washington finally had its military restore Aristide to office, but only after obliging the priest to guarantee that he would not help the poor at the expense of the rich, and that he would stick closely to free-market economics. This meant that Haiti would continue to be the assembly plant of the Western Hemisphere, with its workers receiving literally starvation wages.

Yugoslavia, 1999: The United States is bombing the country back to a pre-industrial era. It would like the world to believe that its intervention is motivated only by "humanitarian" impulses.



Penis envy?

When the answers seem ridiculously obvious to you, it's a sure sign that you don't understand the question.

NB : I won't be replying any more to this thread. Talking about politics never seems to achieve anything at all.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant


I think you may find that this anti-Americanism is absolutely endemic throughout the entire globe. And I am not-sure there is anything 'knee-jerk' about it. Rather I think it has been brewing for a very long time.

Really?? See, this is what I hadn't noticed. All I really know is what I have myself experienced. I lived in Frankfurt/Hoecsht for 3 years and the Germans were very supportive. In 3 years I never saw a hint of anti-Americanism...except for Red Brigades types....(and they were communist) Instead, I saw the fall of the Berlin wall...and the joy of a people who were liberated/re-united. The US had a great deal to do with that outcome.

Also, I married a British girl...1986. I was well recieved by her entire family and friends. Again, no hint that "endemic" anti-Americanism was felt by anyone that I met. In fact my father-in-law was a policeman at Windsor castle and was at the head of the security detail there during Ronald Reagan's visit. He was a big fan of both Ronnie and Maggie,...moreso than I was to be sure. He and I debated these things...guess what? I was the liberal in that debate.



We don't believe Americans can do no right. We see the American government doing some things we consider VERY wrong, and we see a large amount of ignorance amongst the American public with regard to Americas relationship with the outside world. The real problem is hypocrisy - the US attitude is "WE make the rules. YOU follow them."


Again, this seems more an indictment of the "system" than the US per se.



If it was about WMDs then the real enemy is North Korea. This war is both about oil and about American political control of the middle east, not to mention a little bit of "We haven't kicked enough asses since september 11th, we can't find Osama so let's attack Iraq."

We'll have to agree to disagree on that one.




They are ******* non-existent, Rik! Al-Qaeda are a bunch of religous fundamentalists. Saddam Hussein is the closest thing to a secular leader anywhere in the middle east. Al-Qaeda hates Iraq almost as much as the US do. There are no links between Al-Qaeda and Saddam.

The beauty of the well executed false flag operation is that it provides no overtly tenable linkage to the actual sponsor. In Mylroie's book she answers the charge that Saddam could not use al-Qaida by showing how he has used similar groups in the past. Read it sometime. The argument is perfectly reasonable. You or I could not possibly know there are no links at all...how could you know that?


You talking about the people or the government? I think you don't understand the difference between US and non-US attitudes to military power. You think the GERMANS envy US military power? Really? :eek:

I don't know...maybe. It's a theory Geoff...I could be wrong. I'm already modifying it.

Communist-driven anti-war movement? :confused:

Click this...tell me what you think (http://www.tacitus.org/archives/000327.html#000327)


NOBODY I speak to supports this war. NOBODY. Just about the only person in the UK that does support it is vice-president-poodle-Blair. It isn't just 'communists' who think this war is unjustified. It is 95% of the population of Western Europe, including half of the British Cabinet!

Maybe you should branch out a little bit?? Also, don't you think anti-Americanism is more an indictment of the entire capitalist system than it is against just America??


This is true. 9/11 changed everything. But if you think that Iraq has real links with Al-Qaeda then you have been duped. Iraq is just a soft target - it is about revenge, about kicking some Arab ass, about US political control and self-image, about control of oil supplies, it is about the US throwing its weight around like the Alpha-male in a troop of chimpanzees.

But, would the US be acting like this if not for the 9/11 attacks? I think not. We didn't have a known security issue with Iraq before 9/11. After 9/11 it's a little hard to ignore. I've read 3 books by Iraq experts, and all agree that Saddam is capable of such a false flag operation. We Americans may indeed have been blissfully unaware of what our government is doing covertly elsewhere in the world. But 9/11 was a little hard to be unaware of.

You really want to understand anti-Americanism?

Yes...really I do.

All countries to a certain extent act in their own interests. Ultimately the US is also just acting in its own interests, but there are some additional factors at work. The cold war is over - the US has the military strength to take out any opponent it chooses. So the US has the ability to impose whatever solution serves its own best interests whever and whenever it wants to. And it has a proven track record of doing this over and over again, for decades, with no regard for the consequences in the regions where it intervenes. This on its own is bad enough, but nothing that no other powerful Empire hasn't also done. What is different about the US is the accompanying belief that they are actually the good guys. It is not enough for them to throw their weight around and **** up regions from one end of the Earth to the other - they actually want everyone to like them as well!. They actually believe that they are HELPING the rest of the world, by dropping bombs on innocent people to serve US interests, by forcing regime change to serve US interests (including the removal of a democratically elected government in Chile and the replacement with a US-backed dictatorship which murdered hundreds of thousands of people!), by trashing international treaties on everything from climate change to chemical weapons. Now - to put a cherry on the icing on the cake - the US is has declared that it is going to attack IRAQ even if this means directly ignoring the wishes of the UN security council.

Now you are becoming emotional. US bombs don't "fall on the innocent"...sure sometimes they miss, but you guys act as if we are carpet bombing residential neighborhoods. That is just nonsense. The US was not interested in "regime change" in Iraq until after 9/11.....Saddam's problems are not America's fault. His demise will be more directly traceable to 9/11. Had these terrorists not attacked us...Saddam could go on about his business of oppressing his people. That's the ugly part. That we'd be content to let Iraqi people suffer under sanctions forever as long as Saddam is contained. Screw that! We should have always made humanitarian issues paramount. If you want to know what disappoints me most about Iraq? It's the callous disregard for people's suffering there....in that regard I am also anti-American.


Anti-Americanism exists for many reasons, but the one that stands above all others is the hypocrisy. It is the combination of inflicting global terrorism on the rest of the world at the same time that they try to convince everyone that they are the knights in shining armour protecting the rest of the world from global terrorism. To most of the rest of the world, the US is the terrorist.

That's just ridiculous. Please show me the government anywhere that is not hopelessly mired in it's own hypocrisy. You act as if Americans invented it. I'm sure the Islamic Fundies think we're the terrorists...that's okay, because I know they also applaud people who fly planes into buildings as heros and martyrs. It's the westerners who think we're terrorists that interest me. I'd like to understand the rational thought process that is used to take one on that little mental trip into bizarro-land. Honestly, I can't think of a really rational way to get there.


PLEASE don't take this personally. I do not hate all Americans, and I certainly don't hate you. Americans tend to interpret an intellectual attack on their nations values as a personal attack. That is also part of the problem. Tony Blair doesn't represent me. Why should Bush represent you?


I don't. I like you Geoff. I think you are a kind and thoughtful and interestingly eccentric person. :D I used to take such stuff personally, but have grown out of that phase...and I thank you mostly, as well as Claus Larson for helping me to think instead of emote. Bush represents me by being my president. I don't like most of what he's about...hell he's on tv right now pandering to Christian fundies....but the office he holds does indeed represent me. IMHO he's right on about Iraq. I dislike him on much else....but in the war that's been foisted upon this country, he has shown restraint coupled with aggressive moves against "the bad guys". Iraq, al-Qaida, and fundie Islam are the bad guys Geoff. They really are. Do we need another 9/11 to tell us this? Haven't we learned already??


I am a human being much more than I am English.

I also am just a human being...who happens to live on the North American continent. Just another corner of this pale blue dot that we all have to find a way of sharing.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Megalodon


You of course understand that would make the US invasion of Afghanistan an unmotivated and illegal invasion, don't you?

You're right!!! Let's get a UN resolution!!!:D :rolleyes:

[armageddonman]

"Germany 1950s: The CIA orchestrated a wide-ranging campaign of sabotage, terrorism, dirty tricks, and psychological warfare against East Germany. This was one of the factors which led to the building of the Berlin Wall in 1961."

Complete bogus.

[Craig]

Pie - Why is it that if anything or anyone does not agree with America, it is classed as anti-american?

Rikzilla - I oppose Bush's trashing of the Kyoto treaty. This means I do not agree with America...however, I am not anti-American.

I believe that Pie's observation is an accurate - although exaggerated - one as you did say:

...overtly anti-American on the issue of Iraq...

Is it not, by the logic used in this statement, equally valid to describe you as being, for example, "overtly anti-French on the issue of Iraq"?

The term "anti-American" does seem to be interchangeable with "disagrees with America".

[Thanz]

[i]The beauty of the well executed false flag operation is that it provides no overtly tenable linkage to the actual sponsor. In Mylroie's book she answers the charge that Saddam could not use al-Qaida by showing how he has used similar groups in the past. Read it sometime. The argument is perfectly reasonable. You or I could not possibly know there are no links at all...how could you know that? [/B]

You realize that this is a very weak argument. It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, but it must be a swan - remember the ugly duckling!!!!

As for your arguments about anti-americanism being against the capitalist system, rather than America, this just doesn't hold water. Why would there not be virulent anti-canadianism then? They are just as capitalist. Canadian soldiers have been part of every UN peacekeeping mission, so they stick their nose in other countries. But you don't hear about anti-Canadianism.

UCE is talking about the foreign policy decisions of one nation, the USA, and how those decisions have lead to the belief in many quarters that the USA is hypocritical. Nothing to do with the "system" at all.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Thanz


You realize that this is a very weak argument. It looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, swims like a duck, but it must be a swan - remember the ugly duckling!!!!

As for your arguments about anti-americanism being against the capitalist system, rather than America, this just doesn't hold water. Why would there not be virulent anti-canadianism then? They are just as capitalist. Canadian soldiers have been part of every UN peacekeeping mission, so they stick their nose in other countries. But you don't hear about anti-Canadianism.

UCE is talking about the foreign policy decisions of one nation, the USA, and how those decisions have lead to the belief in many quarters that the USA is hypocritical. Nothing to do with the "system" at all.

Ahh...but the examples he uses are telling. They are all communist objections to American foreign policy. This again points up the fact that it's more about capitalism than it is about America. Also, if Canada were the main champion of capitalism worldwide, indeed they would be the one whom the anti's would be against. America fills that role.

Also, there are many pacifist groups that champion the cause of Tibet against China. Why don't we ask WWP or ANSWER their position on Tibet?? I think they'd obfuscate....after all, they don't want to lose any of their sheep by letting their disguise slip too much eh??

-zilla

[American]

I don't mean just the army, which is flimsy alone. But with Air Force and marine components, they are invincible compared to such an enemy. You be the judge:

Texas National Guard (http://www.agd.state.tx.us/)
French (http://www.defense.gouv.fr/terre/)
Germany (http://www.bundeswehr.de/)

I could not find a link for Iraq's army, which probably means they don't even have much left to speak!

[Advocate]

A couple separate comments/questions:

1. Isn't it possible to envy some things about a nation without wanting to be exactly like that nation? I would say that most governments would love for their nation to be as wealthy and powerful as the US. They may not want the lifestyle or the politics of the US, but it would be hard to find many nations that don't want to be rich and powerful. IMHO they would also like to be able to act unilaterally as the US can. Even in the case of those who wouldn't do so, being ABLE to gives them options they would not otherwise have.

2. While I think the envy of American power and wealth is part of the world's hatred of America, the particular causes to which the US has applied this power and wealth are a part of it also. I think a lot of American intervention has been justified, but some has not and people remember the things they don't agree with a lot longer than the ones they do.

3. If the UN is unwilling to enforce its resolutions on Iraq, why do they expect the US or anyone else will care what they do or do not support?

[Jon_in_london]

The beauty of the well executed false flag operation is that it provides no overtly tenable linkage to the actual sponsor. In Mylroie's book she answers the charge that Saddam could not use al-Qaida by showing how he has used similar groups in the past. Read it sometime. The argument is perfectly reasonable. You or I could not possibly know there are no links at all...how could you know that?

woo woo!!!!

Surely you must realise how ridiculous your point of view is?

Maybe you should put your aluminium foil helmet on before they come and getcha?

Rik,

Since you went to the bother of PMing to ask for a reply I will do so.


Really?? See, this is what I hadn't noticed. All I really know is what I have myself experienced. I lived in Frankfurt/Hoecsht for 3 years and the Germans were very supportive. In 3 years I never saw a hint of anti-Americanism...except for Red Brigades types....(and they were communist) Instead, I saw the fall of the Berlin wall...and the joy of a people who were liberated/re-united. The US had a great deal to do with that outcome.


Nobody said everything the US did was bad - that isn't the point. The problems occurs when there is a clash between US interests and the interests of the rest of the world.


The beauty of the well executed false flag operation is that it provides no overtly tenable linkage to the actual sponsor. In Mylroie's book she answers the charge that Saddam could not use al-Qaida by showing how he has used similar groups in the past. Read it sometime. The argument is perfectly reasonable. You or I could not possibly know there are no links at all...how could you know that?


It just doesn't add up, Rik. Saddam has a long history of fighting against religious groups. The reason that Osama Bin Laden fell out with the US in the first place was because he had already offered to send an army to oust Saddam from Iraq and the Saudis said no and invited the Americans instead. Al-Qaeda was trying to remove Saddam while America had not even registered him as an enemy. So why on Earth should I beleive that Saddam and Al-Qaeda are now allies againsts the American 'beast' when it is so damned obvious that the United States is just looking for any excuse at all to attack Iraq? From my perspective it looks like you are just trying to avoid concluding that your countries leaders have just decided it is a good time to conduct a war and are now engaged in a propaganda exercise to justify it. Everything points to that theory.


Communist-driven anti-war movement?

Click this...tell me what you think


I think its some pictures of bad things done by Iraqis and Serbians.....so what?

You didn't comment on the actions of the US government to remove the democratically elected government of Chile on 11th September 1973. That was in the name of 'defending the world from Communism'. The truth was the US was trying to force propaganda that the only communists that ever got power seized it against the will of the people and oppressed people. For the people of Chile to ELECT a communists government made the US propaganda look like the stupid lies it was so Nixon decided to do everything in his power to remove this government from office. The military government that followed it made life in Chile ABSOLUTE HELL for 17 years. Iraq is guilty of gassing a few kurds, the Serbs of slaughtering a few muslims. Compared to the international crimes of the United States these things are almost irrelevant. The US record is much worse.

Please comment on the incident in 1973. This 'fear of communists' thing is peculiar to the United States. I find it quite bemusing. Does the ghost of Senator McCarthy still prowl?


Maybe you should branch out a little bit??


Really - I have know a lot of people and NOBODY supports this war. On Saturday there is going to be an enormous demonstration in London. Every time Tony Blair faces the public he gets nothing but a stream of abuse from everyone who can get near him. One poll showed that even 65% of senior officers in the British army thought this war was unjustififed, and they are not known for their pacifism.


Also, don't you think anti-Americanism is more an indictment of the entire capitalist system than it is against just America??


They are linked. They are not the same thing though.


But, would the US be acting like this if not for the 9/11 attacks? I think not.


Wrong question. Would 9/11 have happened if uit wasn;t for 50 years of American interference all over the world protecting its interests. Some Americans still don't seem to understand that 9/11 happened because of what previous American administrations have done to the rest of the world. Responding by behaving even worse will not prevent another 9/11. It will encourage something worse.


We didn't have a known security issue with Iraq before 9/11.


9/11 was carried out by Al-Qaeda. Of 180 Al-Qaeda suspects arrested in Europe since 9/11, a grand total of NONE of them were Iraqis. NONE.


We Americans may indeed have been blissfully unaware of what our government is doing covertly elsewhere in the world. But 9/11 was a little hard to be unaware of.


Then be aware of the reasons. Please think about and comment on the incident in Chile. Think about what it must be like to have grown up under Pinochets brutal regime knowing it was put there by an American administration which illegally ousted a democratically elected communist government. Then think about the fact that most of the American public don't even know this happened. Then think about all the other LONG list of similar American interventions.


That's just ridiculous. Please show me the government anywhere that is not hopelessly mired in it's own hypocrisy.


Show me one that is, Rik.


You act as if Americans invented it.


In a way, they did. Americans have used propaganda and brainwashing to a level never previously seen, not even in Nazi Germany. The example of taking a story about British WWII heroics and retelling the story with Americans in the lead role is typical. Hollywood produces a continual stream of movies where America saves the world. Everything in the US has to be bigger and better than everywhere else. But the actual level of accurate education the US people have, even about their own history, seems to be minimal. To get through to America needed something as immense as 9/11. Osama was trained by the CIA, remember?



I'm sure the Islamic Fundies think we're the terrorists...


I think you're the terrorists. e.g. CHILE. What was that if it wasn't terrorism? What word do you think we should give to it?

What would you call it if another country spent billions of dollars undermining the political institutions in the US and then sponsored a military coup in Washington which destroyed American democracy and caused 17 years of suffering and misery for the American people?

Can you actually even imagine what it would be like to be the victim of such an apalling act?

