Stop the America-bashing!

[Arrian]

Originally posted by Coracle

So you all but compare the U.S. to the Muslim maniacs? "Hypocrites"? "Holier than thou"? Don't like "axis of evil"? Oh, really.

Well, YOU BET there is EVIL out there - blind fanatical religious hatred fueld by the most reactionary anti-human elements in Islam, and they hate America because of its success, because of its tolerance, because OUR values are the opposite of THEIR values, values dealing with women, theocracies, liberty, religious acceptance, and so much more.

Most of the terrorists of 9/11 came from upper middle class or wealthy families, BTW. So spare me that anti-American Clinton style garbage about us "not doing enough" for the Third World.

The problem is they correctly think we are suckers - too generous and not tough enough. They understand one thing - force. When Muslims for no reason a few weeks ago burned up scores of Hindus in a train in India, the Hindus responded in kind. That is what they understand.

American has for far too long wanted to be loved - instead of demanding to be respected and feared. The other problem is America's suicidal Open Borders policy. Osama's henchmen laughed at us before 9/11 for those borders, and they were right to laugh. They can get terrorists in here anytime they want - and they still can. Man, what a joke the INS is.

Woah, there. I didn't compare the U.S. to "Muslim maniacs" (is that different than Christian, Jewish, Hindu... maniacs? Was good 'ole Timmy McVeigh somehow significantly different?). But the fact is the United States of America, as in our government, has, in the past, done some pretty shady things (coups in Chile and Iran, support for some pretty unsaviory groups in Central America, to name a few). Therefore, it pisses people off when we get all self righteous and start throwing around the word "evil." That in NO WAY condones/apologizes for/etc. the 9/11 attacks. I was merely suggesting a possible reason for the fairly widespread dislike of the US government & its foreign policies - particularly in Europe, countries with whom we are allied! Think about that - those are our friends.

The idea that Islamic fanatics hate the USA for its success alone is, in my opinion, a copout. Plain and simple. It's so easy to say that, shrug your shoulders, saying "they hate us for who we are, which we aren't going to change, so..." and blithely consider whether or not to bomb Iraq (which, incidentally, is probably the least radically Islamist Arab nation). Sure, our nation's wealth and power are part of the equation. Anything that we do in the world is magnified by out "Superpower" status. The spotlight is on us, so-to-speak, and jealousy plays a role.

But it isn't just that. The fact is, our foreign policy is the source of a lot of the hatred. I don't by any stretch of the imagination think this hatred of the USA is all our fault. Then again, I don't buy the argument that it has nothing to do with our policies. I think US foreign policy needs to be re-examined, but then again, I've thought that for years.

Yes, there are large cultural differences between the USA and the Arab/Muslim world, as most clearly illustrated by the Taleban. That will be a source of friction no matter how clear and principled our foreign policy is, and maybe a few groups will keep trying to blow us up. So be it. Do you actually think we can stop terrorism by bombing the hell out of whichever country we think was involved in 9/11? Have a look at the Israeli vs. Palestinian conflict, and ask yourself if that's the path you wish to choose.

As for the "force is all they understand" bit... you really believe we are dealing with barbarians, don't you? The terrorists - yeah, I'd agree with you. The problem is that those people in India you were talking about were most likely 99% innocent civilians, not terrorists. But because they got lumped in with the fanatics, they got killed or beaten. How does that help things? It merely generates more hatred - which breeds terrorism. Think of it this way: you say that "they" understand only force, and that the Hindu response to the train burning was the "correct" way. By that twisted, ****ed-up logic, targeting civilians for the actions of a given organization is ok. Thus, a person upset about the U.S. government's bombing campaign in Afganistan would be "correct" in attacking any U.S. citizen he can find.

Finally, with regard to your comments about our open borders - what exactly do you suggest? That we stop immigration? Of course the INS needs a kick in the ass, and we need to be alert, but I have a feeling that you would approve of harrassing anyone who happens to be Muslim or of Arabic origin.

-Arrian

[Beren]

Re: Is eye for an eye a correct comparison to make.

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
Thanx. Its not that I didn't believe you but people are prone to make statements which are unfounded. I always question statements, its part of my job.

The next questions - how many lives has it saved? If the US hadn't acted how many people would have died in further attacks? Are the people of Afghanistan and the world better off? Has the action done more harm than good? Etc.

As an analogy I'm sure more civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki died than were killed at Pearl Harbour.

All are rhetorical points that nothing is black and white.

I was questioning whether America used too much violence in Afghanistan. Though I admit I disagreed with them originally, I think they had a possitive effect in the long run. But I think the actions could have been done with less violence.
As you can read in my links, Rumsfeld once bombed a village because they supported the Talibaan...
Where they supposed to revolt?

BTW: America is currently supporting the Israeli tactics in their 'war on terrorism.' Once again, America is supporting a form of suppression.

[Dauphin]

I agree that the US could have used less violent methods to acheive the same objectives, but I don't think they could have chosen methods to acheive their objectives more effectively or efficiently.

Having said that the actions taken were, and are, beneficial to wider society when taken in full context.

[siredgar]

*Yawns*

[Jaguar]

I think america is kind of like microsoft. people criticize it but couldn't get along a day without it.

[~Vodka~]

Yep, face it Ameri-bashers your livlyhood depends on American more than you like to admit.

[Dauphin]

Lets puch that analogy even further

If microsoft collapsed tomorrow, it would not be the end of the computer OS's. In fact computer users may be better off, Linux et al would have there chance to shine.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by Jaguar Warrior
I think america is kind of like microsoft. people criticize it but couldn't get along a day without it.

I know Israel couldn't last a day without America bankrolling with BILLIONS every year its assault on the Palestinians.

[Beren]

Now, if Europe would just form a unity, we would be superior to America.

[Dauphin]

That's debatable. Depends on the yardstick you use.

[Tori]

What's America?

I have never noticed it before ... well, on TV perhaps.

[~Vodka~]

Oh I got a better one:

Whats "Iceland" ? Isn't it one of those things that hands from the gutters in the winter after it rains...? No, thats an Icesicle... huh. Well, i'm stumped!

[Dauphin]

Mum's gone to Iceland

Iceland is a supermarket chain that sells frozen food.

[~Vodka~]

Oh yeah!

[Beren]

Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin
That's debatable. Depends on the yardstick you use.

Of course, I agree. In terms of military power, USA is superior. But if you talk about National Product, the EU is superior. I choose the last one, because it shows the potential of the union.