Anti-Americanism in Europe

[AmateurScientist]

If you ever wanted an example of how Western Europeans can be just as stupid and unthinking as Americans sometimes, look no further than here:

Rise of Anti-Americanism (http://www.msnbc.com/news/871193.asp?0cv=CA01&cp1=1)

Tony Blair's right. Such conspiracy theory mongering is a foolish indulgence. European Anti-Americans, get over yourselves and your pathetic envy of the American lifestyle. It is terribly unbecoming and unattractive.

Also, you look really stupid standing on an American flag in your Levis and Nikes, drinking your Coca-cola and eating your Big Mac and McDonald's fries.

AS

[richardm]

Funny you should say that... there were some Iraqis being interviewed on TV last night, railing against the evil Americans, and how dreadful they all are.

One of 'em was wearing a Nike hat. Gotcha!

Mind you, as my girlfriend pointed out, it was probably made in a local sweatshop. But still ;)

[Starshark]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
If you ever wanted an example of how Western Europeans can be just as stupid and unthinking as Americans sometimes, look no further than here:

Rise of Anti-Americanism (http://www.msnbc.com/news/871193.asp?0cv=CA01&cp1=1)

Tony Blair's right. Such conspiracy theory mongering is a foolish indulgence. European Anti-Americans, get over yourselves and your pathetic envy of the American lifestyle. It is terribly unbecoming and unattractive.

Also, you look really stupid standing on an American flag in your Levis and Nikes, drinking your Coca-cola and eating your Big Mac and McDonald's fries.

AS

Glad I don't eat Mcdonalds, drink Coke, or wear Levis and Nikes. Not that I'm saying I don't use anything that's American... I'm sure Mr Gates would have something to say about that. But it's just interesting that in your example you happen to have picked four things I've boycotted for five years.

Do you think maybe there's a reason why there is a build up of anti-American sentiment? You certainly don't seem to be winning many friends with Gulf War MKII. True, the gutless politicians are on your side, but many people are wondering, "What the Hell does Iraq have to do with anything?" The US would win some respect if they just came out and said it's all about oil. They could even spin it as economic common-sense.

Besides that, there's the issue of American based multi-national companies violating human rights in many countries (Myanmar, Nigeria, New Guinea to begin with), and trying to monopolise trade globally. Protest seems to fall on deaf ears. Sure, it's not the fault of the American people, but this sort of behaviour is seen as an American trait.

In general, the American arrogance is what the world hates most about the US. Look no further than the first post of this thread. "If you don't like us, why do you use our products?" No one is perfect, just as no one is completely evil, but would it kill you to listen to what the rest of the world says now and again?

[Jon_in_london]

I totally agree that anti-americanism is just about run-down europe being jealous of the US and has absolutely nothing to do with American Foreign Policy

{the following was written by William Blum and appeared in the Guardian July 12, 2000.}

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.

[Jon_in_london]

As I posted on another thread: 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!!!!!

[Starshark]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
As I posted on another thread: 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!!!!!

Now watch someone ask you to prove every single comment you've made in your 10 000 word post while they sit back and take their points as given and requiring no proof at all.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Starshark


In general, the American arrogance is what the world hates most about the US. Look no further than the first post of this thread. "If you don't like us, why do you use our products?" No one is perfect, just as no one is completely evil, but would it kill you to listen to what the rest of the world says now and again?

Funny coming from an Australian. You seem to have no shortage of national and cultural pride, yet you call Americans arrogant.

I think often what is rightly national and cultural pride, coupled with geographic isolationism and unprecedented affluence, is misunderstood by others as arrogant. Just as Australian culture tends to be ego-centric, so does American culture. We are equally isolated geographically and geo-politically.

The difference can be found in the degree of global influence each actor has, politically, culturally, and economically. Because 21st Century America has such a dominant role in world affairs, in each of the spheres above, it is natural for others to question its role, to suspect its motives, and to envy it.

Your envy is showing. If you really were not influenced by American culture, products, or ideals, then I would think what America does or doesn't do would scarcely concern you at all. Why should it, especially given that you are on the other side of the planet? Clearly, from many of your other anti-American posts, you are profoundly bothered and disturbed by Americans. Why? (Hint: it has little to do with us, and a lot to say about yourself, personally)

AS--no apologist

[crackmonkey]

J_I_L - it must have taken some discipline to write such a collection of smears, half-truths, distortions, and outright lies.

In the same vein, (and far more factually accurately),
I think I can lay the blame for the current Middle East crisis squarely on the British, French, and Germans. It was they, after all, who invaded the peaceful Holy Land and started all this **** with their 'crusades' some time ago... bunch of rapacious, bloodthirsty, thieving thugs.

[Darat]

"Anti-Americanism"? I don't really think it is - it is more "anti-the-currently-most-noticable-and-influential-culture-and-society-ism".

The USA, at the moment, is the brightest, biggest & "strongest" culture therefore when it looks to it's own interests first, like all cultures do, it has a more noticeable impact on other cultures.

Therefore it is a target for everyone with a gripe for the "state of the world", an outlet for all the normal human resentments, wish to blame others and so on.

Is the USA perfect? The answer is a resounding no but then no nation is perfect. Has the USA engaged in policies to the detriment of other nations? Yes of course it has. Just like every other nation has done time and time again.

Undoubtedly in a few hundred years when Australia represents the "brightest, biggest & "strongest culture" there will be world-wide "Anti-Australiaism".

[Mr. Turquoise]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Funny coming from an Australian. You seem to have no shortage of national and cultural pride, yet you call Americans arrogant.

I think often what is rightly national and cultural pride, coupled with geographic isolationism and unprecedented affluence, is misunderstood by others as arrogant. Just as Australian culture tends to be ego-centric, so does American culture. We are equally isolated geographically and geo-politically.

The difference can be found in the degree of global influence each actor has, politically, culturally, and economically. Because 21st Century America has such a dominant role in world affairs, in each of the spheres above, it is natural for others to question its role, to suspect its motives, and to envy it.

Your envy is showing. If you really were not influenced by American culture, products, or ideals, then I would think what America does or doesn't do would scarcely concern you at all. Why should it, especially given that you are on the other side of the planet? Clearly, from many of your other anti-American posts, you are profoundly bothered and disturbed by Americans. Why? (Hint: it has little to do with us, and a lot to say about yourself, personally)



As I Canadian, I also have a substantial amount of pride in my country. However, there is a very big difference between national pride and American patriotism. I will say that America IS a great country. It is dominant economically, militarily and politically. However, it is NOT the ideal utopian model of how society should be. Americans presume that it is, and this is what makes Europeans, Australians and us Canadians so angry sometimes.

In recent weeks, whenever someone questions American Foreign Policy, they are immediately branded as anti-American. When someone questions American intentions in Iraq, they are branded anti-American. When the rest of the world calls for restraint and patience, they are branded anti-American and irrelevant. Who is being arrogant?

America could have become a great world leader on Sept 12, 2001. Instead, they slowly turned into something the rest of the world became suspicious of. America can still become a nation that others want to emulate, or can carry on becoming a nation that everyone fears. One of these paths will lead to ruin (See Rome, the British Empire). I call that friendly advice, not anti-Americanism.

Mr. Turquoise

[Drooper]

What you have to realise is that Europe is bound by division. Its history and culture is dominated by cultural and racial separatism. By comparison, the US is an amalgam of many cultures and races that lives together pretty successfully.

The result is that European people tend to be far more xenophobic. Mostly, that xenophobia has been played out on a European scale, through the history of war in Europe, the attitude towards jews and more recently we have seen such xenophobia taken to extremes in the Balkans. But there are endless more global examples, ranging from the Crusades to colonial policies of France, Portugal, The Netherlands and more recent examples like Suez.

It comes naturally to the French, German, Belgians etc. to believe that "they" are the bad guys and up to no good, because they have no natural experience of other ways of thinking or living and have no interest in considering it. There is a decided lack of empathy and no interest in trying it out.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
J_I_L - it must have taken some discipline to write such a collection of smears, half-truths, distortions, and outright lies.

In the same vein, (and far more factually accurately),
I think I can lay the blame for the current Middle East crisis squarely on the British, French, and Germans. It was they, after all, who invaded the peaceful Holy Land and started all this **** with their 'crusades' some time ago... bunch of rapacious, bloodthirsty, thieving thugs.

And where are you from?

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Drooper
What you have to realise is that Europe is bound by division. Its history and culture is dominated by cultural and racial separatism. By comparison, the US is an amalgam of many cultures and races that lives together pretty successfully.

The result is that European people tend to be far more xenophobic. Mostly, that xenophobia has been played out on a European scale, through the history of war in Europe, the attitude towards jews and more recently we have seen such xenophobia taken to extremes in the Balkans. But there are endless more global examples, ranging from the Crusades to colonial policies of France, Portugal, The Netherlands and more recent examples like Suez.

It comes naturally to the French, German, Belgians etc. to believe that "they" are the bad guys and up to no good, because they have no natural experience of other ways of thinking or living and have no interest in considering it. There is a decided lack of empathy and no interest in trying it out.

Thanks. So far, this is the most rational, cogent response. Very insightful as well. I like your theory.

AS

[Hal 2001]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
J_I_L - it must have taken some discipline to write such a collection of smears, half-truths, distortions, and outright lies.

In the same vein, (and far more factually accurately),
I think I can lay the blame for the current Middle East crisis squarely on the British, French, and Germans. It was they, after all, who invaded the peaceful Holy Land and started all this **** with their 'crusades' some time ago... bunch of rapacious, bloodthirsty, thieving thugs.

I will not comment on the "Smears Half truth" part since I haven't looked at it closer yet.

But about the crusades, they took place long before "America" even was "discovered" by the Europeans.

Given that a great deal of US citizen's originaly came from Europe, I can't see why we should be more blamed than the US? Just because my forefathers have decided to stay in Europe and yours wandered in some part of time to the US, it gives them "absolution" from historical responsability?

My point beeing that the historical path of a great deal of the US population and the European only parted long time after the crusades.

Of course I don't think any country should be blamed for this today, I was just wandering why I, as a European, should feel more guilt about it than a US citizen?

As a Dane, and former viking I however take 100% responsability for the burning down of Paris :D ;). I'm sure it seemed like a good thing to do at the time.

[LucienVanImpe]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
[SARCASM] I totally agree that anti-americanism is just about run-down europe being jealous of the US and has absolutely nothing to do with American Foreign Policy
These were your own words. The rest of your post was written by William Blum and appeared in the Guardian July 12, 2000.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Mr. Turquoise


As I Canadian, I also have a substantial amount of pride in my country. However, there is a very big difference between national pride and American patriotism. I will say that America IS a great country. It is dominant economically, militarily and politically. However, it is NOT the ideal utopian model of how society should be. Americans presume that it is, and this is what makes Europeans, Australians and us Canadians so angry sometimes.

In recent weeks, whenever someone questions American Foreign Policy, they are immediately branded as anti-American. When someone questions American intentions in Iraq, they are branded anti-American. When the rest of the world calls for restraint and patience, they are branded anti-American and irrelevant. Who is being arrogant?

America could have become a great world leader on Sept 12, 2001. Instead, they slowly turned into something the rest of the world became suspicious of. America can still become a nation that others want to emulate, or can carry on becoming a nation that everyone fears. One of these paths will lead to ruin (See Rome, the British Empire). I call that friendly advice, not anti-Americanism.

Mr. Turquoise

Thanks for your response. As for your second paragraph, I can only suggest that you read the link I posted at the top. Pay particular attention to the sections describing poll results showing a substantial majority of the populations of some Western European countries belief that the chief reason for the probably imminent US invasion of Iraq is the US desire to control its oil. WTF? Since when did the US have an oil crisis in this millenium?

More troubling are the crackpot conspiracy theories, such as that suggested by Thierry Meyssan's book, "The Big Lie," postulating that the US Government destroyed the World Trade Center Towers in New York. Another is the one posed by the German couple in the article that if the UN inspectors actually find any smoking gun weapons of mass destruction (beyond the mass of evidence they already have found, but which has largely been dismissed by critics), then it will only serve to prove that the US CIA planted it there. This is just beyond all rational debate and argument. It is paranoia about the intentions and motives of the US, plain and simple. It is baseless in fact.

I would not agree that anyone questioning or disagreeing with the policies of the US Government is anti-American, as you suggest. I would state that the persons noted above are.

I cannot understand how America has "slowly turned into" a monster to be feared. Bush and his administration have merely sought retribution against those responsible for the attacks on Sept. 11. He has broaded the response to hunt out and destroy a network of terrorists who have and will certainly, if given the chance, continue to inflict great pain and destruction on pockets of humanity here and there, all over the world. Making the case that Saddam's Iraq has assisted with terrorist activities is difficult, given the secrecy involved among some of the players. Some Europeans seem to be incapable of distinquishing between war on Saddam and war on the Iraqi people. Given Saddam's control of the Iraqi military, it is impossible to depose him without warring with Iraq's military. Will civilians be harmed along the way? Certainly. This has always been and will always be the case. It's called the facts of life. Idealists prefer to indulge in their silly fantasy worlds. Others, prefer to deal with problems in more practical, albeit messier, ways.

So many European critics are behaving like spoiled children. I have little patience or sympathy for their cause.

AS

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Funny coming from an Australian. You seem to have no shortage of national and cultural pride, yet you call Americans arrogant.



i think there is a big difference between pride and arrogance. Once again I have to point out I am not anti-american. There are plenty of americans questioning the wisdom of the war, but unfortunately, the ones with the weapons have other ideas.



I think often what is rightly national and cultural pride, coupled with geographic isolationism and unprecedented affluence, is misunderstood by others as arrogant. Just as Australian culture tends to be ego-centric, so does American culture. We are equally isolated geographically and geo-politically.



it is not so much that australians are more inquisitive about the rest of the world, although i think we are, it's just that we have to be, as we are a small and relatively weak country.



The difference can be found in the degree of global influence each actor has, politically, culturally, and economically. Because 21st Century America has such a dominant role in world affairs, in each of the spheres above, it is natural for others to question its role, to suspect its motives, and to envy it.



envy again. i don't envy america. most australians don't. repeat, we don't envy america. that is what you are told a lot, apparently, but you should check with australians first if that is what they think.

Now if you are talking about sucking up to america, our Prime Minister is doing a wonderful job of it, and losing credibility at a remarkable rate. i have already related how he called the day he addressed the joint houses of congress as the greatest day of his life. Too bad it was full of interns and flunkies, not the actual senators and congressmen.



Your envy is showing. If you really were not influenced by American culture, products, or ideals, then I would think what America does or doesn't do would scarcely concern you at all. Why should it, especially given that you are on the other side of the planet? Clearly, from many of your other anti-American posts, you are profoundly bothered and disturbed by Americans. Why? (Hint: it has little to do with us, and a lot to say about yourself, personally)


AS--no apologist

how can we not be influenced by america. Singapore has been taken to court at the WTF because of it's ban on chewing gum, and will have to pay a massive fine. Disney copyright on Mickey Mouse will be extended to the year 9999. Maccas uses market research to target defenceless children.

It's not all bad, not by a long way, but the bad bits, like massive bombs and aggression, outweigh the good bits to a large degree.

http://www.theage.com.au/ffxImage/urlpicture_id_1043534039714_2003/01/28/toon2801,0.jpg

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


envy again. i don't envy america. most australians don't. repeat, we don't envy america. that is what you are told a lot, apparently, but you should check with australians first if that is what they think.



AUP,

I was not directing my comments to Australians in general. I was speaking directly to Starshark, who has in fact expressed a tremendous disdain for America.

I don't think Australians in general are envious of Americans. I suspect that many of them, just as many Americans, give little thought or feeling to how others live outside their own country. That was my point about geographic isolation. Close interaction with persons from other nations is not a common, everyday experience for most persons from the US or Australia.

AS

[Graham]

Originally posted by LucienVanImpe

These were your own words. The rest of your post was written by William Blum and appeared in the Guardian July 12, 2000.

I was wondering about that, well spotted that man.

Just out of interest though, would anyone, American or otherwise, care to comment on the veracity of the points made (by William Blum)?

Are the historical facts, at least, correct? I only ask out of interest, btw, not to take any sid eof the argument at this point.

Graham

[Jon_in_london]

I actually cut and paste that from an Undercover Elephant post in another thread but I have edited my post to give credit to the author and avoid allegation of plagir.. plago.. plage...copying.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Graham

Just out of interest though, would anyone, American or otherwise, care to comment on the veracity of the points made (by William Blum)?

Are the historical facts, at least, correct? I only ask out of interest, btw, not to take any sid eof the argument at this point.

Graham

Who wants to bother plodding through such obvious propaganda? Not me.

It's hardly deserving of a response.

AS

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Who wants to bother plodding through such obvious propaganda? Not me.

It's hardly deserving of a response.

AS

what did I say earlier?:


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!!!!!

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


what did I say earlier?:



More demagoguery and propaganda. Proud of yourself, Jon?

AS

[Jon_in_london]

You havent even bothered to read any of it have you, AmateurScientist?

Perhaps it uncomfortable for you to discover that your country and your people have perpretrated great evils in the past?

Perhaps this is why you dismiss anti-americanism as 'envy'? Is it more comfortable for you that way?

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Darat
"Anti-Americanism"? I don't really think it is - it is more "anti-the-currently-most-noticable-and-influential-culture-and-society-ism".

The USA, at the moment, is the brightest, biggest & "strongest" culture therefore when it looks to it's own interests first, like all cultures do, it has a more noticeable impact on other cultures.

Therefore it is a target for everyone with a gripe for the "state of the world", an outlet for all the normal human resentments, wish to blame others and so on.

Is the USA perfect? The answer is a resounding no but then no nation is perfect. Has the USA engaged in policies to the detriment of other nations? Yes of course it has. Just like every other nation has done time and time again.

Undoubtedly in a few hundred years when Australia represents the "brightest, biggest & "strongest culture" there will be world-wide "Anti-Australiaism".

Darat,

Thanks for your comments. I quite agree. I almost forgot to respond to you, as I got caught up responding to some others here.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london
You havent even bothered to read any of it have you, AmateurScientist?

Perhaps it uncomfortable for you to discover that your country and your people have perpretrated great evils in the past?

Perhaps this is why you dismiss anti-americanism as 'envy'? Is it more comfortable for you that way?

Have you considered that I object to its less than factual--to be charitable--presentation of the material?

That is what I mean by "propaganda" and "demagoguery."

I have no illusions about atrocities commited by my country. Do you? Apparently, in the world as you seem to wish to present it, how any given event in history is regarded depends on which end of the gun your ancestors found themselves.

I call that revisionism. You can call it history if you wish. It doesn't make it any more factual.

AS

[Jon_in_london]

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!!!!!

I first posted that on the 'geopolitical penis-envy' thread a couple of days ago. Does this mean I can claim Randi's $1million?

[Ove]

I cannot understand how America has "slowly turned into" a monster to be feared. Bush and his administration have merely sought retribution against those responsible for the attacks on Sept. 11.


No they have not. They have sought retribution against wqhoever they could get hold of. The Taliban HAD some business with Osama and they was generally bad guys so nobody cared that much, trouble is that there is not a shred of evidence that suggests that Saddam had/has anything to do with Al-Quaida.

But what will Bush do when the has bombed Saddam to oblivience and Al-Quaida still pesters the world? A problem like Al-Quaida simply can't be solved with an army.


So many European critics are behaving like spoiled children. I have little patience or sympathy for their cause.

You know the one that REALLY behaves like a spoiled child is Curious George and frankly, it scares me when the leader of the most powerfull country in the world behaves like a m......... (well put in your own degrading word).;)

[Tmy]

There always needs to be a bad guy. Now that the Soviets are out of the picture its the US thats thrown into the role.

As for history of US forgien policy. I'll agree the government has done some shady things. Still doesnt compare to the history of European colonialism, facism, and world wars that have caused many of the problems we see today. Why do you think that many americans find it laughable that Germany and France are crying for peace and tolerance.

[Q-Source]

AmateurScientist,

I just cannot stand people referring to the United States as AMERICA... :mad:

Have you or anybody else seen a World Map in your whole lives?

There is a big, huge continent named "America".

On it, there are many many countries, some are big, some are small. On the north, you will find Canada, the USA and Mexico.

:rolleyes:

[Graham]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Who wants to bother plodding through such obvious propaganda? Not me.

It's hardly deserving of a response.

AS

Amateur Scientist,

It's seems to me that the events described in the article (now nicely referenced) are unchallenged, they provide a valid, alternative reason for disliking the US.

If a valid alternative reason exists then you are incorect is asserting that envy is the only reason people dislike your country.

I don't think you can dismiss the assertions simply because you do not like the way they're phrased.

Graham

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Q-Source
AmateurScientist,

I just cannot stand people referring to the United States as AMERICA... :mad:

Have you or anybody else seen a World Map in your whole lives?

There is a big, huge continent named "America".

On it, there are many many countries, some are big, some are small. On the north, you will find Canada, the USA and Mexico.

:rolleyes:



Sorry you have such a hangup about it. I'm merely following convention. It's so hard to imagine having to say "persons who reside in the United States of America" or "USAians," don't you think?

We have "Mexicans" and "Canadians." What would you suggest we call persons living in the US?

Some Brits just call us "Yanks" or "colonists." I'm afraid I won't be adopting their perjorative usage any time soon. I'll just stick with convention.

Everyone knows what we mean when we refer to ourselves as "Americans." Nearly everyone else on the planet refers to us as "Americans" as well. Or do you mistake that they include Mexican foreign policy as well when Europeans rail against "American foreign policy?"

AS

[Graham]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Everyone knows what we mean when we refer to ourselves as "Americans." Nearly everyone else on the planet refers to us as "Americans" as well. Or do you mistake that they include Mexican foreign policy as well when Europeans rail against "American foreign policy?"

AS

How about "Statesians"? That has a nice ring to it. :)

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

Sorry you have such a hangup about it. I'm merely following convention. It's so hard to imagine having to say "persons who reside in the United States of America" or "USAians," don't you think?

Kind of when Bush wondered "why do you hate us?"

This is part of your egocentrism...

This is why there is anti-USA around the world


We have "Mexicans" and "Canadians." What would you suggest we call persons living in the US?

What about US citizens? I ALWAYS refer to US citizens as US citizens.
Common sense


Some Brits just call us "Yanks" or "colonists." I'm afraid I won't be adopting their perjorative usage any time soon. I'll just stick with convention.

In Mexico we call you Gringos, or yankees too. We never call you Americans, because we are also Americans.


Everyone knows what we mean when we refer to ourselves as "Americans." Nearly everyone else on the planet refers to us as "Americans" as well. Or do you mistake that they include Mexican foreign policy as well when Europeans rail against "American foreign policy?"


Whatever, if that makes you happy :rolleyes:

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Graham


Amateur Scientist,

It's seems to me that the events described in the article (now nicely referenced) are unchallenged, they provide a valid, alternative reason for disliking the US.

If a valid alternative reason exists then you are incorect is asserting that envy is the only reason people dislike your country.

I don't think you can dismiss the assertions simply because you do not like the way they're phrased.

Graham

First,

I wish to acknowledge your location as a very witty reference to a very witty novel and movie. I love Catch-22.

Second,

I do not believe my theme is that others envy the US. I posted a link and remarks that illustrate how stupid some of the feelings and ideas behind recent European anti-Americanism are.

I did mention envy being natural under the circumstances. That is hardly my theme or basic idea.

Anyway, have you read the crap Jon in London re-posted from the Blum article? It is so full of editorial and biased commentary that it is hard to decifer many actual facts from it.

I do not agree that it is an accurate portrayal of events. A great big clue to its extreme anti-American bent is the quoting of or reference to Noam Chomsky, one of the most notable, but literate, anti-American Americans ever born.

I also take issue with the assertion that anti-American Europeans dislike America for its political policies or supposed history of imperialism. I find that to be so much post hoc rationalization. If that were indeed the reason, then those same Europeans must be obliged to engage in a tremendous amount of self-loathing as well. No one can seriously argue that most of Western Europe has at one time or another engaged in imperialism and colonialism.

Darat is right. This is criticize-whoever-is-the-biggest-kid-on-the-blockism.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Q-Source


What about US citizens? I ALWAYS refer to US citizens as US citizens.
Common sense

Not the same usage. Mexican citizens and US citizens is parallel usage. Mexicans and US citizens is not.



In Mexico we call you Gringos, or yankees too. We never call you Americans, because we are also Americans.


Yes, and we fully understand that "gringo" is pejorative. Thanks.

I don't call you a "taco vendor." I would appreciate the same consideration. Apparently, you do not feel you owe me that.


Whatever, if that makes you happy :rolleyes:

I think someone has a chip on her shoulder. My comments were not intended as derogatory or insulting, yet you apparently have taken them that way. It is not nice to take offense when none is intended.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Graham


How about "Statesians"? That has a nice ring to it. :)

Knock yourself out. Maybe you'll start a trend, but I won't be holding my breath.

AS

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

Yes, and we fully understand that "gringo" is pejorative. Thanks.

I don't call you a "taco vendor." I would appreciate the same consideration. Apparently, you do not feel you owe me that.



And why would you call me a "taco vendor" ?

You're just showing your real nature... what a disappointment coming from you.

Gringo is not a pejorative term. If you make a little research, you will find out where this word comes from.

I am not going to waste my time on you. I just wanted to make it clear that the USA is not America, it is just part of it.

[Shane Costello]

Originally posted by Graham:
It's seems to me that the events described in the article (now nicely referenced) are unchallenged, they provide a valid, alternative reason for disliking the US.

The problem is the specific claims made in the article are not referenced, and as such are little more than anti-american spin, some of it quite virulent.

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

So why hasn't there been a military buildup in the Baltic and economic sanctions against the Nordic countries?

"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."

But the Greeks as a whole, not just the Left, fought bravely against the Nazis. IIRC it was the communists who were attempting a takever, not the neo-fascists. The British were furnishing the Greeks with aid initially, but were exhausted themselves after the war and were incapable of continuing with this. They requested the Americans to take their place, and this was the beginning of the Marshall aid program.

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.

So the poor Communists were driven to build the Berlin Wall? I'm sure it hurt them a lot more than the enslaved millions who had no other choice but to live under fifty years of communist hegemony. :rolleyes:

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;

So Saddam's regime is one of the most advanced regimes in the middle east? This isn't entirely fanciful, considering the nature of Middle Eastern regimes, but for some reason "The Guardian" has never given Israel, which is by far the most advanced nation in the middle east, the benefit of the doubt.

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.

As opposed to the European stance of sitting back and allowing Milosevic take the country back to the pre-industrial era by his own devices? And where's the evidence that Yugoslavia was bombed into the stone age? While scoffing at the notion that humanitarian impulses were the reasoning behind the NATO intervention, the article then fails to address why it shouldn't have been, and if not what were the motives behind the aerial assaults.

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Q-Source


And why would you call me a "taco vendor" ?

You're just showing your real nature... what a disappointment coming from you.

Gringo is not a pejorative term. If you make a little research, you will find out where this word comes from.

I am not going to waste my time on you. I just wanted to make it clear that the USA is not America, it is just part of it.

Q-Source,

I'm sorry you took such offense at my response to you. I did not mean any insult, but rather to try to demonstrate to you that I thought you were being a little hard on me and Americans in general. I didn't invent the term. It's used by convention.

You took out your frustration with the implication that it excludes other nations who are just as much a part of the North American or South American continents on me. Why is that my fault? How am I being insensitive?

Perhaps you do not understand that many Americans take "gringo" to be a pejorative term used by our neighbors to the south. I did not call you any pejorative name. I mentioned that I could, but that I wouldn't. From that, you conclude that you know my true nature.

I'll just assume you are having a bad day. Sorry.

AS

[Alaric]

Whomever blamed Europe for the problems in the middle east needs to pick up a history book and read. The crusades brought back all the knowledge of the classical world to us ignorant barbarians <the foundations of thought that much of the west is built on>plus it needs to be remembered that europe was no stronger then the enemies it fought. The arabs took a LOT of land from us-some of which like Istanbul<not Constantinople lalala> still burns today.

As for that MASSIVE post on all the american sins...one needs to remember that most countries could have their own lists made which would make us all cringe. I actually read through that post<i have a boring job> and came to the conclusion that just under half of the points makes assumptions as to reasons so really cant be considered accurate. The rest of the points though are shameful. America truly is walking a shady path.

