In the Israel Essay, under “Why do Muslims hate the United States?”, the following paragraphs seem relevant to this Argentina trip:
As with the preceding question we should step back and ask the more general question “Why does everyone hate the United States?” Everyone hates the U.S. because everything that goes wrong in the world today is the fault of the U.S. Our military consists of 1.5 million highly trained people and tens of thousands of machines capable of getting them very quickly to where they are needed. Yet though we claim to be interested in justice and human welfare we generally don’t bother to act to protect non-citizens. For example, impending genocide in Rwanda elicited the following quote from then-President Bill Clinton: “… I mention it only because there are a sizable number of Americans there and it is a very tense situation. And I just want to assure the families of those who are there that we are doing everything we possibly can to be on top of the situation to take all the appropriate steps to try to assure the safety of our citizens there.” In other words “We could use all of our airpower and troops to stop the Hutus from killing the Tutsis but instead we’re going to airlift American citizens out and then move on to the next issue.” An estimated 1 million people died.
Nobody is going to blame the Rwandan genocide on Ireland. They’ve only got 17,000 troops and a limited number of ships and cargo planes. Nobody is going to blame Denmark, with its 35,000 troops. But the U.S. military is strong enough to intervene anywhere in the world. People can blame, with some justification, anything that makes them unhappy on the U.S.
Ask Joe Foreigner what upsets him most about the U.S. Top on the list is the fact that the U.S. is too interventionist, swaggering cowboy-like with military power into complex international situations. Complaint #2, however, is that the U.S. failed to intervene in a particular situation that is near and dear to Joe’s heart. They hate us because we are too interventionist… except when we’re not inventionist enough. They also hate the U.S. because they’re so weak and their government essentially serves at our government’s pleasure. Consider how annoying it is to be an American voter, knowing that because you don’t have $50 million you don’t have any political power. Imagine how much more annoyed you’d be if you were a citizen of one of the European nations. Not only are your politicians corrupted by the local rich but if your society wants to do something that is contrary to a sufficiently important U.S. desire, the U.S. military might invade and turn your country into a possession, ruled by a colonial viceroy.
Joe Third World Foreigner has even more reason to hate the U.S. than Joe European Foreigner. Most Third World governments have no plausible claim to legitimacy. They have power because they seized power and because the U.S. has chosen not to overthrow them. If Joe Third World Foreigner hates his rulers, who are presumably skimming whatever they can take out of his pocket, it is only natural for Joe to hate the U.S. for enabling his rulers to remain in power.
In just a few days here I’ve encountered several Argentines who aren’t fans of the U.S. government. For starters, these folks are angry because they blame their suffering under the military dictatorship on the U.S., which trained some of their officers. I asked if they really thought it was possible for the U.S. government to control what happened half a world away. Indeed they did. What about Castro? I asked. The U.S. has been trying to get rid of him for 40 years and hasn’t managed to do it. True, an Argentine responded, but the U.S. has succeeded in making Cuba ridiculously poor. Cuba, of course, is free to trade with and accepts tourism from the entire European Union. So it doesn’t seem plausible to expect a U.S. trade embargo to cripple an ambitious hard-working people. And most of the rest of the Caribbean is extremely poor as well, despite not suffering from any animosity from the U.S. government.
To an American this image of the U.S. government as omnipotent, right down to the smallest details of how other countries are administered seems odd. We live admidst evidence of our government’s impotence to achieve its goals. After 40 years of the War on Poverty the streets are filled with homeless. After 20 years of Reagan’s stepped-up War on Drugs it is as easy to party as ever. The FAA tried to build itself a new air traffic control computer system and the project went $billions over budget and more than a decade beyond its original deadline. How could a government this incompetent in its own country prevent a determined group of foreigners from educating themselves, working hard, building industries, and exporting their goods to Asia and the European Union?
Philip, you seem well traveled, so I cannot blame your misguided opinion on ignorance. You are clearly not ignorant.
You say that people outside the United States simultaneously hate how the American government interferes with world politics and wishes it would do more to interfere. That is only partly true. The real source of the hatred is the apparent (real or not) hypocrisy in the interventions.
For instance, look how quickly the U.S. war machine moved to depose Saddam. In the space of 12 months, the U.S. military first had the idea to invade Iraq, then planned it, then amassed the troops, and then invaded.
Meanwhile, thousands of people are dying in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The solution seems clear to me – carve off a decent slice of land so that the Palestinians can form their own country. Build a strong border between the two nations even. But the U.S. government doesn’t seem to treat that situation with the same urgency.
Question: Which country is currently in violation of more U.N. Resolutions than any other? Answer: Israel. The whole impetus for invading Iraq was a U.N. Resolution, was it not?
Likewise, worldwide opinion is that Russia is needlessly killing thousands of people of Chechnya. Of course, the U.S. government doesn’t want to intervene there either. I’m not saying you need to invade Russia. But couldn’t you at least make a half-hearted diplomatic attempt at getting them to back off?
What about situation with Saudi Arabia? Evidence clearly shows Saudi Arabia was more involved in supporting and financing terrorism than Iraq ever was, but of course they’re our friends.
And China? Bush recently announced he was opposed to a referendum on sovereignty for Taiwan. So Iraqis can have freedom from a brutal dictator, but the Taiwanese must live under the oppression of communist China.
The list goes on. It’s not that any of these are my pet projects. They are just examples of hypocrisy. How can you defend a regime (the White House) that wants to be the champion for freedom and democracy worldwide, but doesn’t even want to come out and publicly denounce oppression caused by so-called friendly nations?
The new White House slogan should be: Freedom and democracy for all. (And by all, we mean only Iraq, Iran, North Korea and Syria.)
40 years of the war on poverty?
Um, which side was Reagan fighting on? Have we switched sides?
Seems to me that most of the poverty in the Caribbean is due to mis-advice by the World Bank (largely influenced by the U.S.) Additionally, while there are no “major” tariffs on most Caribbean nations, large domestic interest (Chiquita) have prevented Jamaica’s #1 export of Bananas to be completely abscent from U.S. shores.
I recommend http://www.lifeanddebt.org/
You may be interested in reading this:
http://www.outlookindia.com/specialfeaturem.asp?fodname=20031216&fname=saddam&sid=1
I’ve encountered the same thing while living and travelling outside the U.S. Not only is the ability of the U.S. to influence events overestimated, the U.S. is typically held to a standard of behavior that differs from the standard applied to other countries. E.g., other countries are expected to act in their own perceived self-interest, but the U.S. is expected to act in the world’s interest.
It isn’t the fact that the U.S. is a democracy that accounts for this double standard. Many other countries are democracies, yet behavior on their part that parallels U.S. behavior is viewed through a different filter. (For example, consider the numerous French military excursions in West Africa.)
Personally, I don’t believe the U.S. or any other country is under any moral obligation to act against its own interests. The problems of the 21st Century can be traced to the disastrous 20th Century, and for that we can blame Europe.
In 1991, it was difficult to find a country more sympathetic to the US than Russia. The Iron Curtain was down, we were free to choose our own government and were expecting to integrate into the world community. Everything American was en vougue, and any American citizen who happened to be in Moscow was smothered in affection. In 2003, it’s very difficult to find a single Russian not hating the US. What happened?
Well, the Iron Curtain fell on one side only — on ours. We’ve opened our borders, we let first the Warsaw Pact and then the Soviet Union dissolve, we’ve withdrawn our armies from just about everywhere — and what did we get in return? We were promised economic aid and assistance. Russia got less aid from the US in 10 years than Israel gets in 2 weeks. The US-controlled IMF and World Bank insisted on implementing policies that led to a complete collapse of our economy in 1998 (we’ve ignored them since and are doing really well now, thank you). We were promised no NATO enlargement. Now NATO’s all around our Western borders. We were promised souvereignity — we’ve seen US directly or through its proxies finance every single separatist movement in Russia, no matter how odious. Freedom of travel… Well, don’t even get me started here. US embassy in Moscow rejects 75% of visa applicants. That’s an improvement over a few years ago, when they rejected 90%.
After 11th of September, Russia offered its help. US gladly took it, and has bases in Central Asia now. What have we got in return? A cancellation of ABM treaty. Thanks a million, US.
Ah! The blindness of empire… I find it interesting that USians don’t realize that the USA is an empire, with all the positive benefits for them and all the negative consequences for everybody else.
Perhaps if the US didn’t have military bases in over 50 countries the rest of the world wouldn’t blame them for their troubles. Could you please explain why the US is the only country that must have military bases everywhere while most other countries are quite happy keeping their armed forces within their borders? The cold war you said? It’s been over for a while now. To protect the host country? Cuba might disagree (Guantanamo), and so would Japan (Okinawa).
People from other countries will resent the US until American troops are all back where they belong.
John, most other countries don’t have global interests and face global threats. Besdies, why bother building your own defense if you know the U.S. will come to your aid?
You, like so many others, argue that the U.S. is an “empire”. I don’t accept that. NOr do I accept the unspoken premise that an “empire” is “bad”. The world is full of people living in misery because their corrupt and incompetent rulers have hoodwinked them into trading a false pride in national sovereignty for persoal freedom and prosperity. That kind of bogus nationalism is the twin of racism and merits equal contempt. Maybe the real problem is that “empire” hasn’t grown enough.
A lot people think that US owes them something. Alexei your post sounds like a three year old’s unsubstantiated crying. Every Russian may hate the US, yet will GLADLY accept any kind of financial help. (I think there is some false pride involved). Too bad the previous attempts to assist Russia and Ukraine in 1990’s resulted in funds disappearing without any kind of audit trail.
Competence varies depending on the task. It’s hard to create peace and prosperity, but it’s easy to knock it down.
In response to Scott Duffy’s whining about the UN–what kind of straw man argument is that? “We need to gang up on Israel because the UN is ganging up on Israel?” I know that was only part of the argument that we modern Romans ought to be more honest in forthrightly adopting a Randy Newman-type of rhetoric (see the song Political Science).
I guess my only real response is that “the US is the worst country in the world–except for all the others.”
Anyway, I think that Phil’s posting this time served to point out universal infantilism and resentment more than to justify a supposed Pax Americana.
There is more to the idea of “The U.S.” than its people, government or military.
Few US opponents have real trouble with US persons, except as symbols. Many more have trouble with the interventionist and very self-interested (hypocritical) government: it has used literally criminal means to futher its perceived interests, often under the guise of fighting against communism, now terrorism, etc.
But many critics of the US have a major beef with the higher levels of the US business community, which has a very close relationship with its government and military. It is perceived as driving policy to the point that national political interests and particular business interests are indistinguishable.
A large portion of the expectation for help, outside the US and Europe, is based on the perception that the cause or significant factor of their woes is the influence of the US business community; which uses all opportunities, and sometimes creates them, with no regard for local consequences. Many would also argue that the same higer levels of the business community and its political lobbies, are to blame for the poverty and suffering of many in the US as well.
The US government and military are generally perceived as serving the interests of a small part of the political and business community. The perceived image of the US is not of a omnipotent empire, but of a small community with narrow self-interest and extremely disproportionate influence. Sure “they” can’t easily overthrow a Castro, but they can easily pour large amounts of resources to influence the lifes of milions in various ways: ecomonic prices & tariffs, trade agreements, market speculation, financing of various organizations, support of various violent conflicts, media control, etc. For many it seems quite easy to show such disproportionate involvement from a small US community into large portions of south america, for example.
