I truelly believe isolationism can work for the U.S.

[Dis]

but why does S. Korea, Europe, and Japan hate us?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dissident
but why does S. Korea, Europe, and Japan hate us?

Communists

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Dissident
but why does S. Korea, Europe, and Japan hate us?

I know at least one guy in Europe who does not hate you.

Feel better ?

[Ned]

Well, it's a start.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by Dissident
but why does S. Korea, Europe, and Japan hate us?

Envy.

It is as simple as that. Most of the world outside the British Empire spent two hundred years hating the British for being richer, more powerful and more economically successful than they were. Now it is the USA's turn to be successful and hated.

There is no pleasing the bleeding hearts types who blame terrorist acts on the US for supporting Israel and then shout when a US bomb goes astray and kills innocnet people. They just want to complain about someone else's war and feel safe in doing so.

Get used to it and try not to give the complainers too much opportunity.

[yago]

but why does S. Korea, Europe, and Japan hate us?

If you really want to know, you should start to make some inquiries.

But don't use American sources, use Australian or British.

An example: The Japanes have a problem with American soldiers raping 12 year old children.

They're problem gets even bigger, when an American General in Japan says:" those soldiers where stupid. They could have had the same in every whorehose."

There might be some interesting discoveries. If you don't go for the:" They envy us, they want to come here, but can't, they know nothing about us, they're nazis/French/Swedes/Koreans/ Anti-Semites/Retarded, Poor-Fools, Muslims," line.

[Evil_Eric_4]

I agree with the concept of pulling all our troops from foriegn soil.I would want us to keep our economic ties in place tho if that would be possible.Dont know if we can have one without the other but being spit on by the people we protect is unacceptable IMO.

Lets see how much of an economic powerhouse Germany or Japan would be if they actually had to build a military capable of defending itself.

One more thing--pulling our troops off foriegn soil hardly declaws the tiger.Our Navy alone could B****slap just about any nation on earth.We have also shown that we can put an armie on any shore in a short amount of time so the agument that we wouldnt be a military super-power anymore is quite naive.

There is an old saying--be careful what you wish for.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

It has nothing to do with welfare and everything to do with fiscal stability. The US dollar is now effectively the world's reserve currency - this gives the US somewhat of an economic free ride that other countries don't have. If the US starts printing money to pay for it's wars and tax cuts and the economy keeps sagging it will become less attractive as a reserve currency. If Britain adopts the Euro the European Union will have a bigger economy than the United States, making it much more attractive as a reserve currency.

Now what happens if foreigners dump their dollar holdings in favour of euros? Think about the balance of payments and the need for foreign investment.

Think "Splat!"

Actually not quite. First have a look at this.
This is from the online version of the economist at www.economist.com

McCurrencies
Apr 24th 2003
From The Economist print edition
Hamburgers should be an essential part of every economist's diet

THE past year has been one to relish for fans of burgernomics. Last April The Economist's Big Mac index flashed a strong sell sign for the dollar: it was more overvalued than at any time in the index's history (see article). The dollar has since flipped, falling by 12% in trade-weighted terms.

Invented in 1986 as a light-hearted guide to whether currencies are at their “correct� level, burgernomics is based on the theory of purchasing-power parity (PPP). This says that, in the long run, exchange rates should move toward rates that would equalise the prices of an identical basket of goods and services in any two countries. To put it simply: a dollar should buy the same everywhere. Our basket is a McDonald's Big Mac, produced locally to roughly the same recipe in 118 countries. The Big Mac PPP is the exchange rate that would leave burgers costing the same as in America. Comparing the PPP with the actual rate is one test of whether a currency is undervalued or overvalued.

The first column of the table shows local-currency prices of a Big Mac. The second converts them into dollars. The average price of a Big Mac in four American cities is $2.71. The cheapest burgers are in China ($1.20); the dearest are in Switzerland ($4.52). In other words, the yuan is the most undervalued currency, the Swiss franc the most overvalued. The third column calculates Big Mac PPPs. Dividing the local Chinese price by the American price gives a dollar PPP of 3.65 yuan. The actual exchange rate is 8.28 yuan, implying that the Chinese currency is undervalued by 56% against the dollar. The average price of a Big Mac in the euro area is now exactly the same as in America. This implies that the euro's PPP is exactly $1, so at its current rate of $1.10 the euro is 10% overvalued. The British, Swedish and Danish currencies are still significantly overvalued against the euro.

Among rich economies, the most undervalued currency is the Australian dollar. The Aussie dollar is still 31% below PPP against its American counterpart: its rise over the past year has been largely offset by a fall in the relative price of burgers in Australia. Many emerging-market currencies are undervalued against the dollar by 30-50%. One exception is the South Korean won, which is exactly at its PPP, implying that it is overvalued against other emerging-market currencies.

Many readers complain that burgernomics is hard to swallow. We admit it is flawed: Big Macs are not traded across borders as the PPP theory demands, and prices are distorted by taxes, tariffs, different profit margins and differences in the cost of non-tradables, such as rents. It was never intended as a precise predictor of currency movements, but as a tool to make exchange-rate theory more digestible. Yet in the early 1990s, just before the crisis in Europe's exchange-rate mechanism, it signalled that several currencies, including sterling, were markedly overvalued against the D-mark. It also predicted the fall in the euro after its launch in 1999.

Academic economists are taking burgernomics more seriously, chewing over the Big Mac index in almost a dozen studies. Now a whole book has been written about the index* by Li Lian Ong, of the International Monetary Fund. She says it has been surprisingly accurate in tracking exchange rates in the long term. But there are some persistent deviations from PPP. In particular, emerging-market currencies are consistently undervalued.

Differences in productivity are one explanation of this. Rich countries have higher productivity than poor countries, but their advantage tends to be smaller in non-tradable goods and services than in tradables. Because wages are the same in both sectors, non-tradables are cheaper in poorer countries. Therefore, if currencies are determined by the relative prices of tradables, but PPP is calculated from a basket that includes non-tradables, such as the Big Mac, the currencies of poor countries will always look undervalued. Ms Ong finds that currency deviations from PPP are indeed related to productivity differences relative to America. After adjusting for this, she finds that the Big Mac index performs better in tracking exchange rates.

The Big Mac index suggests that the dollar is no longer overvalued against the euro. But having overshot PPP, the dollar may well now undershoot, because America's huge current-account deficit is becoming harder to finance. Without stronger domestic demand in Japan and Europe to help trim the deficit, the dollar will have to take more of the strain. What are this year's other hot tips? The Australian dollar is likely to see the biggest gain. The pound will fall further against the euro. And China will come under increasing pressure to revalue the yuan.

(also see graph)

First of all, the US dollar is way overvalued. This is due of course because everyone wants the US dollar - it is a bit like a reserve for countries, especially third world. Our current account deficit (that would be total price of exports minus total price of imports) is compounded by the fact that the US dollar is actually worth more then the official exchange rate in a lot of countries. This is why Americans import so much because our currency is so strong, we cannot lay our hands off those extra cheap goods from other countries.

The strong dollar also encourages foreign investment in the US. THis is why we have a huge Capital Account surpls. (THat would be the total investment in the US by foreigners minus total investment elswhere by Americans) As long as these acounts balance themselves, the economy will not have a problem.

If the dollar loses value because people prefer the Euro, we will see the current account deficit grow smaller. American goods will look cheaper because the dollar is losing value, and foreign goods look more expensive because the dollar is losing value.

The capital account's surplus will decrease because as the dollar loses value, people pull their money out and change it into the EUro for example to keep them from losing its value.

The important thing is for the capital and current accounts to balance themselves out. When that happens, everything is right as rain.

[Dis]

yes I know about the girls that got raped.

But why do they blame an entire nation for that? That borders on racism if you ask me. They blame every american for some sicko military man who rapes a Japanese girl? The guy should be prosecuted to the full extent of japanese law and that should be the end of it.

[I Am Jeff]

In general the Japanese do not hate the US. In fact I believe they like us more as a country then many other places. Tell me if I am wrong, but the Japanese like to be like us.

As for South Korea, the people that hate the U.S. are ones that are young. Too young to remember what happend there in the 50's, and maybe later. I do not think they realize how evil North Korea's leader (I cant spell his name) is and what his intentions are. As with all divided countries, they want to unite with their other parts, but the only way that will happen is if it happens North Korea's way, or the regime in North Korea becomes or wants to be democratic.

South Koreans dislike us for the usual reasons and the fact that they see us getting in the way of reuniting.

[Ned]

Originally posted by I Am Jeff

South Koreans dislike us for the usual reasons and the fact that they see us getting in the way of reuniting.

We definitely ARE getting in the way of reuniting if you think what will happen when we leave.

