What's the Difference?

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Arrian


Bull****. If the author said that foreign policy decision such as our support for Israel, our backing of sanctions vs. Iraq, our demonization of Iran, etc. are indications of an undeclared war, that would make more sense. It's still a bit of a stretch, but it's a helluva lot more concrete than "a massive gap in relative wealth and the steady invasion of Western brand names, pop culture, and social values." I'm sorry, but when I go down the "international food" isle at the local Stop&Shop, I don't think my country is being invaded.

I agree with the author that most Muslims buy into the "America + Israel against us" argument, but I reject the idiotic statement that it's because of McDonalds, Brittney Spears and the concept of equal rights for women. No, it's based on an entirely different combination of factors:

1) US foreign policy
2) The policies of their (Arab/Muslim nations) goverments. This includes political repression, corruption, and poverty, and of course propoganda to blame it on someone else (US/Israel)
3) Lack of education: this of course goes for Americans who don't understand what's going on either, but the fact of the matter is that the "Arab street" is not an educated bunch of people. What they "know" comes from the local Mosque, and we know what they think of the US. That's worse than someone who forms their opinions by watching "The O'Rielly Factor" (*shudder*)
4) The "David vs. Goliath" syndrome. We're bigger, stronger & richer, so we're assumed to be the bully (and if we really are acting like a bully, it's even worse).

OFITG, I don't believe you for a second when you say:



Sorry, but your posts just don't jive with that statement.

-Arrian

OK... you picked the first sentence that is the easiest to disagree with ... I give you that however look at the rest.

Well on your points 1. - well we agree here

2. - don't forget that the gov in question - Hussein was being introduced/ supported for a long time by US. (as are most other ME regimes apart from Iran/Syria/Libya - hey axis of evil ) And you will find out that apart from the three AOE countires above all other governents are more friendly towards US than is the normal population.

3. - I agrre with this sentiment but as you can tell from 1 and 2 - US actions do not help the sentiment here

4 - maybe - but I wouldn't say that much. China is bigger and better and noone cares about them even they are a communist dicatorship. The thing is that the Chinese did not spread havoc during the Cold war and after in the ME region while US did.

and on my statement:

Well you might not believe me.... but trust me when I say that I was a true US supporter when US helped my country to get rid of the invaders. (Croatia) While I see that as right in that respect. I still make the questions and the US actions make me even more certain that what US is doing now is not good and is putting many people (including me living in the UK) at risk. Furthermore I do have very good reasons for that, and I would love to agree with US actions, I guess Clinton sutied me much more, still he was no saint , and if I was an adult in Carters day and age... he would have suited me even more... but hey we have Dubya, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft. Make your own judgement upon their actions. History will show what it the correct way. Actually it has shown many times... It seems to me that the current administration is heading the one towards even greater destruction for both participants.

You can say that I did a full turn on US... but still I would like to love them stands. If I did have no reasons to support my dislike - your belief would be fair... but hey why do you discount reasoning, and say that I cannot like US policies and actions?

[SlowwHand]

So in other words, as long as it affected you and yours it was ok.
Kind of like the U.S. is doing now.

[Arrian]

OFITG,

It's not that I don't think there isn't any reason to dislike the US government. I clearly stated that there are many factors that could push someone into an anti-American mindset. In your case, however, there is something more. This is my opinion, based upon your posts. Your word choice, your choice of issues, the general tone of your arguments... it's pretty clear to me that you really enjoy railing against the big, bad USA. It could be a misinterpretation on my part, I acknowledge that. But that's my opinion.

With regard to you liking Bill Clinton over Dubya:

This is the man who ordered a strike on an aspirin factory in the Sudan so that the US public would go "ooh, look at the pretty fireball" instead of paying attention to his dalliance with an intern. Clinton is partially to blame for the image people of have of politicians in Washington "wagging the dog" - which is one thing Bush is currently being accused of. Clinton (like many before him) damaged the credibility of the US government. Big time.

-Arrian

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by SlowwHand
So in other words, as long as it affected you and yours it was ok.
Kind of like the U.S. is doing now.

No it is not true, as well helping free up 1/3 of the country from occupation is legitimate and in the process they stabilised the region permanently.