Finally, of course the US are not the only ones (most older empires are still active). But the US is the most visible and is perceived as the most active, especially in south america and middle east. Infantilism is surely important in the world, many of those perceptions are surely arguable, it seems there is little effort from “the US” to dispel them (whose responsability would it be?), which again is perceived as rather arrogant.
Infantilism is nevertheless a real issue, i.e. can’t be an excuse to dismiss its consequences: if the US is perceived as having a certain power, it is de facto forced to deal with its consequences.
Mr. Duffy, You have much company in the Arab world when you tie in the USA with the Israel/Palestinian conflict. The USA actually has little to do with this (you also mention, and critize, their support of Saudi Arabia). You say that the USA should give some land to the Palestinians and create a strong border, but isn’t this exactly what Israel is doing right now, and being strongly critized for? Weren’t the Palestinians offered virtually everything they asked for at Camp David and refused it? Isn’t the only acceptable solution to the neighboring Arab states that Israel disappear? If the moderate Palestinians refuse to control the radical elements then they are doomed to conflict and their suffering (which I do feel bad about) is of their own doing.
“How could a government this incompetent in its own country prevent a determined group of foreigners from educating themselves, working hard, building industries, and exporting their goods to Asia and the European Union?”
Isn’t this only a variation over the American Dream – “Work hard, get rich…”? So what you say is: The solution to our problems is to become American – while what we are afraid of is that “the American dominance” – to be more precise, the (institutionalised) free market ideology and its reality of economic competition between nation states, which is sort of ascribed to American values – leaves us no other choice than to become American against our will (meaning: destruction of our social security systems, loss of protection for workers, etc.). Think of the discussion about software patents in Europe which has been largely influenced by the fear that if we don’t comply we will fall victim to American IP protectionism (as a form of “legitimate” – in the sense of: conforming to free-market ideology – protectionism).
For many of us in Europe the American foreign policy is sponsoring terrorism: We are worried that the missing cultural sensitivity of the interventionist politics naturally broadens the legitimacy of anti-modernist, terrorist groups, instead of fighting it. On the other hand, the European approach might appear to be too idealistic (or at least: hiding the national interests behind a cover of “humanity” and “justice”) or too weak.
What we would need is a better appreciation between Europeans and Americans in their different cultural backgrounds that lead to the different assessment of current international politics.
A “must read” IMHO about the roots of American culture is the classical essay of Max Weber: Protestant Ethics and the Spirit of Capitalism. It shows, besides so many other things, that what appears to be ignorance and immorality from a “European” point of view is in itself a moral position.
>>How could a government this incompetent in its own country prevent a determined group of foreigners from educating themselves, working hard, building industries, and exporting their goods to Asia and the European Union?>>
Farm subsidies are a good example. By shoveling huge amounts of money towards politically powerful farm companies, allowing those companies to export at very low prices, undercutting the prices offered by third world farmers, making it harder for those third world farmers to earn a living.
The US gov’t is not incompetent in everything. It’s able to do some things and not others. In particular, it’s not very good at things in which it has little interest (fighting poverty) and good at supporting the interests of major campaign contributors.
Interventionist v. non-interventionist is too vague to be meaningful.
The US has long intervened in other countries to overthrow democratic or popular regimes deemed hostile to the US – Iran, Chile, central america, etc.
Sometimes we change our minds. For example, we went from staunch supporters and funders of Osama’s buddies in Afghanistan when they were fighting the Russians and of Saddam’s Iraq when they were fighting Iran to criticizing them for possessing stuff we gave them to … You know the rest.
So, to say we’re criticized for intervention or non-intervention misses the point.
Phil,thanks for posting your observation on US from an outside point of view. Here are a few observations I made of American life and politics.
(1) American culture – over promising and under deliver both in business world and politics. Look at the commercials of miracle products and promises of politicians. American public has got used to that and never expected to believe on face value. However, the rest of the world is not used to when it comes to the promises by the American government. Shock, hypocracy, disrespect, betrayal and hatred follow, when it is underdelivered or not even delivered.
(2) Self interest under the law is the essense/driver/regulator of a free economy – it is natural for Americans. This is reflected in the self interest of the American public and the politicians that represent such interest as they depend on for public offices. The rest of the world do not necessarily understand. When Americans politicians are preaching freedom and democracy to the world, they neglect the inconvenient condition that “our interests are above yours” rightfully by the self-interst principle.
(3) Americans are human that err and are subject to ignorance, tendency to oversimplify based on their own life experiences. The politicians knew all too well of this and feed on it. If over 60% of Americans can be made to believe Saddam was behind 9-11, what else would not happen ? Americans are equally gullible as the Muslim world if a lie is repeated 1000 times from an authority.
(4) Bush and Romsfeld are probably the worst salesmen in the world arena. Not sure what grade Bush got in his public speaking class with his Ivy League education. He may be smart in his inner circle, but certainly it did not appear to be so in world opinion.
In response to the dummy who said:
“40 years of the war on poverty?
Um, which side was Reagan fighting on? Have we switched sides?
Bryguy • 12/17/03; 1:32:58 AM”
The welfare state is still there and growing. The war on poverty is $430bn/yr+. Are you actually implying that we are not doing enough?
Quote: “It is interesting to compare the recent unreported mushrooming of the welfare system with the heavily publicized Reagan defense buildup in the 1980s. In a little over a decade, annual welfare spending has grown by $184 billion—rising from $245 billion in 1988 to $430 billion in 1999.”
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=263
It’s the price you pay for being alive, free and rich all at the same time.
WE ARE NOT DOING ENOUGH!
