Why the world hates/fears us [Archive]

R.M. Greenman

08-26-2003, 08:50 PM

I have read through the threads comparing the U.S. to the Romans and the Greeks (although not all of it yet) and kept thinking about an artical in Time Magazine on the same subject. For anyone who hasn't I'll read off some of it.
I'm sure Doug H. and a few of the others has read this because alot of you all seem to be well informed.
We all know what we saw and felt on 9-11-01 and the after affect since,"..the rest of the world saw something different. They saw a country that was hit by terrorism, as some of them had been, but that was able to respond on a scale that was almost unimaginable. Suddenly terrorism was the worlds' cheif priority, and every country had to reorient its foreign policy accordingly.
A few months later the U.S. toppled a regime 6,000 miles away- almost entirely from the air, in Afghanistan, a country where the Brittish and Soviet empires were bogged down at the peak of their power. Americas position today is unprecedented. 100yrs. ago, Britton was a Superpower, ruling a quarter of the globes' population but was only the worlds' third richest country and only one among many strong military powers.
This year America will spend as much on defence as all 191 countries combined.
Americas' dominance is not simply military. The U.S. economy is as large as the next three- Japan, Germany, and Britain combined.The U.S. is more dynamic economiclly, more youthful demographically, and more flexible culturally than any other part of the world.
Supprising is that the world has not ganged up on America already. Countries with immense military and economic might, arouse fear and suspicion, and soon others coalesce against them. It happened to the Hapsburg Empire in the 17th century, France in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, Germany twice in the early 20th century, and the Soviet Union in the latter 20th century."
I'm going to shorten this up better.

"Americans think they are different because we never sought to occupy others and through the years that had been a liberating force."

Basically, to wrap this part up, is that America bucked international historic trend be
cause of our diplomcy and the money we spent on other countries. We educated,fed, and brought alot of the world to economic fullfilment.
Of cource this served our interests as well. It produced a pro-American world that was secure and rich.
This artical goes on to say that Bush turned his back on the world, spit on the U.N. and didn't get elected but forced his way into office.
I should say that this is what the world is thinking, not what the writer is thinking. Poor wording on my part.
Does anyone think that our kids or grandkids will see a world vs. the U.S. kind of war?

R.M. Greenman

08-26-2003, 08:50 PM

Ren

08-26-2003, 09:59 PM

I think we need to revisit our history and in a quick swoop of a few minutes in "Bowling for Columbine" we will see why the US never sought to occupy the world. The US deposed leaders from within and sent money to the natives of those countries to do the US's dirty work. It's quite depressing to see the turmoil caused by this, actually.

The problem is that those of us who live here have never had to consider culpability in these other regions for the simple fact that the US is rich and powerful. It has been a fact of life throughout the Cold War and into today. However, the US has never acted so brazenly as it did this winter and spring in spurning the United Nations and going it alone on very false pretenses.

The US's recent history is pockmarked not only with despicable meddling, but also with meddling that has come back to haunt it of late. It was th US which gave Hussein weapons (Rumsfeld was there) and it was the US which trained the likes of the rogue terrorists to fight battles for it. While no country deserves what happened in 2001 here, it might sound trite to those who've survived brutality caused indirectly or directly by the United States over the years.

If the US had a leader who could heal rather than continue along the past, I think the potential for a peaceable world does indeed exist.

David77

08-26-2003, 11:57 PM

I am uneasy when the definition of the USA being a "superpower" is listed as, 1)military might, 2)material productivity 3)wealth and 4)technology, but immaterial assets of being a diplomatic leader and having the ability to win friends and influence more people to work along-side us for world betterment is not one of our fine assets right now.

I think and hope that we (Bush et. al.) have come to the point where we no longer suffer from delusions of grandeur thinking that we do not need to work with the United Nations to a very great degree. The world is too big for USA to not effectively collaborate in working together much more with many nations to achieve the goals for the betterment of peoples.