Another problem is that for part of these crimes, America WAS facing another empire-the Russkies. Some of these acts do not seem so unreasonable in the face of that enemy. No-im not making excuses for the yanks..im being realistic.

Those americans that say "so-look how bad you germans where" or british of aussies or Canucks...whateva. Get a life. That was then-this is now. The fact that others were just as stupid in the past in no way makes it ok for Americans to act that way in the present.

Another note. As a man of germanic origin it absolutely turns my stomach to see the Germans siding with the French. Icky. Thank god the Brits still keep those old fires burning.



oh...and im appologizing now for all my spelling errors. SORRY

[Jon_in_london]

Q-Source, I think AS has a point. We call people from the USA Americans by convention. You cant expect peeps to just change such a longstading convention like that.

My 2p. :)

[Hal 2001]

Knowing very litlle about those incidents I tried to check some of them, If possible through university sources.


The Journal of Modern Greek Studies, johns hopkins university, has a review of a book called "The Rape of Greek Democracy: The American Factor, 1947-1967". The book describes the United States "interference" in the given periode, and seems to support Blum's view of the case. Sorry no link connection only possible for subscribers, should be possible through university's.

The Journal of Coldwar studies review of Feet to the Fire: CIA Covert Operations in Indonesia, 1957-1958, seems to to support the CIA's interference in Indonesian. Again no link only available for members.

Finally Hispanic American Historical Review has a review of "The Story of the American Coup in Guatemala, and: Secret History: The CIA's Classified Account of its Operations in Guatemala, 1952-1954 " Also refers gives credibility to Blum's comment.

Sorry if there are errors but I only checked a few quickly while at the Royal library (only place around with access to AEF).

I am not saying that US is worse, or much worse than everybody else, but on the other hand t I don't think it just can be dismissed as propaganda.



Quote Amateur Scientist:

"Who wants to bother plodding through such obvious propaganda? Not me.

It's hardly deserving of a response."

Mes sinceres salutations Hal

[Graham]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist

First,

I wish to acknowledge your location as a very witty reference to a very witty novel and movie. I love Catch-22.

Thanks. Catch-22 really is in a league of its own (to use an expression clearly forced upon my by your rampant cultural imperialism).

It's also a very sharp and bitter piece of social commentary, however, particulary in respect of wars and the people that run them.


Second,

I do not believe my theme is that others envy the US. I posted a link and remarks that illustrate how stupid some of the feelings and ideas behind recent European anti-Americanism are.

I did mention envy being natural under the circumstances. That is hardly my theme or basic idea.

Fair enough, I'll leave that alone then.

Anyway, have you read the crap Jon in London re-posted from the Blum article? It is so full of editorial and biased commentary that it is hard to decifer many actual facts from it.

Yes I read it and I'll thank you for a little benefit of the doubt, at least until you know for sure I'm just shooting my mouth off :p

I'll also grant you that for the first paragraph or so (down as far as "evil or not") its pretty much pure venom but after that there are a number of apparently factual (if obviously one-sided) statements.

I do not agree that it is an accurate portrayal of events. A great big clue to its extreme anti-American bent is the quoting of or reference to Noam Chomsky, one of the most notable, but literate, anti-American Americans ever born.

I don't disagree that it is anti-American in tone and perspective but that does not neccesarily mean that it is historically inaccurate. Do you disagree with any of the facts stated.

For instance, the first statement:

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.

Which part of this do you consider inaccurate? (I'm not saying it's 100% accurate, btw - I'm not an expert on that epriod of history but I'm looking for a counter position).

Or again the second:

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.

Is this true or is it not?

Just for the sake of fairness, though:

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.

This seems kind of "tacked on" at the end. Does anyone know if it was actually a part of the original article? There's nothing else from after the early nineties either. Anyway, I don't know exactly what the author is hinting at here. This is a bit more"my era" and I had no previous impression that the US intervention in Yugoslavia was motivated by anything other than just that - "humanitarian" impulses. Without anything else to go on, this makes me doubt the other entries somewhat.


I also take issue with the assertion that anti-American Europeans dislike America for its political policies or supposed history of imperialism. I find that to be so much post hoc rationalization. If that were indeed the reason, then those same Europeans must be obliged to engage in a tremendous amount of self-loathing as well. No one can seriously argue that most of Western Europe has at one time or another engaged in imperialism and colonialism.

Posters have indeed suggested that America's political policies and history of imperialism might be a reason for people to dislike the United States and given supporting facts for that suggestion (though the veracity of those facts might be in question).

You will find that many people of many countries (your own included) hate the French, many people in my own country, amongst others, are not particularly fond of the English and as for the Germans, well, safe to say there are a few people with things to say about them too, not least many Germans - all of which might adequetly fulfil your "self-loathing" requirement.

Most of Western Europe has "at one time or another engaged in imperialism and colonialism". However, at this point in time and for recent history, there is an argument to say that the USA has been the most dominant force in at least Imperialism, if not colonialism.

I think populations have short memories and that impressions and predjudices are built up over a relatively short time. According to Blum, the US has comitted enough at least questionable acts over the past half-century to warrant some distrust.

Again, I think that unless you can adequetly "debunk" at least some of the impressions given by the Blum article, there appears to be adequete reason to dislike the US or at least to question US motives when it come sto foreign affairs.

Darat is right. This is criticize-whoever-is-the-biggest-kid-on-the-blockism.

I think that's over simplistic but, if you stand up and make noise, you're going to attract fire, that's only common sense. There are a lot of people out there just looking for a target and the US Government is standing right there waving its arms in the air, practically shouting "Shoot me, shoot me". They have every right to do that, of course, but shouldn't come crying when they're "hit".

Graham

[Graham]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Knock yourself out. Maybe you'll start a trend, but I won't be holding my breath.

AS

Henceforth, I will now refer to all citizens of the United States of America as "Statesians"

I expect everyone else to follow my lead. I at least intend to hold my breath until you comply.

Also, I type waaaaay too slowly for these forums :(

Graham-going-slowly-purple-from-asphyxiation

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by Alaric

Another note. As a man of germanic origin it absolutely turns my stomach to see the Germans siding with the French. Icky. Thank god the Brits still keep those old fires burning.



You lots are well overdue for one of your periodic invasions of France. Perhaps you should get on with it? Promise well Help you this time :D :p

[Drooper]

This supposed "article" is just so full of unsubstantiated and pejorative statements that it is unworthy of any analysis.

If it does anything, it serves to highlight the irrational and hysterical extremism that is inflaming foreign relations at the moment. In this respect, not unlike the German minister who compared Bush with Hitler.

If this was indeed published in the Guardian it would hardly surpise me.

[Graham]

Originally posted by Shane Costello
Originally posted by Graham:


(snip)

As opposed to the European stance of sitting back and allowing Milosevic take the country back to the pre-industrial era by his own devices? And where's the evidence that Yugoslavia was bombed into the stone age? While scoffing at the notion that humanitarian impulses were the reasoning behind the NATO intervention, the article then fails to address why it shouldn't have been, and if not what were the motives behind the aerial assaults.

