Exploring Anti-Americanism
POSTED BY: Khyron
UPDATED: Monday, April 30, 2007 03:01
VIEWED: 18266
PAGE 22 of 23
Quote:GAWD Geezer, you ARE thick! The word is fear.
So what it really boils down to is that people don't like us because we came out on top. There's a word for that. I'm thinking either jealousy or envy, but I'm not sure which.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fear is a vast oversimplification. You might be able to make the case that some countries have reason to fear us. Syria, North Korea, Iran maybe. But even in those cases, I don’t think fear is as big as motivator as you're making it out to be. Even after Iraq and Afghanistan most countries that pose a threat to the US don’t really expect to be invaded by the US. But most countries don’t pose a threat, like France which has one of the largest anti-American populations? French people don’t fear the US. Neither do Germans or Canadians or the Brits or the Irish. And you will find considerable anti-Americanism in all of these countries. Envy is a better explanation.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The US has imposed its economic agenda all around the globe - including on France, Germany, the UK and Canada. While the US doesn't threaten them in the traditional military sense (at present)*, there is anger that isn't expressed. It's not envy.
* Of course the US is planning to deploy its anti-missile 'shield' around the globe, which many countries feel will MAKE them into nuclear targets through an action not of their choice. So, yes, the US is generating military fear in W Europe.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Yeah, I don’t think so. I don’t see the US imposing any kind of economic agenda on any of these countries that would promote fear. That sounds kind of dumb, actually.
Originally posted by rue:
The US has imposed its economic agenda all around the globe - including on France, Germany, the UK and Canada. While the US doesn't threaten them in the traditional military sense (at present)*, there is anger that isn't expressed. It's not envy.
And Western Europe is as much a nuclear target without interceptors as with, so that doesn’t work either.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Do you know why Europe formed the EU?
But let's take a look specifically at W European anti-Americanism. When did it become prominent? Certainly not during Clinton's administration. And after 9/11 the US had the hearts of people all over the globe, including W Europe. Iraq changed that. So, no, I don't think the US has done anything in that time to generate envy. In the case of W Europe, it comes down to Iraq.
-------------------
W Europe without interceptors is a better traditional military target as there is a lot to be gained from the territory. W Europe as a nuclear target makes no sense, unless it poses a nuclear threat. You also have to remember the interceptors are not close to being ready. Should one get through (and the chances are most would get through) Europe - which is a relatively small land mass with concentrated populations - would be decimated. Europe doesn't want to become the sacrifical target in US defense.
But that is beside the point. Europe does not WANT them. The US WILL install them with or without European cooperation. Can you see how that would engender a certain amount of anti-Americanism?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Not because of fear.
Originally posted by rue:
Do you know why Europe formed the EU?
Quote:Iraq is a big sticking point, but anti-Americanism existed in Europe even during the Clinton years.
Originally posted by rue:
But let's take a look specifically at W European anti-Americanism. When did it become prominent? Certainly not during Clinton's administration. And after 9/11 the US had the hearts of people all over the globe, including W Europe. Iraq changed that. So, no, I don't think the US has done anything in that time to generate envy. In the case of W Europe, it comes down to Iraq.
Quote:No, rue. There’s no way that true. What is a good nuclear target, anyway? In any event, interceptors are not nuclear armed. They pose no nuclear threat and they pose little to no conventional threat to traditional militaries at all. Their only service is against a ballistic missile. In other words, if someone wanted to invade Europe with a traditional military, BM interceptors would provide no advantage AT ALL to Europe. They could possibly provide protection from ballistic nuclear missiles, which might discourage the use of such missiles against Europe. Meaning that the presents of interceptors in Europe would actually make Europe a better traditional military target, to use your phrasing.
Originally posted by rue:
W Europe without interceptors is a better traditional military target as there is a lot to be gained from the territory. W Europe as a nuclear target makes no sense, unless it poses a nuclear threat. You also have to remember the interceptors are not close to being ready. Should one get through (and the chances are most would get through) Europe - which is a relatively small land mass with concentrated populations - would be decimated. Europe doesn't want to become the sacrifical target in US defense.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Europe formed the EU to have more economic leverage vis-a-vis the US. There was some fear and a lot of resentment.
I don't think low-level background anti-whatever is what we're discussing. The French don't like the Germans, the Germans don't like the British, the Italians don't like the Spanish, and everyone makes fun of the Poles. So what? ... But even given a low level of anti-American sentiment, people all over the globe put it aside after 9/11. Iraq was not just a sticking-point for W Europe, it was the sticking point.
As for the interceptors, if they have any capacity to reduce Russia's first-strike capability against the US they will be a target, nuclear or not. And if they are in hardened bunkers, nuclear weapons will be used against them. In for a penny, in for a pound.
I'll be off now, I have to get some things done. I hope to see you on the flip-side.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:They formed the EU for economic leverage, true. There’s nothing wrong with that. All economies, if it’s worth the paper it’s printed on, will leverage its assets for greatest profit. And that’s all the EU has done. To say that they did it because the people of Europe fear the US is nonsense. They did for their own profit, not out of fear of the US.
Originally posted by rue:
Europe formed the EU to have more economic leverage vis-a-vis the US. There was some fear and a lot of resentment.
Quote:Still doesn’t work. France is a nuclear power. The UK is a nuclear power. NATO forces are concentrated in Germany and Italy. If the Russians, for some unknown reason, decided to launch a nuclear first strike, Western Europe is still on the short list. It doesn’t make any difference where the interceptors are, except that if they’re in Europe, Western Europe might have a much better chance of surviving such a first strike.
Originally posted by rue:
As for the interceptors, if they have any capacity to reduce Russia's first-strike capability against the US they will be a target, nuclear or not. And if they are in hardened bunkers, nuclear weapons will be used against them. In for a penny, in for a pound.
And I’m done for a while too. I’ve got to go sit with my elderly grandmother tonight.
Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.
Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.
-- Cicero
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
More flame-baiting.
Now since I didn't insult you, or Finn or anyone else, why would you insert an insult here? Oh, that's right. That's what you do.
"Preaching to the choir is always easy. Trying to convert us apostates is the problem."
Please explain to me how this is flame-baiting. If you already agree with SignyM, and you state you agree with SignyM, that's a classic example of SignyM preaching to the choir, i.e. convincing someone who's already convinced. Is it flame-baiting to note this event?
Where SignyM is having a problem is converting 'apostates' such as myself, Finn, and Causal, to Signym's point of view. This is also a true fact. Hardly flame-baiting.
Your posts, on the other hand...
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As for the interceptors, if they have any capacity to reduce Russia's first-strike capability against the US they will be a target, nuclear or not. And if they are in hardened bunkers, nuclear weapons will be used against them. In for a penny, in for a pound.
Do a little research. Anti-ballistic missles are used to intercept nukes on their downward trajectory. The 10 interceptors in Poland could only be used to stop missles aimed at Europe.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME