Exploring Anti-Americanism
POSTED BY: Khyron
UPDATED: Monday, April 30, 2007 03:01
VIEWED: 18266
PAGE 21 of 23
Quote:I don't find too much information that the citizens of Russia or China are anti-American to equal the level in, say, France. Putin is saber-rattling, but that's the government, not the people. and this still doens't explain the anti-Americanism of the Western European democracies.
Originally posted by SignyM:
I'm just pointing out that we've established a similar situation with Russia and China and that we pretty much occupy the Middle East, and this would be viewed with some resentment and alarm by those nations and others in the region.
Quote:Such a statement requires proof. I submit that troops overseas can be entirely defensive; if not for the country deploying troops, then for the country they are deployed to.
Any troops overseas are an act of aggression against somebody.
Quote:You were trying to make it look as if all US invasions were unjustified aggression, i.e. "Nobody should fear us -despite the fact that we've outright invaded more nations than the USSR!".['quote] Before the Soviet Union fell apart, how many countries that they'd invaded did they voluntarily leave? I can't think of one. Of the countries that the US has invaded, how many do we still own? Puerto Rico (actually taken from Spain, not the Puerto Ricans), where referendums still show they want to be part of the US, and some islands in the Pacific (Actually taken from other foreign powers, not the islanders) which want to be associated territories. And no, I don't think that Iraq will be the 51st state.
You misread, or I misphrased. Let me re-phrase my comment: The United States has invaded many other nations besides the invasions that were associated with WWII. But you keep referencing WWII (and for the sake of completeness since I don't want to get into the kind of quibbly argument that you specialize in: Korea and Vietnam) and seem unwilling to look beyond them.
Quote:I have no doubt that some of America's actions have been unjustified. I can't think of any country which hasn't taken unjustified actions. I do not think, however, that all of Americas actions are unjustified, or that we have acted worse than many other countries which don't seem to receive the same amount of animus we do.
In other words, you seem unwilling to discuss some of our actions in detail because they appear to make you uncomfortable, possibly because even YOU think they were unjustified.
Quote:
QUICK GEEZER! Tell me what I'm thinking!
That you're always right, and that anyone who disagrees with you is evil. Now ask me something hard.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think I can explain the anti-Americanism of the western democracies in two words: Iraq. Vietnam.
... this still doesn't explain the anti-Americanism of the Western European democracies.
Quote:So what about the nation they are deployed against? They don't count? Or is this an example of Geezer's Big Blind Spot? And BTW- I didn't mean that deploying troops is an "act of aggression" in the formal sense, so before you put those words into my mouth and then try to argue that argument, let me reiterate that my point is they would be perceived as a threat by the targeted population.
I submit that troops overseas can be entirely defensive; if not for the country deploying troops, then for the country they are deployed to.
Quote:No I wasn't. That's your interpretation. If you would stop inserting your own arguments in place of mine this discussion might get farther. However, not all American invasions and interventions are justified either. A great many were not. We're by and large given a "pass" on what we do to our neighbors to the south, but some of our blunders were big, messy, and very very public.
You were trying to make it look as if all US invasions were unjustified aggression
Quote:But the Soviet Union is not in power today. If it were, fewer people might be afraid of us. We're in that unipolar moment and Bush fucked it up by making Iraq an example of what we would do with that power.
Before the Soviet Union fell apart, how many countries that they'd invaded did they voluntarily leave? I can't think of one.
Quote:Geezer (sigh!) if another nation had the power we do, had the military footprint that we do, and did what we're doing THEY would be feared and hated. But the fact is, there is no other nation on earth that has our history of abusing power AND has the same level of power.
I can't think of any country which hasn't taken unjustified actions. I do not think, however, that all of Americas actions are unjustified, or that we have acted worse than many other countries which don't seem to receive the same amount of animus we do.
Quote:Nope. I was just thinking that you're incredibly dense.
That you're always right, and that anyone who disagrees with you is evil. Now ask me something hard.
---------------------------------
If Russia, China, Europe, Japan, and all the South American countries became allies and combined all of their military spending, they STILL wouldn't equal ours. We're in that unipolar moment, and Bush fucked it up by making Iraq an example of what we would do with that power.
NOW do you get it?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:But Vietnam was 30 years ago. If the Soviet Union is no longer an issue, how can Vietnam be?
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think I can explain the anti-Americanism of the western democracies in two words: Iraq. Vietnam.
Quote:
And BTW- I didn't say that deploying troops is an "act of aggression",[/quoteQuote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Any troops overseas are an act of aggression against somebody.
Okaaay.
Quote:You keep reiterating this point, but provide no evidence to back it up. Do the Russians or Chinese citizens have more anti-American bias than the French or Germans? If your point is valid, you should be able to show that this is so. Otherwise you're just showing your own bias. Got any facts?
...so before you put those words into my mouth and then try to argue that argument, let me reiterate that my point is they would be perceived as a threat by the targeted population.
Quote:
However, not all American invasions and interventions are justified either.