This is one of the rarer US correct judgements of 20th century, and one I am particularly glad for... esp as they went in agains UK/France/Russia, and on side with Germany ...

Still to make it clear why yes regardless of the country invbolved - freeing up the territory that was occupied (I don't see that in Iraq). Balancing out another county (Bosnia) - well at least there was a posibillity for peace in there after that, that lasts until today, however that country was fcked beyond repair in the Balken war (comparing it to prewar status, however US has nothing to do with that of course). All in all Balkans is now pretty safe place that it wouldn't have been wasn't there the US influence.

However why did US act there for apparently humanitarian reasons - well it was a war in the middle of Europe, UK and France were trying to broker something for a few years unsuccessfuly already. And there is nothing worth fighting for in there apart from the peace in Europe I guess which is still important in the region.

It would be good to see US so unbiased on other places, but ask Rwandese what they thought of western help and when it had arrived. Well in Croatia it arrived late too... but still better late than never (anyway the fighting was done by us, US helped at the end only, diplomatically and strategically).

Still on Iraq - is it a threat to US? To have to attack now? Of course not - but we discussed that many times didn't we ...

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Arrian
OFITG,

It's not that I don't think there isn't any reason to dislike the US government. I clearly stated that there are many factors that could push someone into an anti-American mindset. In your case, however, there is something more. This is my opinion, based upon your posts. Your word choice, your choice of issues, the general tone of your arguments... it's pretty clear to me that you really enjoy railing against the big, bad USA. It could be a misinterpretation on my part, I acknowledge that. But that's my opinion.

With regard to you liking Bill Clinton over Dubya:

This is the man who ordered a strike on an aspirin factory in the Sudan so that the US public would go "ooh, look at the pretty fireball" instead of paying attention to his dalliance with an intern. Clinton is partially to blame for the image people of have of politicians in Washington "wagging the dog" - which is one thing Bush is currently being accused of. Clinton (like many before him) damaged the credibility of the US government. Big time.

-Arrian

Well for the aspirin factory or the Chinese embassy in Belgrade true... but Bush's Axis of Evil, and current Iraq, plus all the other disregard for the "international community" -from Kyoto onwards huh beats Clinton hands down several times already... and he has not finished his first mandate yet.

And on me - well you have the right on your opinion - fair enough,

* edit: still what do you think of "rebuild Afghanistan now when you have the chance - to show the world who US really is." idea, as opposed to taking down Saddam so quickly? (btw... Afghanistan could have been started long ago).

Wouldn't that remove one terrorist breeding ground and proide for a good base in Asia, plus show to others what can really be done and that US in not so evil as it seems?

[Arrian]

Oh, I almost forgot:

2. - don't forget that the gov in question - Hussein was being introduced/ supported for a long time by US. (as are most other ME regimes apart from Iran/Syria/Libya - hey axis of evil)

I am very wary of the... let's call it "blame creep" going on around the world today. If countries such as say... Britain and France messed around in the ME and caused problems, the blame for this has been transferred to the USA, even though we had nothing to do with it. We have had an impact on the ME independent of what Britain and France have done, and it is for that that we should be judged (this includes our support for Israel, for which I suppose we will never be forgiven by most Arabs). So we get blamed for all Western intervention by the locals, whereas other Westerners rip into us for our actions as well. Lovely.

-Arrian

[Arrian]

We keep crossposting.

I agree we need to work on Afganistan, and I think there needs to be more of a focus on it. There are major differences between Afganistan and Iraq, however, in that Iraq is a relatively developed country compared to Afganistan (despite our bombing runs). Afganistan has next to NO infrastructure. It's tribal as all hell, and cultural values are downright medieval. Therefore, I honestly think that Afganistan will take a long time to become a stable country, even if we throw gobs of money at it.

The Warlords are a sticky issue. On the one hand, it doesn't look good to be supplying them with money or arms. On the other, if we don't work with them, we have to work against them, and they are (as I understand it) tribal leaders with the support of the local people. Turning them against us isn't all that bright. So you do a deal with the devil. This is how it happens. You pat them on the head, give them a piece of the pie and politely look the other way when they subject women to virgin inspections (seriously, what planet are these people from?). Otherwise, you have to deal with them as enemies. Which would you do?

-Arrian

[MrFun]

I want more thoughts about how United States can set themselves up on such a high pedestal of righteous outrage against terrorism, when the United States conducts its own form of terrorism through the School of America.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Arrian
Oh, I almost forgot:



I am very wary of the... let's call it "blame creep" going on around the world today. If countries such as say... Britain and France messed around in the ME and caused problems, the blame for this has been transferred to the USA, even though we had nothing to do with it. We have had an impact on the ME independent of what Britain and France have done, and it is for that that we should be judged (this includes our support for Israel, for which I suppose we will never be forgiven by most Arabs). So we get blamed for all Western intervention by the locals, whereas other Westerners rip into us for our actions as well. Lovely.

-Arrian

Well that is true - but the whole point is that US is not making it any easier. They just confirm what the mullahs have been saying to the people all along.

It is enough to have only Israel... but you get Saddams sanctions (Why does the US do not deal with him, but they punish the people); the Saudis - US keeps the royal family in charge - the Iranians - well there the governmnet is worse than the people - obviously Iraqis have lots of reasons to be mad at US. Egyptians - again US supporty the gov there beyond the likeliness of many musims. Add in Lybia and there is plenty to hate US for in ME. All would wanish if US went from the region 30 years ago (or if it did after the end of cold war). But the oil and steady supply is too important to abandon the region and to let the muslims fight it out among themselves plus the disturbances that might bring to oil supply. There would be no hate towards US in the same way there is no hate towards the Japanese. Well both are rich and advanced countries.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
4 - maybe - but I wouldn't say that much.

Views of world elite at core of U.S. problems abroad
By Vladimir Shlapentokh and Joshua Woods

Much of the debate over anti-Americanism abroad boils down to a single question: Who's responsible for it — them or us?

The Pew Global Attitudes Project's recent gargantuan survey, which stretched its tentacles across 44 countries and included some 38,000 people, found that America's rating has slipped, but "a reserve of goodwill toward the country still remains."

That seems a windfall for America's image abroad compared to the decisively negative views we discovered in our own yearlong study of foreign elite opinion. While the Pew project focused on the masses, our study measured the reaction of foreign elites — that is, people who shape the foreign and domestic policies in their countries — to the events of 9/11, as reflected in the international press. We analyzed more than 4,000 articles from the 10 largest newspapers in China, Colombia, Egypt, Germany, India and Russia, most of them published Sept. 12-15, 2001. While many of these articles were written by pundits who are paid to be provocative, we also separated and measured the opinions of political, business, cultural and religious leaders.

Our major finding: Elites in much of the world hate the USA. Even the so-called outpouring of sympathy for America following 9/11 never really materialized among most foreign elites.

In India, for instance, a columnist called America "a bully," while a religious leader said the USA was "a hypocrite who bombs the people it feeds." In Egypt, a politician proclaimed that "America's racist foreign policies are the main cause of Sept. 11." Although Egypt receives more financial aid from the USA than any other country in our project, the Egyptian elites in our study labeled the USA "a terrorist" 16 times more often than they called it "generous or charitable."

Views harm anti-terror efforts

This hostility has a tremendously negative effect on the struggle against international terrorism. It creates an adversarial climate in which terrorists can find support among ordinary people; foreign intelligence agencies are less willing to share information with their U.S. counterparts, and U.S. military operations are impeded. It also generates political capital for the opposition in countries where the leader cooperates with America.

The disparity between mass and elite views sheds light on the cause of anti-Americanism. When the masses abroad think of the United States, they may consider its military's brute force or the improprieties of its leaders — but they also see Hollywood, high technology and a chance for a better life. The USA received high scores in the Pew study for culture, particularly science and technology.

Masses vs. elites

More importantly, immigration to the USA is the dream of the masses — but not the elites. Foreign elites already have their place in society. They see only America's power, authority and confidence — for the simple reason that America's power exceeds their own.

Power is the prism through which elites overseas view America. The "superpower status" of the USA is the leading characteristic in foreign elites' descriptions of America. The country's power is indeed the main cause of anti-Americanism in the world.