The US is already recovering from 11/9/01. Chile is still paying the price NOW of 11/9/73. Type 'Pinochet' into google.

:(

And that was just ONE example of many.


that's okay, because I know they also applaud people who fly planes into buildings as heros and martyrs. It's the westerners who think we're terrorists that interest me. I'd like to understand the rational thought process that is used to take one on that little mental trip into bizarro-land.


Chile, Chile, Chile......

I don't get the impression you have really thought about this from the perspective of the people who have been victims of American interventions all over the world.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by UndercoverElephant
Rik,

Since you went to the bother of PMing to ask for a reply I will do so.

Me: Thanks

Nobody said everything the US did was bad - that isn't the point. The problems occurs when there is a clash between US interests and the interests of the rest of the world.

Me: So I guess you are saying here that the US did a good thing in defeating the USSR in the cold war because the result for Europe was positive?? Ie; the reunification of Germany. The freeing of the Baltic republics. The freeing of Poland...Czechoslavakia...Hungary
....Romania?? I agree. It was a great victory against communism...and Europe was the primary beneficiary.

It just doesn't add up, Rik. Saddam has a long history of fighting against religious groups.

Me: In all I've read about him, he seems to have come up like a mafia Don. Mostly by murdering Ba'ath party enemies...then his own rivals within the Ba'ath party. Then any military officer who became popular enough to be a threat. The only primarily religious people he regularly fights are the Shia's in the south of Iraq. But he has also been known to use whomever he could when he saw an advantage in doing so. His use of the Baluchs and Kurds against Iran....his use of Abu Nidal's organization against the Jews. I have not read anything yet that states he has any problem with Bin Laden. I'm sure they dislike each other because of the secular/religious split in their philosophies...but I doubt either are above using the other if/when they see an advantage in doing so. Stranger coalitions have been formed before. Politics indeed makes strange bedfellows.

The reason that Osama Bin Laden fell out with the US in the first place was because he had already offered to send an army to oust Saddam from Iraq and the Saudis said no and invited the Americans instead.

Me:I didn't know this. Did Bin Laden ever actually have an armed force which could remove the Iraqi regular army from Kuwait?? This I doubt! His people were never more than rag-tag guerillas. The Iraqi Special Republican Guard are well versed at massacreing such groups. They're not much good against the US Army, but they are highly effective against guerillas (even the Kurds of the north, with terrain in their favor can't stand against the SRG) You can't seriously believe that Bin Laden ever had the power to stand up to Saddam!? Geoff, that's not even slightly supportable!

Al-Qaeda was trying to remove Saddam while America had not even registered him as an enemy. So why on Earth should I beleive that Saddam and Al-Qaeda are now allies againsts the American 'beast' when it is so damned obvious that the United States is just looking for any excuse at all to attack Iraq?

Me: Any excuse at all?? Go read UNSC res 687. There have been reasons...damn good ones....to resume hostilities for years. This cease fire agreement has been disregarded by Iraq since inception! (Go look at that other thread I started)

From my perspective it looks like you are just trying to avoid concluding that your countries leaders have just decided it is a good time to conduct a war and are now engaged in a propaganda exercise to justify it. Everything points to that theory.

Me: Ok, I'll give you that...but the next question is "why now?" The only good answer is the only thing that has really changed. 9/11. That's the only difference between then and now that I can see. Not oil, not imperialism, hegemony, or anything else. The only real difference, the only way to get here from there is to consider the implications of 9/11.


I think its some pictures of bad things done by Iraqis and Serbians.....so what?

Me: Read it again,...North Korea, Tiananmen Square, Pol Pot,... communism....and it's links to ANSWER....and ANSWER's lead role in the American anti-war movement. Real linkage there. Communism is not dead...it's just biding it's time and has one hell of an axe to grind.

You didn't comment on the actions of the US government to remove the democratically elected government of Chile on 11th September 1973. That was in the name of 'defending the world from Communism'. The truth was the US was trying to force propaganda that the only communists that ever got power seized it against the will of the people and oppressed people. For the people of Chile to ELECT a communists government made the US propaganda look like the stupid lies it was so Nixon decided to do everything in his power to remove this government from office. The military government that followed it made life in Chile ABSOLUTE HELL for 17 years. Iraq is guilty of gassing a few kurds, the Serbs of slaughtering a few muslims. Compared to the international crimes of the United States these things are almost irrelevant. The US record is much worse.