As I said, I type far too slowly. That said, I agree that the first part of the article is pretty much tripe and not worth answering.

I read your comments on the rest with interest, however, and thank-you for taking the time to address the various points raised.

Clearly, many of them are one-sided but would you agree that these are the impressions that many people have of the events in question? If so, do you think that, if the US wants to do something about the supposed "rising tide" of Anti-americanism (and maybe they don't but then they should stop complaining about it), that they should address these impressions somehow?

Graham

[Graham]

Originally posted by Hal 2001
Knowing very litlle about those incidents I tried to check some of them, If possible through university sources.

(snip)



And it seems that some of the points are at least soemwhat valid . . .

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Drooper
This supposed "article" is just so full of unsubstantiated and pejorative statements that it is unworthy of any analysis.

If it does anything, it serves to highlight the irrational and hysterical extremism that is inflaming foreign relations at the moment. In this respect, not unlike the German minister who compared Bush with Hitler.

If this was indeed published in the Guardian it would hardly surpise me.

Thanks, Drooper. That was my point about it in the first place. I don't care to try to sift through and determine which of the dozens of points contain accurate facts and which are laced with so much hatred and scorn as to amount to little more than historical revisionism, which is the best term I can summon for it without calling it "propaganda" as I did earlier.

Graham,

I hope this will suffice as a response to you. I think it unfair to try to challenge me to refute any or all of it. I does not follow that because no one wishes to undertake a serious analysis of it that it remains "unchallenged" and thus true. That's silly and illogical. The proponent of any proposition bears the burden of proof as to it, not the critic.

Are there bases of facts buried in that mess? Of course. Is the presentation of the facts accurate? Absolutely not. It is extremely and unfairly biased.

AS

[AmateurScientist]

In an attempt to bring this thread back to the original topic, anyone care to comment on the polls supposedly showing such shallow analysis and bias against American policy towards Iraq?

What about the German couple who suspects the CIA will plant or has planted evidence that Saddam has been hiding weapons violative of the UN Resolution?

What about the idiocy behind the French book about 9-11?

Care to comment on those relevant issues?

AS

[Drooper]

Originally posted by Graham


And it seems that some of the points are at least soemwhat valid . . .

It seems like the overwhelming bulk of the article is tripe.

It looks like something that an anti-JK would come up with.

[headscratcher4]

Graham:

As to the liteny of American sins for its corporations...clearly there is some truth to the charge, but I note there is little context, and certainly no real historical perspective.

I note one of the citations that you exerpted:

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.

From my knowledge of the history, there is some truth to this...however, the winner in that civil war...Mao...went on to head a regime that not only suppressed every human right -- speech, religion, thought -- but who also helped to murder as many as 60 million of his country men through failed economic and agricutural policies that resulted in massive famine -- and this says nothing of the facism of the "cultural revolution". On the other side, evil and bad and corrupt as he was, Chaing founded a state that is not only economically successful, but which with time moved to a peaceul, multiparty democracy that is increasingly respectful of freedom of thought and descent.

My point merely is to point out that the fact as stated is without context or understanding. Many US policy decisions may have been right for the wong reasons, just as wrong for the right reasons.

Would Greece have been better off as a "communist" Greece...another little Stalinist Rumania or Bulgaria? Would Italy have fared well as a "Communist" Italy? Remembering that all of the leaders of the Communist movements in those countries were not re-constructed post-gorbachev/post-Deng marxists, but Stalinists?


I am not sure what my point is save that a list of "sins" could be drawn up for any power in the world right now...including France and Germany, and out of context woud look equally daming of their culture, arrogance, etc.

[Graham]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
In an attempt to bring this thread back to the original topic, anyone care to comment on the polls supposedly showing such shallow analysis and bias against American policy towards Iraq?

What about the German couple who suspects the CIA will plant or has planted evidence that Saddam has been hiding weapons violative of the UN Resolution?

What about the idiocy behind the French book about 9-11?

Care to comment on those relevant issues?

AS

The operative word here is idiocy. Unfortunately there is little shortage of idiots in any country. Ultimately that's what bias against any entire nation of people has to be. Dislike a government, a leader, a policy or particular whatever but blanket dislike is just idiocy.

BTW, sorry I did not intend to suggest that it was neccesarily true just because you hadn't proven it false. I was honestly just looking for the other perspective that was so obviously lacking in the article.

All right? Friends? ;)

Graham

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Graham


All right? Friends? ;)

Graham

Sure. I'm not angry or upset with you.

AS

[Graham]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
Graham:

As to the liteny of American sins for its corporations...clearly there is some truth to the charge, but I note there is little context, and certainly no real historical perspective.

(snip)

I am not sure what my point is save that a list of "sins" could be drawn up for any power in the world right now...including France and Germany, and out of context woud look equally daming of their culture, arrogance, etc.

Yeah, it must be desperately hard to make decisions when you know people are going to be picking over them and analysing your motives for years to come. You have to pick one side or another, after all - damned if you do . . .

I agree that an equal or worse list of sins could be drawn up for any "power" (and even lots of "non-powers"). However, would you agree that the "sins" of the Statesians are more recent, fresher in the minds of the general populace and of more immediate bearing on current events than those of most other Western countries?

Graham

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Graham




I agree that an equal or worse list of sins could be drawn up for any "power" (and even lots of "non-powers"). However, would you agree that the "sins" of the Statesians are more recent, fresher in the minds of the general populace and of more immediate bearing on current events than those of most other Western countries?

Graham

Yes. All it does is illustrate how fickle people can be and how short our memories can be. And how hypocritical, and how blah blah blah (insert negative human trait).

That is partly why thinking Americans are so perplexed as to the depth of criticism and emotional feelings behind the recent spate of anti-Americanism. It seems so out of proportion to current events.

AS

[Graham]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Yes. All it does is illustrate how fickle people can be and how short our memories can be. And how hypocritical, and how blah blah blah (insert negative human trait).

That is partly why thinking Americans are so perplexed as to the depth of criticism and emotional feelings behind the recent spate of anti-Americanism. It seems so out of proportion to current events.

AS

Don't forget that people are afraid too. My wife was informed by a friend of hers recently, in all seriousness, that if things went wrong in Iraq angry muslims would be marching across her doorstep within weeks!

Ludicrous as that suggestion may be (we're in Ireland, btw, and quite apart from the fact that they'd have to march across a few thousand miles of land and two bits of sea to get here, quite why the raging horde would go to all the bother of invading us is a little beyond me), silly as it may be, she was actually quite nervous.

The US is being portrayed, rightly or wrongly, as the warmongerer here and thus the most obviou target for fear-based antagonism.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Graham

[AmateurScientist]

Originally posted by Graham


Don't forget that people are afraid too. My wife was informed by a friend of hers recently, in all seriousness, that if things went wrong in Iraq angry muslims would be marching across her doorstep within weeks!

Ludicrous as that suggestion may be (we're in Ireland, btw, and quite apart from the fact that they'd have to march across a few thousand miles of land and two bits of sea to get here, quite why the raging horde would go to all the bother of invading us is a little beyond me), silly as it may be, she was actually quite nervous.

The US is being portrayed, rightly or wrongly, as the warmongerer here and thus the most obviou target for fear-based antagonism.

Do you see what I'm saying?