Hey, I said that too. Great minds think alike. Now compare and contrast against interventions by other countries beginning, say, 1950. Don't forget Soviet and Cuban aid to insurgencies in Africa and South America, and Chinese aid in the invasions of South Korea, South Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.
Quote:This was in response to your "...we've outright invaded more nations than the USSR!" comment. I was contrasting the results of those invasions, and it's still a valid contrast, regardless of the state of the USSR. Please keep things in their original context.
But the Soviet Union is not in power today.
Quote:
...if another nation had the power we do, had the military footprint that we do, and did what we're doing THEY would be feared and hated.
The only other two nations who might have ended up with the power and military footprint we now have would have been Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. I'll admit that in that case no one would express anti-Nazi or anti-Soviet sentiments (more than once, anyway) but I suspect that, with all the mistakes and misjudgements the US has made, the world is better off with us instead of them.
I expect Brian Keith, playing Teddy Roosevelt in the movie "The Wind and the Lion", stated the truth of it.
"We have no true friends - only enemies. Other countries may grow to respect us, even fear us, but they will never truly love us. For we have to much audacity and can be a little blind and reckless."
Audacious, a little blind and reckless, maybe. Hateful and evil, I don't think so.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Re-read my post. I edited it before you replied.
There are two things that support current anti-Americanism. The first is that we are in power. What we do or did is more pertinent by that fact. That Russia invaded Hungary or Afghanistan perhaps concerns Hungarians or Afghanis currently, but is not factored into predictions because Russia is not an ongoing concern. So people will look to our past more than the past of ... say,.. Estonia... because it is more important to them to figure out what we'll do.
The second is our history of intervention. Iraq is a potent example. If it were a unique example, we might get a "pass". but it's not.
We're the eqiuvalent of an elephant in schoolyard. It's not allowable for us to be "reckless". If we are, we will pay the price of cumulative suspicion and hosility.
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM,
I have to say you've got the patience of a saint, the stamina of a tri-athlete and the intellect of an Einstein. Since your argument was abundantly clear to me waaayyyy back at the beginning I don't think it's you.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There are two things that support current anti-Americanism. The first is that we are in power. What we do or did is more pertinent by that fact.
So no matter what we do, people aren't going to like us just because we ended up with the power. That's just chance, as much as anything else. You'd think people might consider the other contenders for that power before they judge too harshly, but that's probably expecting too much.
Quote:But lots of countries have a history of intervention. China and Cuba come to mind in recent times. France and Great Britan had massive colonial empires up till the 1950s. Must just be the power part.
The second is our history of intervention. Iraq is a potent example. If it were a unique example, we might get a "pass". but it's not.
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.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
SignyM,
I have to say you've got the patience of a saint, the stamina of a tri-athlete and the intellect of an Einstein. Since your argument was abundantly clear to me waaayyyy back at the beginning I don't think it's you.
Preaching to the choir is always easy. Trying to convert us apostates is the problem.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
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.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oz, here's a novel idea, how bout we stop *sending* those checks - the resta the world got on without us, they can manage without us just fine or maybe even better, considering the scum we finance, you know, guys like Saddam, The Shah, Noriega, Papa Doc Duvalier, Pinochet, Osama Bin Laden, and a whole collective of real dickheads we propped up to support our interests at the expense of their own people, gee, that's not likely to piss anyone off now, is it ?
As for army bases where they ain't wanted, ask the Okinawans how they feel about our base, and our troops, given their behavior.
We ain't the worlds police, and we sure as hell ain't their mommy, and it's about time we quit trying to be... and as for so-called 'threats' ?
When someone lands an invasion force on our shores with intent to occupy and control, then maybe, maybe, *IF* they even make it to the nearest walmart before we chop em to bits, I might consider them a threat.
Mostly they're just bullshit boogymen of the Emmanuel Goldstein stripe, in order to scare us into handing over our money and rights, something we've done too much of already.
Of course, fanatic idealism trumps logic and reason every time, so I don't expect it'll do any good, but there you have it.
And FYI - might not be able to discuss so much for a lil while, my laptop gave it's all this morning with a lot of heat and smoke, and found it's way to valhalla, so imma doin this on a teeny tiny little IBM thinkpad that shoulda been scrapped many a year ago, and it's NOT easy, so dun expect much, ok?
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM,
I was thinking about expressed v silent anti-Americanism.
If the US should ever need help, to whom would it turn? Let's say China decided to call in it's debt* and the US economy took a dive. Who would help out? Or would you see anti-Americanism in full force as the countries who previously felt inhibited suddenly faced no more repercussions?
My sense is that the US would be swarmed - figuratively speaking - by countries getting in whatever licks they could.
I think that would be the prediction of most people. And that is a tacit acknowledgement that the US isn't envied. B/c if the US were to suddenly become, say, destitute, there would be no more envy and so no more anti-Americanism.
* Not that it's doing that, my understanding is the Chinese are actively buying things w/ US dollars as a way to dump dollars
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME