Where's the love?

[Sprayber]

Originally posted by paiktis22
BTW the sh!t hit the fence when Germany jumped on the wagon and expressed antiamericanism.

It's sh!t hitting the fan. Not the fense.


People are anti american because its the cool thing to be. People in other countries are just as greedy, just as arrogent and just as eager to put themselves above others as they claim people in the US are. So spare me all the preaching and moralizing about the US.

I'm talking to you too Paiktis.



Oh and blah blah.

[Kepler]

Did we have the right to knock over the Taliban?

Is Saddam fundamentally different than the Taliban? He attained and has held power through force and intimidation. This is not the same ethical dilemma as knocking over a democratically elected government. Saddam and the Ba'ath are thugs.

Now, it sure would be better if the Iraqis got rid of him all by themselves (for instance, the way the Iranians got rid of *our* thug -- this works both ways). The resulting government might even be more anti-US, but at least then it would be democratic and would have to deal with the blocks on action that democratic states have.

[tandeetaylor]

Originally posted by Kepler
Did we have the right to knock over the Taliban?

I don't think so. I'm not saying the Taliban wasn't bad, but they were fundamentally just a scapegoat.

Is Saddam fundamentally different than the Taliban? He attained and has held power through force and intimidation. This is not the same ethical dilemma as knocking over a democratically elected government. Saddam and the Ba'ath are thugs.

Sorry, but we don't get to go attack people just because they're thugs. 1) I don't want to pay for it. 2) I don't want members of our military dying for it.

Now, it sure would be better if the Iraqis got rid of him all by themselves (for instance, the way the Iranians got rid of *our* thug -- this works both ways).

Too bad when Iran and Iraq were fighting we supported both sides so that neither one had to much power, isn't it?

The resulting government might even be more anti-US, but at least then it would be democratic...

The US government doesn't really care what type of government any country has as long as they're willing to wave an American flag in their face. Talk about standing up for your principles.

...and would have to deal with the blocks on action that democratic states have.

You've been playing to much civ. Unfortunately, the real world is calling.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Sava
maybe because the US is a greedy, consumerist society that takes and uses and exploits... just a thought...

You thought about that? You're even stupider than I thought you were.

[Sikander]

Six thousand,

Where did you get the impression that the U.S. started a war with Iraq in '91 because the Iraqis wouldn't sell their oil cheaply enough? This wasn't a problem at all, as we could just buy another country's oil at market price, which would force Iraq to either sell at a competetive price or not sell at all. This is called a market, and both the U.S. as well as the oil producing states have to play by it's rules, and both are somewhat powerless to resist as the spotty capabilities of both OPEC and U.S. power to influence those prices attest to.

The problem was that the Iraqis conquered Kuwait, and stood on the threshold of a relatively powerless Saudi Arabia. At this point by direct control they had 35% of the world's proven reserves, and they were capable of taking or threatening the states that controlled another 35+%. So rather than a bad businessman, Iraq was behaving a lot more like a murderous thieving mobster trying to seize monopolistic control of a critical commodity by violent means. Not only was there a clear legal and moral issue involved (taking another country off of the map by force is not considered cool these days), there was an economic and strategic reason as well. This sort of Nexus usually results in an as$ kicking or at least a damn good attempt at one.

Your numerous points based upon your flawed supposition are meaningless, regardless of the less than stellar opposition put up against them in some cases.

[Darkness' Edge]

Sikander - I agree with your last post, on reasons for the Gulf War.

However, I also agree with Sava's comment. The U.S. has not helped it's own image, as people are fed up with many years of American nationalism at the expense of the rest of the world.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Darkness' Edge
Sikander - I agree with your last post, on reasons for the Gulf War.

However, I also agree with Sava's comment. The U.S. has not helped it's own image, as people are fed up with many years of American nationalism at the expense of the rest of the world.

The problem is mostly one of perception. Everyone's nationalism occurs at some expense to the rest of the world. Every country has desires for glory and material wealth. We are by no means alone in this. The difference is that we get more attention than even our population, military and economic power deserve. Watch the BBC sometime and you will see at least one badly presented story about the U.S. containing an outright lie or a half-truth in it's opening paragraph. This story will be critical of the U.S. 80% of the time. If other state media outlets are putting out the same quality and quantity of negative propoganda I am surprised that world opinion of the U.S. is not lower still.

The fact is that the Europeans need us as a distraction to hide the fact that they themselves consume more than their fair share of resources while exploiting the same workers in the third world, while living in civilizations largely built up on the bloody carcasses of indigenous peoples around the world and / or their own peasants *** proletariate. They by and large feel guilty about that just as American urban liberals do, and like American liberals they like to distract themselves by decrying the evil of "the other" who consumes a bit more than they do and is unapologetic about it. This allows them to feel morally superior while still enjoying some of the highest living standards ever enjoyed by anyone living on the planet.