The greatest document in all history is called the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" passed by the United Nations on 12/10/1948. This grand document can be read at the following web site;
http://www.sucs.org/~cmckenna/udhr.html

Now the USA should try to use whatever "super" persuasion and skill to work together more diligently to implement these stated ideals - but work together, we must!

We owe a great debt of gratitude to those nations and individuals who now work together for the betterment of the world's population in various ways, and some of these have recently died in the cause.

R.M. Greenman

08-27-2003, 06:03 PM

Sad!!! Also problbly the wrong thread to post that one. This is off topic stuff.

Besides that person is obviouly an online Commando. /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

florida-david

08-27-2003, 06:07 PM

ranul - dude that link has nothing to do with this particular post and is poorly written and in bad taste. i really do not think there is any reason to post that link here or anywhere on this site. maybe if you find it a relevant discussion, you could create a new post about it and use a few p.g. rated words instead of all the cuss words. just my opinion.

as for my grandkids looking at the problems this current bush president is causing, it will only reflect poorly on us americans if we elect him into office again. he clearly has no-clue as to what he is doing in iraq as the country is turning against us a little more every day. the rest of the world is already convinced we are idiots (unless they want our money, in that case we are ok). bush's cowboy diplomacy WILL shortly bankrupt this country (it's already in major debt again). how many billions of dollars do we have to spend on other nations before we solve our own problems? oh yeah, let's just empty the jails since we have no money left to keep those rapists and murderers behind bars. but at least bush's buddies will be getting rich rebuilding the countries we have bombed (at our expense).

this is supposedly a super nation, well we should stop acting like sneaky bullies and act like the leaders that we are. just remember that next time you vote bush!!!!

Doug H

08-27-2003, 07:37 PM

If Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are still on the lam this time next year, President Bush is going to have a hard time getting reelected. I just hope that a genuinely reasonable candidate is also in the running. I'd like to see someone get elected because they were the better choice and not simply because they weren't Mr. Bush.

As for ignoring the UN, well, the UN has a well earned reputation of being a place where the Third World can come and whine about those of us better off, simply because we are better off. As for being a genuine peacemaking organization (it's intended purpose), puh-lease. It's track record on that subject is poor. As the original post stated, we went into Afghanistan after 9-11, and suddenly eliminating (or at least mitigating) terrorism is global priority number 1. Before that, I doubt anyone significant at the UN really cared, as some significant bloc's of nations have found it a convenient, inexpensive, and effective way to influence global events.

Though we've probably shocked the world into actually acting on some very important subjects, I ponder how far the policy will eventually go. And who we will end up at war with. And what methods they will be willing to use....

Doug H.

R.M. Greenman

08-27-2003, 08:44 PM

I had a conspirocy theory a while back ago that Osama has already been captured or killed and that it will not be publically known until election time, giving Bush the boost he'll need to be re-elected.
This is only a theory! I had a teacher in High School that was convinced that Lee Harvey Oswald did not kill JFK, and since his lecture I been somewhat of a closet CONSPRIROCY THEORIST. I always tell people it is only a theory and that I either do not really believe it or that I have no proof. Sometimes it's just fun.
I'm not a Bush basher, but niether did I vote for him.
All I can say about Bush and Iraq is that someone over there declared WAR on us on 9-11. Iraq would have been another nation that would have given Osama another place to hide and train more Al-quida. I supported Bush that something needed to be done with Saddam, but I did not want anyone to go to war.
I also did not want him to disregard the U.N. I suppose that Al-quida will have to strike again to bring back the focus of the world.
I wonder if we helped Russia with their terrorist problems they might be more supportive with ours.

Hey Doug, back to the start of this post about waiting to come forward about Osamas' demise until election, do you remember something about Reagan holding off the release of the hostages until his swearing in to make it look like it was because he was in office and Iran got scared? Something to that effect.

Ren

08-27-2003, 09:20 PM

And in Florida, you get Jeb and Dubya! Lucky you! Canada looks better by the day.

We've kind of been forced into a philosophical crossroads in this country, which could determine fate in the US for a while. While the Supreme Court has been surprisingly upholding rights for all citizens and upholding Constitutional provisions that make the law as free from special interests as possible, and while the legislature is on vacation or something, the executive branch is obliterating a lot of what the US stands for.

I see my grandparents and the pride with which they hear the patriotic songs, and I'm just left to wonder. Are the pronouncements and the songs representative of the country we are in now or are the about what the country stands for? You can see my conundrum. I appreciate the freedom we have, but I have to wonder at what cost we're so free here. Tis why I'm a pacifist, because it's hard to say there are any "just" wars anymore.

Now there are status quo candidates and there are progressive candidates out there who have real things to say. People can't worry about just who is "electable" by rote and should elect someone who has a plan to right the course.

David77

08-27-2003, 09:38 PM

U.S. considering U.N. force in Iraq

http://www.msnbc.com/news/951994.asp?pne=msntv&cp1=1

j4king

08-27-2003, 09:47 PM

Greenman, what is the name of the article in the Time Magazine which you refer to (and what issue)? Thanks.

R.M. Greenman

08-27-2003, 11:12 PM

I'm sorry! It was News week March 24,2003 not TIME.

Doug H

08-28-2003, 06:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by R.M. Greenman:
Hey Doug, back to the start of this post about waiting to come forward about Osamas' demise until election, do you remember something about Reagan holding off the release of the hostages until his swearing in to make it look like it was because he was in office and Iran got scared? Something to that effect. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The example you mention is one of those moments when cause and effect gets confused. And if one is fond of conspiracy theories, then it's easier to get them confused. I doubt that the above is a proper interpretation of events. I also doubt that the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were started to created business opportunities for certain US businesses.

If I were a country holding citizens of a powerful country hostage and that country's angry populace elected a new leader that looked like he had some spine, I'd get it settled ASAP! I think that Reagan could've given the order to radioactively vaporize Teheran and it would've enthusiastically carried out. That's how mad we were over that situation. And in 1981, Ronnie was a very unknown quantity.

The current situation in Iraq and Afghanistan created numerous business opportunities that certain companies took aggressive advantage of. (And isn't that the essence of free market capitalism?) Were those opportunities legally and ethically secured? That's a good question, and one that needs to be pursued. But seeing those opportunities as the cause for the wars is just a little back-to-front for me.

Doug H.

R.M. Greenman

08-28-2003, 07:42 PM

Yeah, I wasn't sure about the Reagan/Iran thing as being credible. I was hazy about what came of that theory. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

S.M.A.

08-28-2003, 08:37 PM

You know, this may sound incredibly stupid, but when I saw the name of this topic I thought it pertained to how nudity is almost universally misunderstood, and not poor relations between the United States and everybody else.

By the way, let me make this short and sweet: It's Bush's fault that everybody hates us.

missouriboy

08-29-2003, 08:20 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by S.M.A.:
It's Bush's fault that everybody hates us. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Not entirely. It goes back waaaaaay farther than Bush. Even if you're talking about his daddy!

Jochanaan

08-29-2003, 10:45 AM

R.M. Greenman

08-29-2003, 11:00 AM

I remember that one also. The democrats were angry that Carter didn't get the credit.

Jochanaan

08-29-2003, 11:05 AM

Here's a mental exercise that may help some to understand why the world hates and fears us. Imagine that, at the height of the Soviet Union's power, some terrorists had destroyed a large building in Moscow resulting in thousands of deaths and massive disruption. Then imagine that Russia had declared war on terrorism, invaded Afghanistan, then Iran, and deposed its rulers, and named Britain, France, and the United States as members of an "axis of evil." And furthermore, imagine that in the unlikely event the United Nations offered to send troops to help provide security for the conquered nations, the Soviet ambassador insisted that it be placed under Russian command. Would we not fear them? Would we not consider them enemies of peace? Would we not suspect them of wanting to expand their empire over all the world?

This is what the US has done. And our protestations that we only want to bring international criminals to justice mean little in the face of our attacks on Saddam Hussein's Iraq, when that admittedly heinous regime had not attacked us; and our justification that "they had weapons of mass destruction" is falling to pieces for lack of evidence. If I were a Muslim living in an Arab country, I would certainly wonder when US bombers would unleash destruction on me.

As for North Korea, they hate and fear us not because we are free, but because we are so big. They see no reason why we may not annihilate Pyongyang as we did Hiroshima and Nagasaki. This makes them lose face, and losing face in Eastern Asia is truly a fate worse than death; witness the old Japanese custom of harakiri. Their brinksmanship is most likely designed to regain face.

Unless and until we understand these things, the United States is destined to remain the object of hatred and fear.

S.M.A.

08-29-2003, 04:28 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by S.M.A.:

[/QB]By the way, let me make this short and sweet: It's Bush's fault that everybody hates us. [/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This is what I meant by my previous statement: Foreign relations with the United States have never been this sour until Dubya came along. True, we've had issues in the past, but that was nothing in comparison to the blatant xenophobia and self-important imperialism that epitomizes the Oval Office today.

shãybare

08-29-2003, 04:38 PM

SMA, They hated us long before Bush was even born. Why did they hate us then?

R.M. Greenman

08-29-2003, 07:23 PM

Shaybare, I'm interested to hear who hated us pre-WWII
I am not a Bush Basher.

I'm thinking Japan,U.S.S.R.,Germany, Possibly Italy

R.M. Greenman

08-29-2003, 07:47 PM

Here is more from that artical,"G.W. Bush came into office with few developed ideas about foreign policy.He didn't seem much interested in the world.Bushs' vision amounted mostly to carving out positions different from his predecessor. Many conservatives thought the Clinton administration was over involved in the world,especialy in nation building, and hectoring in its' diplomacy. So Bush argued that America should be a humble nation, scale back its' commitments abroad and not involve itself in rebuilding other countries.
In its' first year the adminisration withdrew from 5 international treaties- and did so as brusquely as it could.It reneged on virtually every diplomatic effort that the Clinton administration had engaged in, from N.Korea to the Middle East."

Doug H

08-29-2003, 08:36 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by R.M. Greenman:
In its' first year the adminisration withdrew from 5 international treaties- and did so as brusquely as it could.It reneged on virtually every diplomatic effort that the Clinton administration had engaged in, from N.Korea to the Middle East." <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Now, someone is saying something I could believe. Bush is a like Harry Truman is that he blunt, impulsive, and a more than a little headstrong. Having to stand against the Soviets probably helped him look better. Nowadays, there is no "Great Opponent" and the media has absolutely no respect for the Office of the President (Thank you Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon. Don't blame Clinton, it was shot 20 years before he came along.) Bush is going to look tough, which Clinton wasn't, but rash, which Clinton also wasn't. And the media will have a field day both ways.

Personally, I'm not sure how many of Clinton's policies were good for the country, but backing out of them wholesale because they were your predecessor's policies isn't the smartest move either.

Another personal note, I believe very strongly that the military reductions started under Bush the Elder and carried through by Clinton lead to the perception of weakness and the idea that you might get away with something "big" against us. That perception laid the foundation for 9-11. With Reagan in office, no one would have had the audacity to try it.

One thing about current policy that worries me is that of using soldiers in a criminal manhunt. That's very 18-19th Century. And in the Middle East and South Asia, that period is remembered as succombing to Western Imperial Expansion. Securing a hostile area so that civilian authorities can apprehend and prosecute is one thing; Having the military perform the arrest and the trial is another.

Doug H.

Doug H

08-29-2003, 08:51 PM

Jochanaan,

You spoke a lot of truth. Of course, 9-11 cannot and will not be allowed to go unpunished. The last country that pulled something close to that had 2 cities radioactively vaporized.

Your statements on how the Bush administration is handling securing that retribution (and teaching a lesson, a very important one. I don't like the idea going around in hostile foreign heads that killing Americans for the crime of being American is going to go unanswered.) are very, very true. The degree to which these policies could be carried out is cause for worry, and may (will...) eventually prove counterproductive.

One word on the continuing global scale of our military commitments. The USA has global commericial interests on a scale that no other single nation can begin to rival. Those interests are also more often targeted by foreign hatemongers than any other single nation. Protecting those commercial interests (which also means protecting the US's collective economic prosperity. Enjoy your cell phones, internet, and car with a thousand frills, thank foreign trade.) therefore requires a military commitment far greater than any other single country. The US will continue to have a large military, not just because we can afford it, but because we genuinely need it.

Doug H.

Boreas

09-01-2003, 12:53 PM

Can I add some comments to this thread as a friendly neighbour? First of all, I grew up two hours away from the US border, both the Windsor/Detroit border and the Niagara border. I watched (and still do) all the major US network shows and have (I believe) all the major networks on my cable line up. At least the longterm ones like ABC, NBC, CNN and the like. Therefore, I, like all Canadians get a healthy share of American news and information. I have also had the great pleasure of visitng many spots in the US and have enjoyed the considerable hospitailty that Americans are known for.

Having said that I'd like to add my two cents in this discussion about what it is like to be next door neighbour to the world's biggest super-power and if you will, the "Empire" of today. I was just as traumatized by 9-11 as if I had lived somewhere in the US (other than NY of course). One thing that made it less traumatic was the fact that I was so far away from it....it couldn't happen here could it? Of course, the fear of what could happen next did come here too, and there were some very real potential targets. The distance was also a frustration to those who would go from here to help in NYC.

Anyway, I thought that maybe the US and the world could learn something from 9-11 like how to figure out how to get along. Instead Bush did a cowboy act and went in like gangbusters to clobber Iraq, with little evidence that it was the right action. All it did was give the Muslim world more confirmation of their views. That the US is a bully etc. I find Bush and to some degree Blair to be quite scary buddies actually, though Blair doesn't seem so influential these days. Jochanaan made some good points in this vein about if it happened to Russia.

I have rambled a bit more than I planned. I guess, when a nation has such power and influence, I would like to see it get used in helpful ways. Like building bridges between enemies, helping the weaker nations rather than helping to make them weaker (this was mentioned in previous posts re: Bowling for Columbine.)

It has amazed me that a country which prides itself on free speech sanctions people for speaking out about the war or other things and gives them the label "un-American" It is sad.

Canada has many issues right now that relate to the super-power of the US. Softwood lumber, so called subsidies and issues related to our cows. It always seems that we can get along with the US machinery if we do it their way, and as long as it suits their needs. It is rather like living next door to the neighbourhood bully.

I get frustrated when I hear "why would they do such a thing to "US"? (with the tone of we are so good etc) While I don't condone what happened to the WTC and don't think it should have happened to anyone, perhaps it is a time to review and revise foreign policy.

Gads, this was a lot longer than I planned, and I am not sure I expressed exactly what I meant! I like Americans and the American spirit. I don't like the big political and big business machinery.

R.M. Greenman

09-01-2003, 02:20 PM

I was hopeing for an outside view of this.

Thanks!

/infopop/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

David77

09-01-2003, 04:09 PM

Boreas,
Thanks for your good post. I understand you!

I enjoy and admire Canada. I hope we can be the best of neighbors.

Doug H

09-01-2003, 06:10 PM

Boreas,

Thanks for the view from north of the border. Yes, US foreign policy could a good going over. I don't think a thorough review has been done since the end of the Cold War.

As for doing it "our way", when you're as large a customer as the US is, the buyer can use leverage to get what they want. And American commerce is not above driving a hard bargain. That's the buyer's prerogitive, is it not? That said, you're no doubt referring to matters beyond the realm of commerce, and on those subjects, the US could (and should) be using its position in the world to be a concensus builder instead of a concession taker. I don't the current President is the man for the job, though. My own personal opinion.