Graham

Yes, but where was that fear in 1990?

Why now? Europe was mostly quite behind the US in 1990. The difference seems to be just a lot of spin. Why no outrage that Iraq has thumbed its nose at the UN Resolution all these years? Why the bending over backwards to justify that poor little Iraq hasn't done anything to deserve US aggression?

AS

[AmateurScientist]

This just feels like so much post-modern European affectation. Europeans seem to love to affect a holier than thou posture with respect to many things such as art, literature, culture, and of course peace.

From this side of the Atlantic, the latter is absurd and laughable, given the bloody history of Europe, especially considering the last century.

With little reason to fear the Russians at the moment, post-modern Europeans must fear someone. The leftist papers have decided to side with Saddam on this one, and against the US and Israel. Let's all fear America--everyone else hates 'em too.

On another topic, it's shameful than no European nation, save Britain, has been a consistent political ally of Israel. Why no mention of that in those leftist European papers?

AS

[crackmonkey]

Ah, Those Principled Europeans
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN


RUSSELS -- Last week I went to lunch at the Hotel Schweizerhof in Davos, Switzerland, and discovered why America and Europe are at odds. At the bottom of the lunch menu was a list of the countries that the lamb, beef and chicken came from. But next to the meat imported from the U.S. was a tiny asterisk, which warned that it might contain genetically modified organisms — G.M.O.'s.

My initial patriotic instinct was to order the U.S. beef and ask for it "tartare," just for spite. But then I and my lunch guest just looked at each other and had a good laugh. How quaint! we said. Europeans, out of some romantic rebellion against America and high technology, were shunning U.S.-grown food containing G.M.O.'s — even though there is no scientific evidence that these are harmful. But practically everywhere we went in Davos, Europeans were smoking cigarettes — with their meals, coffee or conversation — even though there is indisputable scientific evidence that smoking can kill you. In fact, I got enough secondhand smoke just dining in Europe last week to make me want to have a chest X-ray.

So pardon me if I don't take seriously all the Euro-whining about the Bush policies toward Iraq — for one very simple reason: It strikes me as deeply unserious. It's not that there are no serious arguments to be made against war in Iraq. There are plenty. It's just that so much of what one hears coming from German Chancellor Gerhard Schröder and French President Jacques Chirac are not serious arguments. They are station identification.

They are not the arguments of people who have really gotten beyond the distorted Arab press and tapped into what young Arabs are saying about their aspirations for democracy and how much they blame Saddam Hussein and his ilk for the poor state of their region. Rather, they are the diplomatic equivalent of smoking cancerous cigarettes while rejecting harmless G.M.O.'s — an assertion of identity by trying to be whatever the Americans are not, regardless of the real interests or stakes.

And where this comes from, alas, is weakness. Being weak after being powerful is a terrible thing. It can make you stupid. It can make you reject U.S. policies simply to differentiate yourself from the world's only superpower. Or, in the case of Mr. Chirac, it can even prompt you to invite Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe — a terrible tyrant — to visit Paris just to spite Tony Blair. Ah, those principled French.

"Power corrupts, but so does weakness," said Josef Joffe, editor of Germany's Die Zeit newspaper. "And absolute weakness corrupts absolutely. We are now living through the most critical watershed of the postwar period, with enormous moral and strategic issues at stake, and the only answer many Europeans offer is to constrain and contain American power. So by default they end up on the side of Saddam, in an intellectually corrupt position."

The more one sees of this, the more one is convinced that the historian Robert Kagan, in his very smart new book "Of Paradise and Power," is right: "Americans are from Mars and Europeans are from Venus." There is now a structural gap between America and Europe, which derives from the yawning power gap, and this produces all sorts of resentments, insecurities and diverging attitudes as to what constitutes the legitimate exercise of force.

I can live with this difference. But Europe's cynicism and insecurity, masquerading as moral superiority, is insufferable. Each year at the Davos economic forum protesters are allowed to march through the north end of town, where last year they broke shop windows. So this year, on demonstration day, all the shopkeepers on that end of town closed. But when I walked by their shops in the morning, I noticed that three of them had put up signs in their windows that said, "U.S.A. No War in Iraq."

I wondered to myself: Why did the shopkeepers at the lingerie store suddenly decide to express their antiwar sentiments? Well, the demonstrators came and left without getting near these shops. And guess what? As soon as they were gone, the antiwar signs disappeared. They had been put up simply as window insurance — to placate the demonstrators so they wouldn't throw stones at them.

As I said, there are serious arguments against the war in Iraq, but they have weight only if they are made out of conviction, not out of expedience or petulance — and if they are made by people with real beliefs, not identity crises.

[AmateurScientist]

Very good article, Crackmonkey. Europeans with a grudge would do well to read it. It helps to get some perspective, doesn't it?

AS

[Graham]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist


Yes, but where was that fear in 1990?

Why now? Europe was mostly quite behind the US in 1990. The difference seems to be just a lot of spin. Why no outrage that Iraq has thumbed its nose at the UN Resolution all these years? Why the bending over backwards to justify that poor little Iraq hasn't done anything to deserve US aggression?

AS

You're right, I don't recall there being such worry in 1990. The whole WTC thing really shook people up though, in a way that, I think, even years of fairly nasty terrorism in our own country didn't.

The papers today are full of pictures of British army troops at Heathrow Airport in tanks and APCs. Even our own little Shannon Airport is now surrounded by armed soldiers (there's some debate over whether they're actually allowed to shoot anyone but the peacniks have certainly quietened down). There was none of that in 1990.

Overall, I think that the 1990 war didn't really impinge on the public consciousness on anything like the scale that the war on terror and/or Saddam has.

I think the thing is that no-one really cares about Iraq and, rightly or wrongly, very few people consider Iraq an imminent threat to our way of life. Iraq isn't a part of "our world".

The US very much is a part of "our world" however. It's American officials that're on the news every night and, whatever the truth of it might be, they certainly look like they're charging into WW3 all guns blazing. In a small minded, petty kind of way, Iraq has never bothered "us". The US is, to all appearences, bothering us every day.

I'll say that again for the cheap seats, "in a small minded, petty kind of way". For the most part, people are small minded and the are petty and to expect them to act in anything other than a small minded and petty fashion is not reasonable, IMO.

As for the bending over backwards, my father always says "When you're in a hole, stop digging" - I never listened to him either.

Graham

Edited to change a tense and sense

[headscratcher4]

I think the thing is that no-one really cares about Iraq and, rightly or wrongly, very few people consider Iraq an imminent threat to our way of life. Iraq isn't a part of "our world".

This, I think is the critical point. As one who questions my own government actions in this country, the one thing that gets me in rant-mode is the perfectly natural phenomena of trying to talk about these things in black vs. white terms. Bush's is condemend in Europe (again, undestandably so) for reducing the world to his "good" vs. "evil" formula. However, as the above Blum piece quoted suggests, many European anti-Americans are completely guilty of the same.

The thing that drives me crazy is that Bush is wrong about so many things, but not completely wrong. Saddam is evil. Whether it is an evil that we have to deal with in the way we are, is debatable. But he is a bad man. Bush may not have the intellect of Sartre (sp?) (who spent WWII sipping coffee and lamenting the German occupation of Paris, but otherwise sanguine with the situation), but he isn't a murderer, or facist, or terrorist either.

