Jump to content

anti americanism. really pisses me off.


yolande
 Share

Recommended Posts

Sigh Snootles:

Sigh Snootles:

However, I do think the US does set itself up for attacks of being hypocrital because our government is always going on about how we support freedom and democracy, while we often look the other way and support regimes that go against everything we claim to support in order to support our way of life. Don't forget we supported Saddam in the 1980's when it suited our interestes. We can't claim to be the beacon of light for the world when we are so selective in who we let the light shine on.

that's exactly it. you are so wise, es.

and like you said earlier, every nation on earth is guilty of this... canadians wander around saying we are this wonderful loving nation too, when we have an entire native population here that lives what has been compared to a 'third world' existence...

Same with us. We give this facade of sandy beaches, smiling faces, fit bronzed bodies and cultural diversity (among other things). Yet like your native population our Aboriginal population lives in squalor that rivals many poor African nations, we have the highest rate of youth suicide in the world (under 18), we're now the FATTEST nation in the world and in our hearts, we're a nation of racists.

 

We also pass ourselves off as peace-loving, yet our policy for detaining refugees, the "stolen generation" (where aboriginal children have been taken from their families to white families so they can "Breed themselves out of existence", and our current government refuses to take any responsibility for) and we have gladly supported an invasion of a sovereign nation without UN approval. But not surprisingly, what did our little pm get in his Xmas stocking last year? A Free Trade Agreement with the US (and I won't even get started on how that's screwing us over)! NO-ONE has the right to punish those that follow their conscience simply because it conflicts with one person's beliefs. It may be the way of the world, but it doesn't make things right. It reeks of dictatorship to me.

 

The truth is we're all hypocrits in our own way. But the "anti-American" sentiment stems purely from the fact that no matter how hard the rest of us try, all we see and hear are Americans. America, and her people, stick their neck out on the chopping block more than anyone else on the planet so be prepared for the guillotine to drop now and then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Lucas:

The war has nothing to do with what
I'm
talking about, which is citizens of other nations being mad at the US for exerting it's strength when they do the same thing.

And we keep saying that nations that do the same thing are also criticized, even the nations that just try but can't actually pull it off because they don't have the clout the US does. And not all countries behave even remotely like that. How often do you hear of Portugal starting wars for profit, or Sweden snatching people off the streets and keeping them overseas in internment camps indefinately? How often do Sri Lanka, Kenya and Ireland flaunt international law and get away with it? Or New Zealand, for that matter?

 

Doesn't someone have the right to point the finger at what they think is wrong? That is the very right America is so proud of giving the Iraqis, and realistically the only positive thing they have received so far. "You have the right to voice opinions (as long as they are not negative opinions about us, that is)"!

 

Don't say NZ was trying to "excert its strength" when it refused to join the war, that was a moral and ethical decision, not one based purely in self-interest, petty politics or economic considerations. Did it think that decision would relly affect the actions of the US in that issue? No, despite the persistent hope that at some point one more country refusing to join that campaign, one more million-person protest, one more vote in the UN, or one complying action by Saddam would tip the scale and make the coalition see what was so blaringly evident to others, and pull back. But make no mistake, NZ knew that wasn't going to happen. But, unlike in certain other countries, the leadership listened to the people, and decided to represent them instead of kowtow to the dollar and the fist that holds it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what Lucas, I made that comment about New Zealand in like two posts. get over it. Secondly, because you've served in those countries, you have to defend the decision to send people their or it's not patriotic. I'm not saying this is bad. You have taken every single comment I have made out of context. THis thread was started by someone who wanted to know why their is so much anti-americanism, I tried to give my opinion but you have just tried to shoot it down. What do you want me to say? Nothings wrong and i'm an idiot!? I'm not saying America is bad. You've said it your self, every country tries to exert their influence on other countries. I'm just saying the way America and by this the American Government exerts their influence is a tad arrogant. This passes through some people. I hear all the time, Kiwis a re nice people. I'll tell you this, I'd rather live somewhere else! Not all Kiwis are nice, infact alot are hicks and racist. but they don't go to other countries and try to tell them their doing ti wrong and that they should do it like it's done back home. Every country needs to show some acceptance towards other races and traditions and laws!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't support everything America does by any means. If I don't end up working in it's government I'll probably go live somewhere else. You've just narrowed it down: You think the way America does business is arrogant. But I highly doubt you could pinpoint anything that other countries don't do, if only less successfully.

 

Just as I thought it was pretty annoying how Robert Horry got that random tip and hit the three to beat the Kings. That really pissed me off, I hated the Lakers. But it was simply an emotional response, not founded in any truths or facts. Just as your response most likely is.

 

So just say you feel anti-American from time to time because it's annoying how they can tell people what to do and get away with whatever they want and leave it at that. Don't try to rationalize and it say anyone is right or wrong, which is certainly how your first several posts sounded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the whole war causing was purley the catalyst of anti-american sentiment which had been bubbling under for quite a while. It made people think, when was the last time America was not in a war, or bombing countries or 'peace keeping' or whatever euphimisms they want to put to guise their combat operations??

 

There is also strong anti-Amercanism because of the way the American culture has kind of, homogonised (sp) the culture of the western (and some eastern) world. Its like, you cant walk down the street without seeing American brands, corporations and franchises...they're everywhere. And it works in a self-loathing kind of way: heaps of people buy american products clothes, movies, and food stuff McDonalds etc.. not because they love the taste but there is little alternatives (there are but they do not have the sway or the market share that the american products do). I know for one this kind of pisses me off, because I'm affectded by it as well. People are pretty powerless to consumerism and commercialism but they are not really aware of ot. Im sick of Starbucks and Subway telling me I want their food & drink. Good thing I can withstand them.

 

Capitalism was good in the post ww2 world. It helped build economies and such and gave a higher living standard to most people. But now its like a highly addictive drug, that people actually think they NEED the lastet product. I know this is not inherantly America's fault, because capitalism & commercialism is a gobal phenomenom now. But the USA played a huge part in the development, and are so anti anything that is not Capitalist (see Vietnam and Communism) that people are afraid of an alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucas:

I don't support everything America does by any means. If I don't end up working in it's government I'll probably go live somewhere else. You've just narrowed it down: You think the way America does business is arrogant. But I highly doubt you could pinpoint anything that other countries don't do, if only less successfully.

 

Just as I thought it was pretty annoying how Robert Horry got that random tip and hit the three to beat the Kings. That really pissed me off, I hated the Lakers. But it was simply an emotional response, not founded in any truths or facts. Just as your response most likely is.

 

So just say you feel anti-American from time to time because it's annoying how they can tell people what to do and get away with whatever they want and leave it at that. Don't try to rationalize and it say anyone is right or wrong, which is certainly how your first several posts sounded.

Was Saddam wrong to spend decades maintaing power by murder, torture and terror?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bora.Horza:

Bora.Horza:

But the USA played a huge part in the development, and are so anti anything that is not Capitalist (see Vietnam and Communism) that people are afraid of an alternative.

So they should be afraid of any alternatives.
why because any alternative is evil?? :rolleyes:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Darth Spoon:

Darth Spoon:

Darth Spoon:

However, I do think the US does set itself up for attacks of being hypocrital because our government is always going on about how we support freedom and democracy, while we often look the other way and support regimes that go against everything we claim to support in order to support our way of life. Don't forget we supported Saddam in the 1980's when it suited our interestes. We can't claim to be the beacon of light for the world when we are so selective in who we let the light shine on.

that's exactly it. you are so wise, es.

and like you said earlier, every nation on earth is guilty of this... canadians wander around saying we are this wonderful loving nation too, when we have an entire native population here that lives what has been compared to a 'third world' existence...

Same with us. We give this facade of sandy beaches, smiling faces, fit bronzed bodies and cultural diversity (among other things). Yet like your native population our Aboriginal population lives in squalor that rivals many poor African nations, we have the highest rate of youth suicide in the world (under 18), we're now the FATTEST nation in the world and in our hearts, we're a nation of racists.