For American liberals that "other" is the Republican party and all those who tend to vote for it, while for Europeans the "other" is Americans in general. This is why this thread has so many American liberals whining about how it's unfair that they should be lumped together with the evil oppressive republican regime without which they are sure only good well-intentioned policies which are designed to assuage guilt would hold sway.

They seem to quickly forget that the Clinton administration was at least as focused on the economic well being and continuance of "the American way of life" as either Bush has been. Many will then argue that they thought Clinton was a good guy, but that he "sold them out", at least in this argument they will, but if you look into another thread they will gladly pin the blame for economic bad times on republicans while proudly trumpeting the growth in the economy under Clinton's tenure. This is because they are hypocrits, though they are probably mostly unaware of it. Economic growth equals more greenhouse gasses, more money to despicable dictators, more population, more deforestation, more toxins dumped into the ocean, more species lost forever, more strip mines, more child labor etc. You will find very few liberals or Europeans who are willing to give up a little bit of their economic potential in reality in order to limit their impact on the earth and the rest of it's peoples despite their rhetoric, for even the most ardent and sincere are part of political coalitions which draw their power from those who are less so.

The republicans don't have much going for them it's true, I'm trying to remember the last good idea that came from them. But they do have the benefit of being more forthright about their values, as they don't have the same disconnect on economic issues. They are all about creating economic growth (or at least claiming to have created it), and they don't lose a lot of sleep over who gets hurt in the process. They are elemental, and effective. Their policies sometimes represent the refined skills of advantage taking which have been honed over millenia.

These differences between liberal and conservative carry over to some extent into the foreign policy sphere. Clinton bombs Yugoslavia for "humanitarian" reasons (and largely because of European weakness), while Bush bombs Afghanistan for reasons of state. Europe had a lot to do with the former and gave it's official support to a large degree while feeling free to criticize the efforts of those who were doing what Europe wanted done but could / would not accomplish on its own. Bush has a better case for his military operation in Afghanistan IMO, but if anything the criticism is more intense because we are not serving the interests of Europe but our own. This would be anethema to our U.S. liberals most of the time, but after 9/11 most of them have gone along with the program to differing degrees. Iraq is another matter entirely.

Why neither American liberals nor Europeans seem to value leadership by example is somewhat of a mystery until you consider the fact that by demanding unanimity in their approach to environmental issues, economic and economic justice issues and foreign policy issues they are assured that they are able to take selfish advantage of all of the benefits of a republican / American approach to these issues while seizing the moral high ground. They can feel good about themselves while pigging out at the trough, the very thing that so disgusts them about republicans / Americans.

The truth is that western society in general is more powerful than that of the rest of the world. It's power rests in large part on the fact that it is more skillful in economic and technical areas, which both demands and allows it to use resources out of proportion to it's size. The tiny true difference in how life is conducted when a liberal is in power as compared to a conservative just shows how essentially meaningless these differences are. Their true purpose is to use up as much of the societal friction as possible while maintaining the status quo that allows it to continue to outperform the rest of the world. The fact that this serves our biological imperatives admirably is no coincidence at all.

The alien concept in all this is guilt, or at it's best a empathy for other human beings who aren't so lucky, and perhaps for the larger ecosystem as well. I am sure that this represents an opportunity for us to evolve spiritually, but I would hate to see that squandered by an inability to see us evolve intellectually in support of it. We live in such an insular world in the west that it is easy for us to ascribe our value systems to everyone else in the world. This is a big mistake. While I don't deny that most human beings are capable of empathy for other people and cultures we should not assume that they at all value that capability, in many places it is the opposite that is valued. The people dancing in the streets after 9/11 are not all that unusual in the world at large. By making nice politically safe assumptions about them we may be willfully blinding ourselves to the fact that they are merely republicans with the 500 years of liberal intellectual tradition replaced by 500 years of despotic rule by Turks, Arabs, etc. Thus we need our republicans and Americans, not to rule us in dogmatic fashion, but to remind us of where we come from, where much of the rest of the world is coming from, and to keep our survival skills honed in order to keep our intellectual and spiritual freedoms intact, whatever the rest of the world thinks about it.

[DinoDoc]

An on topic post!?! I had given up hope of seeing one of those.

[Boris Godunov]

Well, there are some who think that the U.S. gave Iraq tacit approval to invade Kuwait. Iraq had a legitimate complaint against Kuwait, as they were indeed syphoning off oil from Iraqi oil fields. The Kuwaiti government had thumbed its nose at Iraq's demands for them to stop.

[Ecthy]

Well DD, I never even noticed we had a hijack going on

[orange]

there wasn't, he's just whining because there are few pro-American posts

[Ecthy]

Pity.

So what is it that makes people post in here so actively? It's just the zillionth US bashing thread

[orange]

we're trying to find the root of it all, and how to fix it

[Ecthy]

like in every thread before and after 9-11.... especially before that date though, but very especially after.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by orange
there wasn't, he's just whining because there are few pro-American posts

Where do you see whining about the lack of pro-American posts, newbie?

Andz: Take a look at what the initial post was about and then look at what the majority of posts have been about in order to see the jack.