I wouldn’t expect a gun nut to understand.
I think you missed the point about Cuba. It’s not that the US refuses to trade with Cuba, it’s also that the US puts an embargo on any ship of *any* nationality which has landed in Cuba landing in a US port for the next 6 months. And variously penalizes other companies who trade with the island.
So, the US is using it’s power to impose the embargo on other countries and shipping companies in the region. Not being able to dock in the US is a big downer if you want to run a viable shipping company in the Carribean / Atlantic.
Furriners viewing the US gubbermint/big biz with suspicion is sometimes based on stupidity/envy/hatred and other sorryass feelings.
But sometimes the furriners are, as Phil often is, spot on. They _are_ getting a bum deal. They have some rights to complain or fail to love the big, armed business partner in the north.
Read the articles og Greg Palast
http://gregpalast.com/columns.cfm?subject_id=20&subject_name=Latin%20America
Paul Krugman
http://pkarchive.org/column/column.html
and watch Simpsons
http://www.snpp.com/episodes/7F01.html
to understand.
Here’s another piece worth reading:
George Soros: “The Bubble of American Supremacy”
http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/12/soros.htm
We don’t owe you diddley squat Alexley. When your country decided to disincorporate we kept you alive for several years with shiploads of grain and medicines. Free of charge. And we’re still sending you stuff at reduced loans, etc. that will probably *never* be paid back. Plus we’ve spent billions trying to make your atomic sites and nuke weapons safe. Hell, we even paid to decommision the nuke reactor on the submarine that sank, which you said was all the fault of the US by the way. All of this, all of this mind you, because you guys decided to follow an ignorant assed economic theory for 70 years that couldn’t stand the light of day or rational inquiry. To top it off, we knew you would be a bunch of ingrates about it and hate us for it.
Regarding the comment by billg above (red mine):
The United States, like Microsoft, is a pre-eminent power. The other players have every right to hold both to a higher standard because it is the duty of the strong to look out for the interests of the weak.
Most of you know of course that the Argentines hold the US personally responsible for their failure to capture and hold the Falklands? (That’s Malvinas Islands to you Norte Americanos) The British of course hate the US guts for not fighting the Falklands War for them. For that little scrap we were soundly hated by all sides.
Its the duty of the strong to look out for themselves and then when they are provided for, when there are no problems left at home, is it their obligation and duty to look out for the weak. Is there any reason why the weak cannot better themselves? You attempt to hold the United States to some utopian dream-ideal and expect us to do all the work.
<>
err .. no, they weren’t, as you’d know if you read the accounts of the various people who were there. They were deliberately made an offer they couldn’t accept so that they could then be blamed for the collapse of the process. They were never offered control of their own borders, airspace, water supplies, territorial integrity, or a right of return – apart from the small matter of land stolen since 1967.
Look sports,
I do not want anything from US. Really.
However if you do not see the hipocracy of your government/corporations you better open your eyes. I do not hate americans. However US “diplomacy” is just offending my intellect. Your government may lie in every idiotic way it likes, but please do not get frustrated when I fail to believe the US propaganda.
Read Chomsky or Michael Moore.
One more point. The communist leadership methods looked very much like the US ones some 15 years ago…..I have lived once trough this. I am affraid we (me and YOU) may not survive the next time. And when I am affraid I hate the source of my troubles. It is that simple.
Best Regards
Zheko
Look sports,
I do not want anything from US. Really.
However if you do not see the hipocracy of your government/corporations you better open your eyes. I do not hate americans. However US “diplomacy” is just offending my intellect. Your government may lie in every idiotic way it likes, but please do not get frustrated when I fail to believe the US propaganda.
Read Chomsky or Michael Moore.
One more point. The communist leadership methods looked very much like the US ones some 15 years ago…..I have lived once trough this. I am affraid we (me and YOU) may not survive the next time. And when I am affraid I hate the source of my troubles. It is that simple.
Best Regards
Zheko
Look sports,
I do not want anything from US. Really.
However if you do not see the hipocracy of your government/corporations you better open your eyes. I do not hate americans. However US “diplomacy” is just offending my intellect. Your government may lie in every idiotic way it likes, but please do not get frustrated when I fail to believe the US propaganda.
Read Chomsky or Michael Moore.
One more point. The communist leadership methods looked very much like the US ones some 15 years ago…..I have lived once trough this. I am affraid we (me and YOU) may not survive the next time. And when I am affraid I hate the source of my troubles. It is that simple.
Best Regards
Zheko
Look sports,
I do not want anything from US. Really.
However if you do not see the hipocracy of your government/corporations you better open your eyes. I do not hate americans. However US “diplomacy” is just offending my intellect. Your government may lie in every idiotic way it likes, but please do not get frustrated when I fail to believe the US propaganda.
Read Chomsky or Michael Moore.
One more point. The communist leadership methods looked very much like the US ones some 15 years ago…..I have lived once trough this. I am affraid we (me and YOU) may not survive the next time. And when I am affraid I hate the source of my troubles. It is that simple.
Best Regards
Zheko
Look sports,
I do not want anything from US. Really.
However if you do not see the hipocracy of your government/corporations you better open your eyes. I do not hate americans. However US “diplomacy” is just offending my intellect. Your government may lie in every idiotic way it likes, but please do not get frustrated when I fail to believe the US propaganda.
Read Chomsky or Michael Moore.
One more point. The communist leadership methods looked very much like the US ones some 15 years ago…..I have lived once trough this. I am affraid we (me and YOU) may not survive the next time. And when I am affraid I hate the source of my troubles. It is that simple.
Best Regards
Zheko
Abner sez :-
The British of course hate the US guts for not fighting the Falklands War for them.