 

We also pass ourselves off as peace-loving, yet our policy for detaining refugees, the "stolen generation" (where aboriginal children have been taken from their families to white families so they can "Breed themselves out of existence", and our current government refuses to take any responsibility for) and we have gladly supported an invasion of a sovereign nation without UN approval. But not surprisingly, what did our little pm get in his Xmas stocking last year? A Free Trade Agreement with the US (and I won't even get started on how that's screwing us over)! NO-ONE has the right to punish those that follow their conscience simply because it conflicts with one person's beliefs. It may be the way of the world, but it doesn't make things right. It reeks of dictatorship to me.

Damn straight DS.

 

Personally, I don't like my nice Sunday study session being interrupted by a US army plane flying at 300 feet over my house. It annoys me. It scares the **** out of me, actually. It annoys me even more when the city complains and is told by the US Airforce that it was, in fact, flying at 1000 feet. Bull****. That's America all over really, from my experience with them - excuses. Not saying that other countries don't do the same, but they're not so blatant about it.

 

I live in Central Queensland, American Troops are based here on exercises all the time. I like them - as long as we're not talking politics or morals - the people from America are nice, just as everyone has said. It's the government that I don't agree with. It's our Prime Minister, sitting in GWB's left trouser pocket that I don't like, especially when he is ignoring serious human rights offences, and other important issues that occur internally.

 

I don't like my life being dictated by someone that I certainly didn't vote for, seeing as how he's not even from my country.

 

And those bloody planes. Grrrr.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BooRadley:

BooRadley:

I don't support everything America does by any means. If I don't end up working in it's government I'll probably go live somewhere else. You've just narrowed it down: You think the way America does business is arrogant. But I highly doubt you could pinpoint anything that other countries don't do, if only less successfully.

 

Just as I thought it was pretty annoying how Robert Horry got that random tip and hit the three to beat the Kings. That really pissed me off, I hated the Lakers. But it was simply an emotional response, not founded in any truths or facts. Just as your response most likely is.

 

So just say you feel anti-American from time to time because it's annoying how they can tell people what to do and get away with whatever they want and leave it at that. Don't try to rationalize and it say anyone is right or wrong, which is certainly how your first several posts sounded.

Was Saddam wrong to spend decades maintaing power by murder, torture and terror?
No way, because being annoying and murdering your own citizens en masse are the same.

:rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's more than just annoying. It's usurping democracy. It's essentially foreign rule. Saddam used physical force, we use economic force. Was the death the only thing wrong with what Hussein was doing, or was the lack of represention also wrong? He ruled Iraq by force with no democratic self-determination, and we rule other countries by force. His force was physical and psychological, ours is economic and political.

 

The type of force may be different, but it's use is the same. You can say his use of force was "wrong", but say that other people can't say our use of force was "wrong". Are you sure it's the other people who are having the emotional reaction?

 

We also used physical force, including death, to get our way in Iraq. Was that wrong? Same force. We used bombs and guns to get our way, politically.

 

So is it the way the force is used, or the force that's being used, and are we, either way, not guilty of doing the same thing, albeit less in a generally less grotesqe manner. Can we demand that no one has the right to say we're "wrong", while we say Hussein was "wrong", or is that an emotional reaction -- pride or guilt or something -- to claim that it's impossible for anyone to really think we're morally wrong in our military and/or economic manipulation and manhandling of other peoples?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fat_Gut_Strut:

Fat_Gut_Strut:

Fat_Gut_Strut:

But the USA played a huge part in the development, and are so anti anything that is not Capitalist (see Vietnam and Communism) that people are afraid of an alternative.

So they should be afraid of any alternatives.
why because any alternative is evil?? :rolleyes:
of course it is!

 

usa, usa, usa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Saddam selecting dissidents and "troublemakers" and slaughtering them is not the same as civilian deaths in time of war. The stated goal (and probably not even the covert goal, either) of the United States is not to kill Iraqis.

 

 

There were two choices:

 

1) Let Saddam stay in power, denying political representation to the people and assuring oppression and possible mass murder.

 

2) Take out Saddam by force and attempt to bring political representation and peace, although there will probably be insurgents who lead to a lengthened military occupation that will lead to man civilian deaths.

 

 

Neither choice sounds particularly warming.

 

 

A side note: How come it's always the US's fault when civilians die and the darned occupation? Is the hostile Iraqi terrorist so innocent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lucas:

You can have your opinion, and that can be why there's anti-Americanism, but that doesn't make it any more reasonable. There was alot of anti-Lakerism when they were winning championships a few years ago, alot of anti-Cowboy and Ninerism in the early 90s when they were winning Super Bowls,, and everyone hates the Yankees.

 

There's a reason for that. Do you think that reason is any different than why there's alot of anti-Americanism? Or should we get mad at Shaq because he throws his weight around?

This reminds me a lot of WHATx4. God I missed reading that guys posts
Link to comment
Share on other sites

BooRadley:

It's more than just annoying. It's usurping democracy. It's essentially foreign rule. Saddam used physical force, we use economic force. Was the death the only thing wrong with what Hussein was doing, or was the lack of represention also wrong? He ruled Iraq by force with no democratic self-determination, and we rule other countries by force. His force was physical and psychological, ours is economic and political.

 

The type of force may be different, but it's use is the same. You can say his use of force was "wrong", but say that other people can't say our use of force was "wrong". Are you sure it's the other people who are having the emotional reaction?

 

We also used physical force, including death, to get our way in Iraq. Was that wrong? Same force. We used bombs and guns to get our way, politically.

 

So is it the way the force is used, or the force that's being used, and are we, either way, not guilty of doing the same thing, albeit less in a generally less grotesqe manner. Can we demand that no one has the right to say we're "wrong", while we say Hussein was "wrong", or is that an emotional reaction -- pride or guilt or something -- to claim that it's impossible for anyone to really think we're morally wrong in our military and/or economic manipulation and manhandling of other peoples?

You're right in a strictly philosophical sense. But in a realistic, practical sense, you're not.

 

I mean, say I don't give a co-worker a ride home because I don't want to go a couple blocks out of my way. This is a dick move, it's wrong. Say I just ****ing hit some dude crossing the street out of sheer neglience, and because no one is around, I keep driving. This is also a dick move. It too is wrong.

 

But when comparing the two, one is in a very realisitic and practical sense, a serious, serious wrong. The other is being annoying, making a dude walk or catch the bus or pay for a taxi because you were selfish.

 

Saying the United States pulling some trade with New Zealand or invading Iraq or...well, anything the US has done since killing off tribes of Indians, is comparable to Saddam Hussien's administration of Iraq isn't very intelligent, and you know that. I know you're playing a devil's advocate role, Boo, but come on. It's wrong to touch a hot stove and it's wrong to tie someone to a hot stove barenaked, but that doesn't mean they're even close to being comparable in any intellectually serious exchange.

 

That's usually how it goes, you compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not saying they're comprable, no. Not unless we've been doing a lot more at Abu Ghraib than we've been told about, at least. Breaking knee caps, cutting off limbs, and the like. BUT, that's about extremes. The actual mechanism of forcing your will on someone, and of using violence to accomplish political goals, are both there. Not to the same extreme that Hussein used them, but that's a matter of HOW wrong someone is.

 

My goal was to demonstrate that, if it's at all logical or reasonable for someone to call Hussein "wrong", then it's also logical and reasonable to call the United States "wrong". The only question is how wrong.

 

When we manipulate other people's governments by economic force, we are doing them wrong, and if they're angry about it, they have good reason to be. We're usurping their democracy to some extent or another.

 

On that . . .

 

My personal problem with doing that kind of wrong is the impracticality and short-sightedness of it. I'm not really concerned with right or wrong, except in the pragmatic sense of long term results. If we do it bad enough for long enough to enough people, it will sooner or later come back and bite us in the ass. That's my problem with it -- the impracticality of being an jerk to people all the time.

 

You know, we really, really could use more help in Iraq and Afghanistan. Rumsfeld, Powell and Bush have spent two years trying to get more help -- trying to "heal the wounds" -- but those gaps and wounds wouldn't be there at all, and we could likely get more help, if this administration hadn't spent a solid year trying to piss on our allies, on the very people who's help we were obviously about to need pretty badly. A little grace goes a long way, and these guys have none. Being pig-headed bullies might seem fun at the moment, but the second you need help, you're all out of friends.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wow. I totally and completely agree with your last post. That's really weird.

 

Some things to add:

 

A) As much as I agree with that post I can't help but play devil's advocate of my own and point out that I force my will upon people all the time. And so do you. And so does anyone in any position of power. Are we in this position of power because we're inherently better than the person over which we were placed? Of course not. But that doesn't change the fact they were are in a position of power and we will force our will upon that person. Whether it be for our own professional growth, the company's benefit, or our own sick and twisted perversion, most all of us have forced our will on someone just by virtue- or burden- of the position we hold. This is commonly understood in the business world ("Yeah, well he's the boss" which is basically shorthand for his having been around longer/having had a stronger education- both of which in themselves are shorthand of having more readily available resources as an individual to draw from), and to say it shouldn't be recognized in the world theater isn't very mature or intelligence, in my opinion.

 

B) They say one of the biggest reasons why America was so loved by all the Western world was, and I'm being serious, the way Truman, but to a greater extent, Eisenhower, toured the world. Instead of greeting guests in the United States, as a king recieves vassals in his castle, they went all over the world to visit allies. Say what you will (everyone, not just Boo), but if Bush- or any president of the last 20-30 years- were to spend more time visiting leaders abroad than hosting them in Crawford or Kennebunkport or Camp David or wherever, American apprecitation would be much, much higher today. That said, as I pointed to multiple times in this thread recently, this is strictly an emotional response because it's not like this version of the American government is supporting our allies (in most cases, things are fluid of course) any less than those versions. So few travels overseas noted, any antagonistic response in this area is still a matter of governments and citizens appreciating the style of the substance; emotional over pragmatic.

 

C) Your last paragraph is partly why I was going to vote for Kerry before deciding that because Illinois had already been decided well ahead of time, I would cast my vote in favor of a third party. You well know that I feel what Bush and Co. did was for general practicality and long-term thinking. It wouldn't reap benefits any time soon. But once those actions were actually performed, I believed that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc were all damaged goods. It would have been better to have Kerry in office because it's not like he could reverse what happened in Iraq, but he would give the world the impression that America wishes they did and would go far in bridging the gaps that the Bush administration made. And, I believe, they made rightfully so, if not with a noticeable lack of tact.

 

Maybe I'm not being clear with that last point, but I'm not sure the Iraq situation could have handled in a way to best look out for American interests and keep the rest of the world happy. So my wish list involved Bush doing what must be done and Kerry cleaning up after him. Bush sucks at cleaning up after himself and Gore/Kerry would have never done it in the first place, so it would've worked out.

 

Oh well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You had some good food for thought there, Lucas.

quote:

Originally posted by Lucas:

... but if Bush- or any president of the last 20-30 years- were to spend more time visiting leaders abroad...

On the one hand you have a point, but on the other... Whenever Bush does visit somewhere the circus and security arrangements are completely out of this world and a major hassle for everyone, even people who just have to live in the area and couldn't give a toss. What's worse, much of it is just for show which furthermore makes him seem ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any intelligent person knows that gov. policies are not driven by the avg. Joe on the street. Avg. Joe might think this but that is just his little dream.

 

Every nation on this planet has its own "imperialistic" problems.Some bloodier than others. Consider

 

Australia --> East Timore

Japan ---> China, Indonesia

Holland ----> Indonesia

China ----> Tibet

France ---> Algeria

 

The last one is very interesting as it almost mirrors what is going on in Iraq today.

 

Now the list is not exhausted and there are other combinations, but to even understand the above situations requires that one needs to do a bit more reading beyound what one gets in High School or even at the University (if you are not majoring in History or Diplomacy).

 

But the big difference is the scale of US influence today that amplifies the focus on us. We have a finger nearly every where and not for all the right reasons.