As for "American culture," the term hardly exists in the lexicon of foreign elites. When we ranked the images used among elites abroad for the USA, "rich culture or strong educational institutions" ranked 37th; "technologically advanced" was 14th. Even "brave, courageous or bold" ranked 31st. These and many other positive U.S. images were eclipsed by "tries to impose its will on other countries" (second place), "cares only for its narrow interest" (fifth), "warlike" (sixth), "hypocritical" (eighth), "arrogant" (10th) and "terrorist" (13th).

"In many ways, we are viewed as the rich guy living on the hill," said former secretary of State Madeleine Albright, chairwoman of the Pew global survey.

Albright is almost right. America is the rich guy on the hill, loved by many in other countries but despised by the elites who control those countries' institutions. Given that, anti-Americanism will likely persist as long as the U.S. storehouse of military and economic power holds.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Views of world elite at core of U.S. problems abroad
By Vladimir Shlapentokh and Joshua Woods

Much of the debate over anti-Americanism abroad boils down to a single question: Who's responsible for it — them or us?

The Pew Global Attitudes Project's recent gargantuan survey, which stretched its tentacles across 44 countries and included some 38,000 people, found that America's rating has slipped, but "a reserve of goodwill toward the country still remains."

That seems a windfall for America's image abroad compared to the decisively negative views we discovered in our own yearlong study of foreign elite opinion. While the Pew project focused on the masses, our study measured the reaction of foreign elites — that is, people who shape the foreign and domestic policies in their countries — to the events of 9/11, as reflected in the international press. We analyzed more than 4,000 articles from the 10 largest newspapers in China, Colombia, Egypt, Germany, India and Russia, most of them published Sept. 12-15, 2001. While many of these articles were written by pundits who are paid to be provocative, we also separated and measured the opinions of political, business, cultural and religious leaders.

Our major finding: Elites in much of the world hate the USA. Even the so-called outpouring of sympathy for America following 9/11 never really materialized among most foreign elites.

In India, for instance, a columnist called America "a bully," while a religious leader said the USA was "a hypocrite who bombs the people it feeds." In Egypt, a politician proclaimed that "America's racist foreign policies are the main cause of Sept. 11." Although Egypt receives more financial aid from the USA than any other country in our project, the Egyptian elites in our study labeled the USA "a terrorist" 16 times more often than they called it "generous or charitable."

Views harm anti-terror efforts

This hostility has a tremendously negative effect on the struggle against international terrorism. It creates an adversarial climate in which terrorists can find support among ordinary people; foreign intelligence agencies are less willing to share information with their U.S. counterparts, and U.S. military operations are impeded. It also generates political capital for the opposition in countries where the leader cooperates with America.

The disparity between mass and elite views sheds light on the cause of anti-Americanism. When the masses abroad think of the United States, they may consider its military's brute force or the improprieties of its leaders — but they also see Hollywood, high technology and a chance for a better life. The USA received high scores in the Pew study for culture, particularly science and technology.

Masses vs. elites

More importantly, immigration to the USA is the dream of the masses — but not the elites. Foreign elites already have their place in society. They see only America's power, authority and confidence — for the simple reason that America's power exceeds their own.

Power is the prism through which elites overseas view America. The "superpower status" of the USA is the leading characteristic in foreign elites' descriptions of America. The country's power is indeed the main cause of anti-Americanism in the world.

As for "American culture," the term hardly exists in the lexicon of foreign elites. When we ranked the images used among elites abroad for the USA, "rich culture or strong educational institutions" ranked 37th; "technologically advanced" was 14th. Even "brave, courageous or bold" ranked 31st. These and many other positive U.S. images were eclipsed by "tries to impose its will on other countries" (second place), "cares only for its narrow interest" (fifth), "warlike" (sixth), "hypocritical" (eighth), "arrogant" (10th) and "terrorist" (13th).

"In many ways, we are viewed as the rich guy living on the hill," said former secretary of State Madeleine Albright, chairwoman of the Pew global survey.

Albright is almost right. America is the rich guy on the hill, loved by many in other countries but despised by the elites who control those countries' institutions. Given that, anti-Americanism will likely persist as long as the U.S. storehouse of military and economic power holds.

OK... acknowledged.

[Arrian]

Our major finding: Elites in much of the world hate the USA. Even the so-called outpouring of sympathy for America following 9/11 never really materialized among most foreign elites.

Definitely.

Following 9/11/01, I did a lot of reading of editorials and "letters to the editor" in foreign papers (which I still do, but not quite as regularly now), along with catching some CBC and ITN programs regarding 9/11. The overwhelming message was "you had it coming, you arrogant bastards." The messages of sympathy were thin and contrived, for the most part. I don't think we squandered goodwill following 9/11, because I don't think there was much goodwill following 9/11. It was just lipservice.

Now, our wealth, power, etc. are only part of the reason most people viewed 9/11 as our comeuppance. Like I said before, there are other factors. That's for the "common man." For the elites, clearly different weight is given to the various factors. I'm not really sure I agree with the general thrust of the article, DD, but I sure do agree with the assessment of foreign elite opinion on 9/11.

-Arrian

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by Arrian
We keep crossposting.

I agree we need to work on Afganistan, and I think there needs to be more of a focus on it. There are major differences between Afganistan and Iraq, however, in that Iraq is a relatively developed country compared to Afganistan (despite our bombing runs). Afganistan has next to NO infrastructure. It's tribal as all hell, and cultural values are downright medieval. Therefore, I honestly think that Afganistan will take a long time to become a stable country, even if we throw gobs of money at it.

The Warlords are a sticky issue. On the one hand, it doesn't look good to be supplying them with money or arms. On the other, if we don't work with them, we have to work against them, and they are (as I understand it) tribal leaders with the support of the local people. Turning them against us isn't all that bright. So you do a deal with the devil. This is how it happens. You pat them on the head, give them a piece of the pie and politely look the other way when they subject women to virgin inspections (seriously, what planet are these people from?). Otherwise, you have to deal with them as enemies. Which would you do?

-Arrian

and yes... we keep crossposting , I missed this one.

I agree with you more than many here (perhaps MTG, out of pro-US people) ... anyway it is tricky -for sure, however I believe the US stance was - we get rid of the Taliban and Al Quaeda camps and we get out IIRC.

Now we both agree that is wrong. I guess debating what would be the way to actually rebuild Afghanistan is a separate thread topic (but helping people in their traditional jobs (educationg), helping them make food and organise themselves in the way they want to, not giving them leaders, but giving them means to survive- is my idea - there are plenty of starving people out there now, could help with irrigation, whatever is the way they produce food, housing (tents if they use them) etc... . Not only that noone is touching these issues they even haven't cleared out all Al Quaeda camps either... and are not doing it at the moment apparently (there was a post I made about this recently), and now comes Iraq...

And for lipservice post 9-11... surely everyone does that, this is politics afterall.

[Arrian]

Yeah, Afganistan would be its own thread, and we've jacked the hell out of this one already

It was a good discussion, though.

-Arrian

[Drogue]

Originally posted by Ned
Why was England justified in invading Germany in WWI and II if it was England that had declared war on Germany because Germany had attacked an ally? Why not stop when Belgium and Poland were liberated? At least duing WWII, Germany tried to make peace with England throughout the war. Germany made it clear that it did not want war with England. Germany made it clear that it was only responding to attacks by England on Germany.

By your own analysis in the case of the US and Iraq, England was unjustified in invading Germany during either WWI or WWII.

Yes, I believe they should have stopped there. Indeed they tried. Haig I think to was (unless I've got the wrong) wanted us to be lenient on Germany, to keep it as a trading ally, and was against complete invasion and occupation. Sadly, it was not his decision though. However I don't think it was a massive failing that they did, like I don't think it was a massive failing that the UN did not stop at defending Kuwaitm, although I do feel it should not have been done. A difference between Germany and Iraq is that Germany was a threat to all fighting against her, whereas Iraq posed no threat to the USA or UK. I do understand why we went to Iraq, but I feel the UNs mandate only goes so far as defense. If Iraq had invaded the US, I would feel better about invading Iraq.

Germany tried to make peace with England? Not as far as I've read, if you have a source I would be interested. Moreover, we had alliances that we would enforce the neutrality of Belgium. I would have been in favour of stopping at Germany's borders, but even those were disputed at the time. WW1 I'm afraid I know little about so cannot really comment.