He’ll be pleased to know that this isn’t true. We’re grateful for US help in that conflict, but had no expectation of US participation. That’s true of virtually the whole country, it’s not a partisan thing at all.
Dave Heasman:
No, no, no, you’re not gonna get off that easy. I remember all the anti-US crap coming out of Britain during the Falklands extravaganza. You’re not gonna tell me it didn’t happen.
Zheko: Read Chomsky and Moore? There is the problem right there, laddy buck. Look, if you’re gonna read those two guys and then come up with some kind of conclusion about the US then have fun but don’t think for a minute it is going to be correct. Chomsky hates America from the bottom of soul and Moore thinks that black Americans can’t be serial killers. Yeah! That’s right. No Malvo and Mohammed. No such thing! So, enjoy yerself with those two.
Abner – what the US was criticised for was, as I recall, not doing what it could to dissuade the Argentinians from invading in the first place e.g. Jeanne Kirkpatrick (Al Haig?) wining and dining in Buenos Aires shortly before the invasion and not mentioning that maybe it would be a bad idea. Once the conflict began I think that most commentators in Britain were aware of the logistical and intelligence support provided by the US.
But don’t let that spoil your rant.
The really worrysome, but not very astonishing thing is, that Americans believe the lies the media tell them. Surveys show that most Americans believe, that e.g.
– Saddam Hussein had connections with Al Quaida, though it is obvious that the Baath party as a secular movement is hated by religious people
– Saddam Hussein had thrown out the UN inspectors some years ago, although it was the US, which decided that they should leave, because they could not do their job effectively.
The real threat to democracy is that there is nowhere such a thing as professional journalism, especially regarding TV journalists. Journalists are telling what people find shocking, they are not searching for the truth. They are no more “media” (in the original sense of the word) but form a power in its own right.
The anti-Americanism at least in Europe is as well a consequence of media corruption. Journalists are exploiting our tendency to keep things simple by selling us a black-and-white perspective on world politics, instead of trying to gain an understanding of difficult questions.
Especially when journalists get preachy – what they like to do, they show their pervert misuse of the power they have.
We all expect the Argentines to be anti-American because well, they couldn’t properly run a well resourced country if their lives depended upon it. Gotta blame someone. Besides anybody who would be a follower of Juan Peron is obviously a few fries short of a happy meal.
But Britain? The steady drum beat of anti-Americanism from them is simply astonishing in its intensity. The striped ass apes who run such rags as the Guardian have to be seen to be believed. Check it out yerself, people. I wish more Americans would read their filth and for once, really see what they pass off as journalism over there. It’s just a steady IV drip of anti-Americanism over there. You’ll change your mind about being “buddies” with these people muy pronto. They resent us big time.
Dear Abner,
Chomsky does not hate America. It hates (as i do as well) the military-industrial-corporate mafia and their subserviant army, massmedia and government.
Moore have to be a bit extremist in order to be noticed by your letargic public opinion.
And personal labeling is not a valid argument in a normal dispute.
Wake up and start thinking while you can.
Abner – you need to try getting your information from a wider source than Fox TV. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
Philip
It’s much simpler than you think:
http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/bookman/index.html
Maybe I have a clear idea how to explain it now:
America looks to the rest of the world like a very strong and big but somewhat idiotic child managed by paranoid evil greedy dwarf.
We hate the dwarf and would feel sorry for the child if it was not so dangerous.
By the way another source – read the Paolo Coelho open letter to president Bush
Phil,
I don’t think you get it. Foreigners don’t expect the US to make situations to their liking.
It’s not that the US intervenes, or fails to intervene. Denmark doesn’t draw ire because foreigners expect Denmark to come in guns blazing, and it doesn’t.
The US makes a tremendous amount of plomb about democracy and principled decisions. Its actions are exactly opposite that. The US is the most hypocritical foreign power in today’s geopolitical sphere. Denmark isn’t. If the US wants to talk about how democracy should prevail, it shouldn’t back ruthless dictators. The US seems only to care when those dictators are both reckless and ruthless. Now the solution is simple: either back the dictators and stop talking game about democracy, or don’t unprincipled rulers. If you want evidence, there’s a long litany of cruel despots we’ve supported or put into power. Pinochet and Saddam aren’t the only ones. Oh, and when we do intervene, we rarely do it on strong moral grounds. We do it out of self-interest. The Shah was not a great man.
People aren’t stupid. Hypocrisy is the easiest shortcoming to see.
Im with you Nick, American Hypocrisy is truly breathtaking at times. Lets face it, who could reject the clear evidence that americans have a history of supporting “strong men” ie. ruthless killers. Saddam was supported by the US back when the US hated Iran more, Saddam strangly enough was the same murderous killer back in the 80’s when AND the US KNEW IT AND THE US CONTINUED TO SUPPORT HIM, there is loads of evidence to support this. The lesson is simple, don’t support these guys, dont get into the same bed as them or you will tainted by the same foul smell, every can smelt it, but american seems to claim it isnt there. A killer is a killer, a murderer a murderer, just because he is not killing your guys at that time doenst make them a good partner.
Americans always seem to be asking the question “why do they hate us so” and come up with the stupiest answer…”must be because they are jealous of our democracy, they hate us because we are free”. The things that have burnt most into my memory as a child was not the bad things but the unfair things (unfair accusation, taking the punishment for acts that were not mine), a better question for US citizens to ask would be “How are we treating others differently than we are treating ourselves? Are our actions living up to our values?”
So why do you not hate the French and the Germans for supporting him? Because they are more honest about their chicanery? If it was up to them, Saddam would still be in power, bless their hearts and they would be making some real nice money unlike the US which is bleeding blood and money. And let me add, if it was up to you, Saddam would still be in power, murdering and stealing. Doesn’t bother you though, now does it? The fact is, you expect US perfection to your political ideas or you will hate us. And according to you, we deserve your hate. Let me explain something to you anti-Americans (and yes Americans can be anti-American, sometimes the worst of the lot). The US is in a mighty struggle of civilizations and Iraq is key to that struggle. Iraq is the keystone from which we will change the middle east. Already Iraqis have freedom of religion as well as many other freedoms that they didn’t have before. We didn’t create Saddam as some of you ignoramuses insist but yes, we used him against what we thought was a greater enemy, IRAN. So sue us. We reserve the right to go against the greater enemy. Politics is not black and white. It is various shades of gray. And only extremists such as yourself see it as black and white.
I don’t think principled policies are too much to ask of our nation. Our nation was formed from a different mold than the European nations we often criticize.
There is one distinction between the US and the European countries. That would be the CIA. In the name of political realism, we have surreptitiously (and sometimes not so secretly) supported a variety of strongmen. I think if the average American knew what we did with some of these henchmen, there’d be widespread outrage. Unfortunately, it seems the only ones who dig up this knowledge fall into the leftist, anarchist wing (like Chomsky).
Let me provide some examples to make it more real.
Idi Amin, now deceased, was one of Africa’s most notorious post-independence dictators known for brutalizing his people. Both the CIA and Israel funded and trained his troops. In case you think I only criticize us, we’re not the only government linked to Amin. Britain originally hand-picked him to replace the Ugandan goverment in a coup. And Amin, when he mistakenly tried to invade Tanzania and found himself deposed, fled to Saudi Arabia where he found refuge.
Hugo Banzer replaced Juan Jose Torres as the president of Bolivia when Torres tried to nationalize Gulf Oil properties. Banzer had direct support from Washington. When his forces lost radio communications, US Air Force radio was placed at their disposal. Now you could say we wouldn’t know how Banzer would turn out after he seized power. But after coming to power, he tortured over 2,000 people and ordered the Native Indians off their land in his attempt to build a white Bolivia. You’d think we would have turned against him. But the evidence shows that the Banzer regime received help from the CIA to fight the Catholic Church with terrorist attacks as it tried to intervene on behalf ot the indians.
Roberto Cordova is another egregious example. He was president of the original “Banana Republic”, Honduras. In less than a decade, US aid to his country increased more than tenfold in exchange for the Honduras to be a training center for U.S. funded Nicaraguan contras.
Mobutu is well known today as the president of Zaire but little known to us is that the CIA stepped into Zaire in 1965 to assassinate the previously (elected) leader, Lumumba. Lumumba was too close to socialism.
The “appointment” of the Shah of Iran by the CIA in 1953 is well-known, even to the casual reader of history. What’s not so well known is the Shah’s secret policy agency, SAVAK, was created and managed by the CIA in 1957. The Shah was overthrown by a popular revolution who put the well-known enemy of the US, Ayatollah Khomeini into power. But sometimes you have to ask what drove people to someone like Khomeini.
The CIA was also active in Indonesia, where a CIA-organized coup brought Suharto to power in 1965.
Some dictators we back end up crossing us. Trujillo in the Dominican Republic was assassinated by the CIA in 1961 when he tried to have President Betancourt of Venezuela murdered.
I’d say the US should follow the old maxim: “do no harm”.
The list goes on. I’m surprised there isn’t more of a backlash than just from the Middle East.
Our track record doesn’t exactly inspire confidence.
I think we should do as the Founding fathers recommended. Don’t meddle in the domestic affairs of foreign countries. And if we must meddle, we should do it from a position of morality, not expediency. Or we should shut the hell up about trying to promote democracy.
Saddam wasn’t supported by the US in response to the Iranian threat, as others have suggested. There’s been a good deal of evidence that suggests the CIA helped put Saddam into power in the first place, well before the 1979 Iranian revolution.
UPI (the third major newswire) published a story connecting the CIA to Saddam earlier this year in April. The story went widel unreported. You can read it here: http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030410-070214-6557r and decide for yourself.
The CIA got involved in Iraq when Qasim, the dictator who overthrew the British-created monarchy, backed out of the anti-Soviet Baghdad Pact and began bringing in communist advisors. The CIA responded by working with the Ba’athists and the Ba’ath coup was considered a success.
None of this should surprise anyone here. The CIA’s been quite active since its inception from OSS after WWII. Syria (1949), Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Zaire (1960), Cuba (1961), Dominican Republic (1961), Iraq (1963), Indonesia (1965), Greece (1965), Chile (1973), Angola (1975), El Salvador (1979) are just some of the more well-documented cases. As a former CIA official writes, “the CIA has overthrown functioning democracies in over 20 countries.”
Lest you think these actions are covert, they appear hidden only from our own population. Not everyone may blame the US for its behavior, but most local populations are well aware of US interference in their country’s domestic affairs.
We have a sordid history. Full of hypocrisy. In some instances, not that much better than the totalitarian regimes we stand opposed to. We have certainly had our lows.
If there is one thing that distinguishes our great nation from others and gives me faith, it’s our willingness to admit mistakes and work to rectify them. In what other country do you find museums in the nation’s capital dedicated to telling the story of previous injustices (against slaves, Native Americans, etc). We try to prevent future generations from reliving our mistakes. The sooner we acknowledge them, the better.
Abner,
you wrote: “So why do you not hate the French and the Germans for supporting him?”
And later: “And only extremists such as yourself see it as black and white.”
Not supporting an aggression against a country means supporting the country’s ruler? Isn’t that sort of, hm, black and white thinking…?