 

Read the Downing Street Memo to try and see if you can find the right reasons why we are in Iraq. This was an official document which gives a rare glimps into what wsa going on prior to the action.

 

How about the following stories to give flavor why others like us as much as they do,

 

Published on Saturday, June 4, 2005 by the Guardian/UK

A Study in Emasculation

In the US media, a mission to explain has been replaced by a mission to avoid

by Henry Porter

 

Published on Wednesday, June 1, 2005 by the Inter Press Service

Bush, Cheney Attack Amnesty International

by Jim Lobe

 

Published on Monday, May 30, 2005 by the lndependent/UK

The Real Star Wars: Bush Revives Missile Defense Plan

The saga of America's ambition to put weapons in space has been as protracted as George Lucas's film franchise. Now George Bush has a new plan - at a stellar cost of $58bn.

 

Now balance these with the following

 

Published on Sunday, May 15, 2005 by the Independent/UK

Increase in 'Dead Zones' Starving the World's Seas 'Dead zones', where pollution has starved the sea of life-giving oxygen, are increasing at a devastating rate

by Andrew Buncombe and Geoffrey Lean

 

 

Published on Friday, May 20, 2005 by the Associated Press

Scientists Warn on Space Weaponization

by Nick Wadhams

 

Published on Thursday, May 26, 2005 by OneWorld.net

Landmark Deal to Increase Aid to Poor Countries; U.S. Urged to Join In

by Abid Aslam

 

Published on Wednesday, May 25, 2005 by OneWorld.net

US Selling More Weapons to Undemocratic Regimes That Support 'War on Terror'

by Abid Aslam

 

Published on Saturday, May 21, 2005 by the lndependent/UK

Afghan Prisoners Were 'Tortured to Death' by American Guards

by Justin Huggler

 

Published on Friday, May 20, 2005 by Reuters

U.S. Faces Questions Over 'Kidnappings' in Europe

by Mark Trevelyan

 

pimp

 

Regards

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shakespear:

 

Australia --> East Timore 1942 (there was a lot going on that year)

Japan ---> China 1937 , Indonesia 1942

Holland ----> Indonesia 1670

China ----> Tibet 1949

France ---> Algeria 1834

 

 

The last one is very interesting as it almost mirrors what is going on in Iraq today.

That stuff isn't exactly very modern. Some of the aftermath still goes on today, but the actual invasions are ancient history. At best, it shows that we could easily still be having problems in Iraq in 2100.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Guest Fredbert

Hi All,

 

It seems strange to me that a nation built on the fundamental right to freedom and equality is now being seen as the "bully" of the world. However, I understand why. It's because you can't keep your bloody nose out!!. Hey, you have been around for maybe 400 years. We have trees that are older!.(To be honest we also have pubs that are older).

 

You have hit your "teens" as a nation. The rest of the world will take a bit of cheek, but only so much before they put you in your place, just as normal kids growing up. You need to work on being a nation NOT a MARKET!!!. I don't recall voting for my local "mall" I think I voted for a "concept" of how I think I would like things done.

 

With FREEDOM comes a great deal of responsibility, part of that is not to demean the way someone else chooses to live. As a free person it is your duty to respect others way of life.

 

As it was once said; "I totally disagree with what you have said, but I will fight to the death to protect your right to say it". That is to my mind true freedom, but only in the nations where it will not hurt people.

 

We as a world need to start to understand and work together.

 

Nuff said.

 

I like Americans.....America pisses me off.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anti-Americanism?

 

Why would any non-American like the wealthiest, most influential, most militarily advanced nation on the planet? Everyone hates America even most Americans, it's just what you do. When China eventually surpasses us down the road everyone will hate China. It's the same old story.

 

Sadly, the ignorance and stereotypes that cloud Americans view of the world also clouds the world's as well. I've never met a foreigner who really understood anything about how I live or who I am as an American. The notion that I'm not Christian, a soldier, white, and uni-lingual never pierced thier mind. American culture to alot of people, for whatever, reason is monolithic.

 

Most people who hate any country usually have no idea what they are talking about or just a predjudiced bastard, or jealous or a combination of all three.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 years later...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.