His impulses and understandings are fueled by many concerns, moral and practical, but they have a basis. Indeed, the US for all of its great hubris, I always thought at least, shared many if not most of the values of a democratic Europe -- whereas Saddam (regardless of whether US forced regime change is a good or credible solution) share's not a one of those values.

I guess what I am saying it is the hypocracy of anti-Americanism...the right cause for the wrong reasons, as it were, vs. what I see in this country as the wrong cause for so many right reasons.....

[mbp]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
In an attempt to bring this thread back to the original topic, anyone care to comment on the polls supposedly showing such shallow analysis and bias against American policy towards Iraq?

The poll showing that a large number of Europeans believe control of oil is the US' principal reason for going to war? It's hard to say much about it as the article gives no details at all. How many people were asked? What was the question?

But even taking what is written at face value, why is that so terrible? I don't personally agree that oil is the principal reason, but I cannot see why anyone who does must be anti-american.


What about the German couple who suspects the CIA will plant or has planted evidence that Saddam has been hiding weapons violative of the UN Resolution?

Why does the opinion of a couple of arbitrary Germans - as recounted by an American journalist with a point to make - matter at all?
I don't think it does and I don't see the point in bringing it up.


What about the idiocy behind the French book about 9-11?

So? Aren't there any idiotic American books?
Do you really think that a significant number of Europeans believe what is in that book? They don't. I personally hadn't even heard of this book until now, and I've never heard anyone claim that the US government were beind 9-11.


Care to comment on those relevant issues?

I don't think they are.

[mbp]

Originally posted by crackmonkey
Ah, Those Principled Europeans
By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

BRUSSELS -- Last week I went to lunch at the Hotel Schweizerhof in Davos, Switzerland, and discovered why America and Europe are at odds. At the bottom of the lunch menu was a list of the countries that the lamb, beef and chicken came from. But next to the meat imported from the U.S. was a tiny asterisk, which warned that it might contain genetically modified organisms — G.M.O.'s.

My initial patriotic instinct was to order the U.S. beef and ask for it "tartare," just for spite. But then I and my lunch guest just looked at each other and had a good laugh. How quaint! we said. Europeans, out of some romantic rebellion against America and high technology, were shunning U.S.-grown food containing G.M.O.'s — even though there is no scientific evidence that these are harmful.
Even though I personally agree that the European opposition to GMOs is over the top I find this article very silly.
He is given the choice between food with and without GMOs. Isn't that the right way to do it? Let the consumers decide. Those who don't care will ignore the asterisks and those who do can order something else.
An act of "rebellion" against the U.S.? Not at all. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the U.S.

What about Americans buying organic food? Who are they rebelling against?
From the homepage of the American supermarket chain "Whole Foods Market" I got the following (http://www.wholefoodsmarket.com/issues/list_biotech.html):

As mandated in the U.S. Department of Agriculture's National Organic Standards, products labeled as organic cannot be grown from genetically engineered seed or made with genetically engineered ingredients. Therefore buying organic throughout our stores is another way to choose food that is not genetically engineered.

So if Mr. Friedman wants to see something just as silly as what he experienced in Europe, he only needs to go to an American restaurant serving organic food. If his "patriotic instinct" will let him.

[crackmonkey]

Talk about missing the point... whew.:rolleyes:

[Michael Redman]

If someone from the third world were to post a list of atrocities the world has suffered at the hands of the free, democratic West, I would think that they perhaps had a valuable point, and we in the West need to realize how our actions have affected the rest of the world.

On the other hand, for a European to accusingly post a list of bad things the US has done to the world is about as ridiculous hypocrisy as I can imagine, especially as the list contains so many examples of situations European countries created or inflamed themselves. For Europeans to hold these examples out as a reason for them to hate the US is nothing less than self-righteous arrogance. Should we be equally justified in hating Europe for all the terrible things European countries have done, and continue to do to this day, around the world?

[Michael Redman]

Originally posted by Graham
Henceforth, I will now refer to all citizens of the United States of America as "Statesians" What about people from the United States of Mexico?

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by mbp

So? Aren't there any idiotic American books?
Do you really think that a significant number of Europeans believe what is in that book? They don't. I personally hadn't even heard of this book until now, and I've never heard anyone claim that the US government were beind 9-11.

Well, enough people bought the book to make it a best seller in France, from what I understand. There are also a host of web sites govering the same material. (Admittedly, web sites aren't necessarily french or european only.)

For what its worth, Snopes talks about the rumours over the pentagon attack here:
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

[mbp]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Well, enough people bought the book to make it a best seller in France, from what I understand. There are also a host of web sites govering the same material. (Admittedly, web sites aren't necessarily french or european only.)

There are also many websites about the "The Great Moon Hoax", but I don't think many people believe in what they say. At least I hope not.
I don't really know anything about this book, but the fact that many copies were sold in France doesn't mean that many people believe everything that is written in it.

Is it really your impression that many people believe this?

[headscratcher4]

Polls have shown that in the Arab world in particular, this particular theory -- that the US staged 9-11 -- has a great deal of currency and is widely believed...along with the rummor that all the Jews were told to stay home that day...

[mbp]

Maybe in the Arab world. But in Europe?
I find that very hard to believe, and I know for a fact that it isn't true in "my" part of the continent.

[Segnosaur]

Originally posted by mbp

I don't really know anything about this book, but the fact that many copies were sold in France doesn't mean that many people believe everything that is written in it.

Is it really your impression that many people believe this?
Well, people don't often buy books if they don't have an interest in the topic and have at least some belief in the topics. (Do you go buy all of the books written by John Edward and Sylvia? How about UFO books?)

[mbp]

Originally posted by Segnosaur

Well, people don't often buy books if they don't have an interest in the topic and have at least some belief in the topics. (Do you go buy all of the books written by John Edward and Sylvia? How about UFO books?)
No, but I do own a Bible. :)
Buying a book shows some interest in the topic, yes, but it doesn't have to be anything more than that. And even if every copy of the book was sold to someone who now firmly believes it to be absolutely true that would still amount to less than 1% of the French population.

[mbp]

Originally posted by AmateurScientist
On another topic, it's shameful than no European nation, save Britain, has been a consistent political ally of Israel.

I don't understand how you get the impression that Britain has been a more consistent ally of Israel than all other European countries. In my view Britain has never stood out as especially pro- or anti-Israel when compared to the rest of Europe.
This article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2637011.stm) details some of the problems there have been between the two countries over the years.

Are you familiar with the British TV show "Yes, Prime Minister"?
In the (very funny) episode "A Victory for Democracy", the Foreign Office is portrayed as decidedly pro-Arab and the Prime Minister is unable to avoid having Britain vote against Israel in the UN. But in the end, the PM gets his revenge and the Foreign Office's "secret agent" in the PM's office is - as punishment - made ambassador in Tel Aviv where he'll get the chance "to explain why Britain is always voting against Israel in the UN".
I haven't been able to find the script anywhere on the net, but there is a summary of the episode on this (http://www.yes-minister.com/ypmseas1b.htm) page (it's the second episode from the top).

This is all fiction, of course, and comedy. But it wouldn't be funny if it didn't have some basis in reality.