[Q Classic]

ned will believe what he will, and there's no point in me trying to inform him that a) koreans are not "attacking us if we walk down the streets of Seoul", b) skorea is not under the control of communists, or c) that young skoreans don't, by and large, think the us is responsible for the korean war.

ned and pretty much every other strong conservative has it in their heads that skorea hates the us, simply because it's a lot easier to think that than to actually understand the problem is a good deal more complex than that.

i'm not going to argue with them, because there's no point.

to answer the allegations that americans are attacked when they walk down the street: yes, there are incidents. yes, it's because they're american, or look american. keep in mind, however, usually it's by drunk young men with a whole bunch of aggressive energy and no place to put it.
one could say that white police officers are shooting black teens if they walk down the street--but it's merely putting a delightful spin on the facts by making it seem as if it's a common occurence, rather than the isolated incidents they are.
but there's no point in arguing that, because it's obvious that all south koreans hate the americans.

to answer the allegation that south korea is under the sway of communists: yes, there is a small communist party in south korea. yes, there is a large portion of the young adult body, mostly comprised of liberal students, who tend to view the north not with fear, but with desire, wanting reunification at all costs.
that ignores the fact that south korea has a strong anti-communist law, one that borders on america's old alien & sedition acts back around the turn of the 19th century. granted, it's often used for political purposes, but it's on the books and is still used as a tool for the prosecution.
but there's no point in arguing that, because it's obvious that all south koreans hate america.

to answer the allegation that young koreans think that the us is responsible for the war: i honestly am mystified. i don't know where that comes from.
perhaps if you spin history this way, where teddy roosevelt tells japan to annex korea, then divides the peninsula so it can have a frontline with the soviet union, then...
or maybe withdrawing was a sort of gambit to have the soviets invade...
or maybe the us...
i can't argue against this, because i have no idea where this allegation came from. asia is no different, i suppose, than any other country in revising its textbooks: american textbooks glossing over the systematic extermination of the native peoples; japanese textbooks playing down the atrocities it performed in the greater east asian co-prosperity sphere...
then again, there's no point in arguing agaist this allegation either, is there? it's obvious that all south koreans hate america.

there's no point in me bringing up that there's a sense of wounded pride amongst the young people who want more respect and feel slighted--even if they don't really have a valid reason.
why? because it makes no sense to the conservative point of view: perhaps they should be grateful and shut up? if they don't shut up, they're obviously ungrateful and hate america.

there's no point in mentioning that a good deal of the anti-american sentiment is directed at the bush administration for what the skoreans see as two major slights, which was the accident involving the schoolgirls and the ham-handed handling of the nkorean situation.
why? because bush's hardline policy is good because it calls nkorea to task for its behavior in the past--in theory, while in practice it's no different from clinton's policy. although, mentioning that isn't polite conversation. it's easier to think that the skoreans hate america because they're weak-minded.

there's no point in pointing to the fact that it's very easy for a charismatic leader to take one event and whip up his countrymen into a patriotic fervor against some enemy over that one injustice/crime/terrorist act.
it's easier...

why should i argue that young koreans think that the us is in the way simply because of how they feel the us has been acting in the past three years?
there's no point. ned and the conservatives will believe what they will.

[DinoDoc]

there's no point in me bringing up that there's a sense of wounded pride amongst the young people who want more respect and feel slighted--even if they don't really have a valid reason.

Why should they get more respect when they feel slighted when they lack a valid reason for thier wounded pride? Case in point, the accident involving the schoolgirls. The agreement we have with the RoK shows more respect for thier judicial system than the one we have with Japan and the the ones the South Koreans write themselves with other countries when they make peacekeeping commitments.

[Q Classic]

the point is that the skoreans don't hate the us, dd.

[I Am Jeff]

To Q Cubed:

than any other country in revising its textbooks: american textbooks glossing over the systematic extermination of the native peoples;

I have to disagree. My textbook talks about all the treatys the U.S. broke (which screwed the natives out of their land), the Indian wars, the forced movement to reservations, etc. Maybe my school is the exception.

I know I did not say that all South Koreans hated the U.S. I said the ones that did are young, which is true.
My quote from earlier:

As for South Korea, the people that hate the U.S. are ones that are young.

And in some ways they have a right to be mad, because of our troops that are there. A few of them have done some bad things and their presence prevents reunification at the moment. But in another way they should be happy that the troops are there. Because it is the presence of U.S. troops the past 50 years that let them have the better life then that of ones who live in the North.