Saddam Hussein made many people in the region suffer a lot. If a coalition of Iran, Saudi-Arabia, Israel and others had felt threatened and asked for help, this would be a different story (of course this is currently a utopian, but still a necessary condition!). As well, if there had been a legitimate democratic opposition within Iraq asking for this. But it seems, most Arabs are not too keen on American interference.
On the other hand Saddam Hussein didn’t even have mass destruction weapons and he had no links to Al Quaida (probably in contrast to some people within the royal family of Saudi Arabia). And this was obvious to most (at least non-US) experts. So the US cannot even claim that Iraq was a threat to their own security.
Germany fully supported the aggression against Afghanistan as a consequence of 9/11. Germans didn’t want to hear that this was an aggression, at that time. Many now feel somewhat misused by the US. Maybe a naive, but not a very astonishing reaction.
Chris
>> How could a government this incompetent in its own country
>> prevent a determined group of foreigners from educating themselves,
>> working hard, building industries, and exporting their goods to
>> Asia and the European Union?
Phil,
Very few countries are given an opportunity to educate themselves and export their goods. US controlled IMF and World Bank forced economic transformation which impoverished dozens of countries (incl. Argentina) and disintegrated their public systems (education, health, railway, water) (http://www.50years.org/action/s26/factsheet2.html).
Other countries were not that lucky: through assasination and coups, US installed and/or supported their favorites, such as Shah of Iran, Saddam, Pinochet, Marcos.
Other countries were even less lucky: US directly sent its troops, shutting down the opposition. (see “The Panama Deception” Oscar winning documentary). For over a century, there has been no single year that U.S. military has not acted abroad (http://www.neravt.com/left/invade.htm).
At the same time, everything is honkey dory here in the U.S, as administration is maintaining a ban on journalists filming caskets returning to the U.S. from Iraq. Let’s keep our heads in the sand.
—
Is it moral to maintain the empire in order to drive an SUV at home?
I do not want cheap gas knowing that people in the Third World are killed for it (by U.S. army, or by local military paid by multinational corporations). Majority of people in the U.S. feel that the cost is justified. They either say that openly, or keep their head in the sand.
Right wing (including half of the comments on this page) says that Third World Joe would *not* be better off without the American empire – which is probably true. What kind of argument is that? Should we re-institute slavery because millions of Africans will die anyway in wars or of AIDS?
It is illuminating that the exact same issues have been superbly documented 2400 years ago in “History of the Peloponnesian War” by Thucydides (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0872201686).
-Laza
I think it’s slightly naive to imagine that the current spate of sabre wielding is motivated by US Imperialism. What part of Dubya’s CV suggests that he thinks in terms beyond his own wallet? There’s gold in them thar hills, in Iraq (Cheney and Halliburton, and hence the Republican party have their snouts firmly in the trough) and also, less widely reported, in North Korea.
And who do we find with open pockets? Why, it’s Saddam’s old pal Donald Rumsfeld!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/korea/article/0,2763,952289,00.html
http://www.abb.ch/GLOBAL/ABBZH/abbzh252.nsf/583d1e2a205b6843c1256bc9003f3f84/eded0616131e28b2c125675200268fe6/$FILE/ABB_OR.pdf
Here is the official press release from ABB itself in 2000:
_______________________________________________________________
Thursday January 20, 9:04 am Eastern Time
Company Press Release
ABB to deliver systems, equipment to North Korean nuclear plants
US$ 200 million in orders awarded under multi-government framework
agreement
ZURICH, Switzerland–(BUSINESS WIRE)–January 20, 2000–ABB, the
global technology group, said today it has signed contracts to
deliver equipment and services for two nuclear power stations at
Kumho, on the east coast of North Korea. The contracts, with a value
of US$ 200 million, were awarded by HANJUNG (Korea Heavy Industries
and Construction Co. Ltd.) and KOPEC (Korea Power Engineering Corp.).
The two nuclear plants are being supplied to North Korea under a
Supply Agreement with KEDO (Korean Energy Peninsula Development
Organization), a consortium formed in 1995 by the governments of the
United States, Japan, South Korea and the European Union. KEDO is to
provide the stations under the Agreed Framework signed by the U.S.
and North Korea in 1994.
Under the terms of the contracts, ABB will provide engineering,
design and components for the two 1,000-megawatt (Mwe) light water
nuclear steam supply systems. The systems are an advanced version of
ABB’s System 80
I think the more successful the US is the more you guys will foam at the mouth and hate the US. The fact that you bring up chickenshit examples of Rumsfeld being on the board of ABB while he was CEO of Gilead Science proves my point. Ranting and wailing about the IMF and the World Bank just adds further exposition that we’ve got some real world class cranks here. Not to mention the Serb who criticizes the US when he supports ethnic cleansing in Kosovo. Ciao, ya’ll.
Its not antiwar or even anti-intervention, but dressing up intervention in Iraq as “to free its people” is really puting lipstick on a pig. Dare I suggest the $15B rebuilding contract for Haliburton, the oil “partnerships” (that would be an interesting one sided negotiating table) that will be set up between Iraq and american oil interests. I am all for a very strong agressive interventional stance on all ruthless dictatorships to go after before Saddam (no tear in my eye when he is executed). If freedom is what it is about then there are some triple AAA grade dictatorships. Lets look at North Korea, they routinely kill their people, any hint at discontent is stomped on with ruthless and cruel violence (nice to have one of your children murdered in front of you as a warning for making a complaint), corrupt to its core, millions staved for no reason other than mismanagement, they have a crazy leader (eg. terrorist act order directly by him was the bombing of a Korean airliner killing 115), they have the bomb and missiles to put it on, plus all the usual chemical/bio weapons of mast destruction, and they have no oil.
I am sure in 200 years the North Korean dictatorship when the full terrible truth is revealed will be remembered as one of the worst or the worst of the past century. At least Kim Jong-il wasnt installed by the US.
If the world was fair and Bush walked the talk then he would be on TV, giving Kim Jong-il and his family 48 hours to get out or face the consequences. If there ever was a case for a decapitation then here is one on a plater. Pity for the people there is no oil in North Korea…maybe a few chickens but they probably are starving.
> Most Third World governments have no plausible claim to legitimacy.
A bogus argument. If you dig the history deep enough, you’ll find that *any* government has no plausible claim to legitimacy. Think for a while how the U.S. government got there.
Did you know that Seoul is within artillary range of N. Korea? did you know that
N. Korea has 11,000 cannons aimed at S. Korea? Did you know that the US spent untold
billions of dollars to build S. Korea’s economy? Did you know that S. Korea does not want
N. Korea disturbed in any way? Did you know that Japan has a vested interest as well? As well as China? Moron.
Eugene, it is evident that you do not know democracy and the republic from which it springs forth, that you do not know inalienable rights, and that you do not know American history, its people, culture and institutions. In short, you are as ignorant as can be and yet you are expounding on something that you obviously know nothing about in a public forum. Your arrogance and ignorance is breath taking, sir.
“Did you know that Seoul is within artillary range of N. Korea? did you know that N. Korea has 11,000 cannons aimed at S. Korea?” etc etc
But still a good customer for ABB’s nuclear power plants, so keep quiet and back to the lobbying, Donald Rumsfeld.
“Eugene, it is evident that you do not know democracy and the republic from which it springs forth” “Your arrogance and ignorance is breath taking, sir”
Err … right … tell us about democracy springing forth from the US – how long has it been since blacks got the vote? Longer than the democracy in, say, Iceland, or Turkey for that matter?
“Your arrogance and ignorance is breath taking, sir”
Pot, kettle …
“Did you know that Seoul is within artillary range of N. Korea? did you know that N. Korea has 11,000 cannons aimed at S. Korea? Did you know that the US spent untold billions of dollars to build S. Korea’s economy? Did you know that S. Korea does not want N. Korea disturbed in any way? Did you know that Japan has a vested interest as well? As well as China? Moron.”
Yes, I have been to Korea, and China and Japan.
I wouldnt want “vested” interests in Japan or China being disturbed, a million dead hear a million dead there pretty soon you run out of integers and it doenst matter any more. Lets face every country in Asia has got out a map and drew a red circle out from the North Korea according to the km range of the missile systems.
As an American, I don’t think the issue should ever be whether people hate us or hate our country or not. If we based policy on trying to maximize popularity the we would really be hypocritical and contradictory and all of things complained about above. Besides, political opinion is so very fickle. Most of this so-called hatred seems to be politically biased.
Not much has changed in US policy since five years ago when Clinton was lobbing tomahawks at Iraq without the approval of the UN. Perhaps foreigners preferred that we were ineffectual then, and perhaps they preferred Clinton’s domestic agenda to Bush, although they are nearly identical. Let’s not forget the delight of the foreign press in Clinton’s dalliances with Monica. No one ever said we were hated then, we were too good a joke. Maybe people liked that, and are nostalgic for that now.
The US media has lately been so busy quoting worriers and hand-wringers, lamenting our “loss of clout” with foreign governments, because they “hate us” and “hate Bush”, they have failed to notice we are actually much more respected now. Syria and Iran are being very careful, Arafat has been largely marginalized, and the very Europeans who flipped us the bird at the UN a year ago are on the verge of doing precisely what we are asking of them.
It will still take decades for the US to undo the mistakes and compromises that were necessary during the Cold War, such as supporting dictators that were anti-communist because larger things were at stake at the time. But I think we are on the right track to being a largely benevolent and beneficial force in the world. This will eventually be noticed.
> Eugene, it is evident that you do not know democracy and the republic from which it springs forth, that you do not know inalienable rights, and that you do not know American history, its people, culture and institutions.
Abner, I don’t see how that follows from my post. American revolt was in clear breach of the British Empire’s law, which in turn had some very questionable rights on most of its territory, and each of that territories, in turn.. I think the idea is clear, and frankly, not any new at all. But rather than providing a counterargument, you start your infantile flag/cherry pie/chevrolet line combined with ad hominem attack.
Sad.
What seems really unfortunate is that the gentleman who has taken it upon himself to defend America resorts to insults and name-calling. As an American myself, I strongly disagree with a great deal that has been done in the name of my “security”, especially within the past two years or so. Does that make me anti-American? I am saddened by the comeback of a particularly vicious trend in U.S. political culture: “My Country, Right or Wrong.” Our current President put it thus: “You’re either with us or against us.” Great. No room for compromise, consensus or discussion. Bush & Co. have a monopoly on the Truth, and God help anyone who gets in their way. Well, Mr. Delacroix, that is as good an example of black & white thinking as you’ll find anywhere…
In reading this discussion I cannot help but think that it is great to live in countries where we can discuss, dialogue, disagree, suggest, praise and criticize our leaders and governments without recrimination or be visited by enforcement agencies. I may not agree with all I read in the posts, but I have to thank those who presented information to allow me to research and to enlighten myself on the subject. Being a Canadian married to an American I do have to say that the people of both nations are some of the most generous people around as are most of my friends in Europe and across the world. It is my hope that more and more of us become educated to the effects our actions and governments have on others, be it good or bad.. Thanks for the great discussion.
Lets just hope after “Discuss, dialog, disagree, suggest, praise and criticize or governments and leaders” the most important thing of all happens: ACTION. You dont need the enforcement agencies if you feel safe in your castle and you just ignore the problems and just do as you please. Whilst a world dominated by Bush is preferable to a world dominated by Sadam types, few would disagree that this is sub-optimal.