Me: I don't know enough about Chile to comment. That was a bit before my time. I did once bring up to my father that I didn't understand the fact that if some Americans were communists, why didn't they run for office...etc? He told me that communism was anathema to democracy. He said that a democracy ideally is subject to the will of the people....but that there are limits. He told me the communists are against democracy and would only seek to undermine the system from within. Therefore the system would not tolerate communist participation. Also, as an example of democracy in action, in Colorado they put a referendum to the vote...it passed by a large margin. The referendum was in favor of state sanctioning of discrimination against gay people. The federal government struck it down as unconstitutional (as well they should have)....so you see Geoff, the will of the people is not the primary concern. Constitutionality and human rights are. Communists do not allow democracy to flourish, they respect no constitutions or bills of rights.....even if they are initially elected by the people, they will use such elected power to undermine the democratic process that got them there.. I'm sure Pinochet was a real bad guy...but have not studied him, so you'll have to forgive me if I decline to comment. The US record could hardly be worse?? Please give examples of US sponsored genocide within the last 100 years. Try not to use phony sources.

Please comment on the incident in 1973. This 'fear of communists' thing is peculiar to the United States. I find it quite bemusing. Does the ghost of Senator McCarthy still prowl?

Me: The ghost of communism is not a ghost. Like I said above I can't comment on 1973 without more knowledge. I guess folks in the UK are more used to seeing communists running around??When I first met my wife's sister in Bristol she was living in a group house full of college students...there was a poster in the restroom of Lenin, looking all heroic. :rolleyes: That's something that is not common in the US. Is this something that you see alot of Geoff? If so, then it's obvious communism isn't dead in the UK. I've seen quite a bit of that over there in the few times I've visited. I've never seen it over here unless you're talking about the World Bank/IMF protests. (Our commies are more prone to idolize Che Guevara tho :D)


Really - I have know a lot of people and NOBODY supports this war. On Saturday there is going to be an enormous demonstration in London. Every time Tony Blair faces the public he gets nothing but a stream of abuse from everyone who can get near him. One poll showed that even 65% of senior officers in the British army thought this war was unjustififed, and they are not known for their pacifism.

Me: We travel in different circles my friend. I could say the same in reverse, except that I have cultivated a few counter-cultural friends...including you BTW...who are of the anti-war opinion. No harm in that, they are good people like yourself whose motives are humanitarian....misguided and naive IMO,...but humanitarian indeed,

So, now you know me,...and you can no longer honestly say that NOBODY you know supports this war. ;)

As far as polls go, I saw one that said 51% of Americans believe that primates should have the rights of human children! It's called poll manipulation. Here's an example:
-----------------------------------------------

Look more closely at the Doris Day Animal League survey. The New York Times Magazine report that 51 percent of Americans think "primates are entitled to the same rights as human children" goes far beyond anything in the actual poll. First, the poll didn't ask about primates -- a category including anything from pygmy mouse lemurs to gorillas -- but about chimpanzees. Second, the actual question gave respondents four options to choose from: In brief, they could say that chimps ought to be treated "like property," "similar to children," "the same as adults" or "not sure." Given this particular set of choices, option two was the obvious pick -- almost as if respondents were steered toward it. And after 51 percent had chosen "similar to children," the Zogby survey inexplicably translated "similar" into "the same" in its conclusions -- a very big difference. The Doris Day Animal League then reported this in its press materials.
---------------------------------

...conclusion: Polls can be manipulated. Easily.


Wrong question. Would 9/11 have happened if uit wasn;t for 50 years of American interference all over the world protecting its interests.

Me: Let's rephrase that and see how it sounds. Would the rape have happened had the victim been less provocative? Your statement is simply blaming the victim. Basically saying "if you guys weren't such **********, this would never have happened." Sorry but that argument doesn't wash. ********** are everywhere, should they all be killed then?? Aren't Europeans generally opposed to capital punishment? Even for those who are demonstrablly guilty?

Some Americans still don't seem to understand that 9/11 happened because of what previous American administrations have done to the rest of the world. Responding by behaving even worse will not prevent another 9/11. It will encourage something worse.

Me: Worse? No man, the only thing saving us from something worse is the vigorous prosecution of those who would do us harm. The only al-Qaida operatives I do not fear are the ones fertilizing the Afghan countryside.

9/11 was carried out by Al-Qaeda. Of 180 Al-Qaeda suspects arrested in Europe since 9/11, a grand total of NONE of them were Iraqis. NONE.

Me: Do you know how many at Gitmo are Iraqi?? :confused: Even so it doesn't mean Saddam isn't giving aid to al Qaida.

Then be aware of the reasons. Please think about and comment on the incident in Chile. Think about what it must be like to have grown up under Pinochets brutal regime knowing it was put there by an American administration which illegally ousted a democratically elected communist government. Then think about the fact that most of the American public don't even know this happened. Then think about all the other LONG list of similar American interventions.

Me: How can I think about the long list of things I'm supposed to be ignorant of?? Tell ya what,...I'll look at the history...then get back to you. However, even given that we are guilty of horrendous crap in Chile (over 30 years ago)...what does that have to do with fundie muslims flying planes into the WTC...or Saddam's crimes in Iraq??


Show me one that is, Rik.

Me: Hypocritical? Or more hypocritical? Saddam's Iraq for one. The idiotic African regimes which will allow their people to starve while refusing even milled GMO grains. Kim Il Jong building nuclear missiles while his people starve. ....that's just off the top of my head. If I research it I'm bound to have a limitless supply.


In a way, they did. Americans have used propaganda and brainwashing to a level never previously seen, not even in Nazi Germany. The example of taking a story about British WWII heroics and retelling the story with Americans in the lead role is typical. Hollywood produces a continual stream of movies where America saves the world. Everything in the US has to be bigger and better than everywhere else. But the actual level of accurate education the US people have, even about their own history, seems to be minimal. To get through to America needed something as immense as 9/11. Osama was trained by the CIA, remember?

Me: The Mujahedeen were aided by the CIA...Osama was one among them. You say that America has done some good in this world (after I mentioned the fall of the Berlin wall) yet you pillory the US for it's aid to the Afghan resistance fighting against Soviet occupation! Which is it Geoff? Berlin wall...good or bad?? Tearing down of the iron curtain...good or bad??

Don't you think such pressures as the Afghan war contributed to the fall of the Sovs...and the re-unification of Berlin, etc? Don't you think it's a little unrealistic to assume that America in it's successful prosecution of the cold war must have known they were creating this monster? If so, how?....Are we supposed to be psychic? If you really think the fall of the iron curtain...and all it entailled was worth it.....you're going to have to cut a little slack to the US for our supposed creation of Osama. You Euro's are trying to have your cake and eat it too.

I think you're the terrorists. e.g. CHILE. What was that if it wasn't terrorism? What word do you think we should give to it?

Me: Think what you like...but that won't make it so. Besides, if we are terrorists you must have some example that's fresher than 30 years old??

What would you call it if another country spent billions of dollars undermining the political institutions in the US and then sponsored a military coup in Washington which destroyed American democracy and caused 17 years of suffering and misery for the American people?

Me: There can be no meaningful communist democracy. Name for me please a communist government that holds actual elections? Elections that Jimmy Carter would approve of. :D

Can you actually even imagine what it would be like to be the victim of such an apalling act?

The US is already recovering from 11/9/01. Chile is still paying the price NOW of 11/9/73. Type 'Pinochet' into google.

:(

And that was just ONE example of many.

Me: Like I said...I'll read up on Chile


Chile, Chile, Chile......

Me: I know,...I know.... sheesh

I don't get the impression you have really thought about this from the perspective of the people who have been victims of American interventions all over the world.

Me: I have the feeling that you haven't thought about this at all from an American perspective either. Isn't that the point of this debate?

-zilla

edited for a tad more readability...

[Number Six]

Someone said:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
America is a world power....The last superpower. People all over the globe despise America's use of military and economic power while coveting that same power.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Someone else answered: "People despise the unilaterilism of the US."


Both are true. But let's not pretend they're separate things. The latter is an inevitable result of the former.

I think the best example of hating and coveting at the same time is the movies/music thing. Some countries actually ban or limit by law the amount of American movies or TV shows that can play. Note that it's not like people are forced to watch these things. They can watch whatever they want. But the governments know that given the choice they'll watch American movies and become "Americanized" and so those things are banned or limited. It's like a shopping addict chaining themselves to their sofa so they don't go out to the stores and buy a bunch of stuff. Can you really blame the stores for that?

I find it ironic that lots of people in places thousands of miles away from the US, living in countries where US movies are banned or limited, know more about US movies than lots of people in the US, where people have the freedom to watch them anytime they want.