As for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, those were sad, but necessary. Get Osama and put 9-11 to rest. Get Saddam and you get rid of someone with nasty weapons (yes, he had them, or was working his way toward getting them. And the only reason we can't find them is he really knows how to hide something when he doesn't want it found, including himself.) who takes delight in mocking international authority. Has anyone noticed that Gadafi has kept his head down since we dropped a bomb on his doorstep? The people who enjoy blowing stuff up do need to be put in their place, ya know...

Doug H.

Boreas

09-01-2003, 07:12 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR> The people who enjoy blowing stuff up do need to be put in their place, ya know...
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Some days it looks like the US likes blowing stuff up. What then? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

I do agree that something needed to be done about Osama and Saddam and the like. I am not convinced the right action was taken. I am also not convinced that the information about weapons was what the governments of the US and Britain, and the media told us. Look at what is happening in Britain now. It is looking more and more clear that Britain exaggerated the threat of weapons in Iraq.

Anyway, thanks for your thoughts Doug. Discussion and debate is what changes things. Too bad the leaders don't seem to know that some days!

Doug H

09-03-2003, 06:53 PM

Thanks, Boreas, for your thoughts as well. A good third party view of events is always a good thing.

One thing that seems to get forgotten by the anti-war groups is that rivalry is a normal part of the human interaction. If humans weren't willing to be competitive, they wouldn't have survived the Ice Age. Such rivalries have been spawning wars since the dawn of time. A review of recorded history would probably reveal that, at any given point in time, there has been a war going on somewhere on this planet. Peace is not a normal condition.

That said, why the worldwide outcry in the 20th Century? The level of destruction. Because the world's militaries found effective uses for the inventions of the Wright Brothers, Alfred Nobel, Robert H. Goddard, and Oppenheimer, nations can be destroyed with an efficiency unprecedented in prior centuries. The difficulty is that not all nations have the same distaste for war, and some of these nations have few compunctions about ignoring international conventions in the conduct their wars.

Now, throw terrorist groups into the mix and things get even murkier. As I said in another forum, the terrorist blurs the lines between soldier and criminal. Most consider themselves soldiers in a war fighting that war by the most effective means they know how. Given that their willing to wreak havoc on a military scale, that would lend creedence to the view that a military response would reasonable. And when you fight a war, you're always better off fighting it on their turf not yours. Having said that, these groups conduct their activities in the mode of an organized crime group. They seek to conceal their support systems and operational activities under civilian cover and to intimidate those amongst whom they hide. That would lend creedence to a law enforcement based approach.

Unfortunately, as has been proven by events, an exclusive approach either way is not effective. The military approach is too heavy handed and vulnerable to being bogged down in pseudo-guerrilla war that no military force can truly effectively counter. The police approach lacks the backing of a proper set of worldwide laws and an international legal system to enforce them.

My personal observation is that the world debate that we are witnessing now is a long overdue serious discussion on how to handle terrorist groups, eventually (it might take a century or two), a worldwide consensus will develop, and Bush-style heavy-handedness won't be necessary to get results when terrorists strike.

Doug H.

AussieBeachBoy

09-04-2003, 07:58 PM

One important thing not to lose sight of is that we shouldn't confuse disagreement with US government policy with disagreement with US citizens in general. They're two different things.

Having said that...

The US's reaction to 9/11 and behaviour since then has, if anything, epitomised what many people see as being the problems with the US's approach to world affairs in general.

The US has a lot of power, but precisely for that reason needs to be even more careful about how that power is exercised. The US has the might and the force to impose its will on many other countries very easily - so if it wishes to act as a responsible world citizen it should be extremely careful before throwing its weight around.

We live in a world with a myriad of beliefs and cultures, which often have the potential to clash. There are aspects in many cultures which people in other cultures may find undesirable. People who disagree with elements of US culture are often accused of "hating freedom". In contrast, elements of other cultures are often measured by the US against US standards and alleged to be objectively wrong.

What happened after 9/11 was really symbolic of the US's approach to many aspects of international affairs, except on a much larger scale. In particular, the unilateral invasion of Iraq is an example of dogmatism. The US claimed to have incontrovertible evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction, contrary to the UN ceasefire agreement after the Gulf War, and argued that a UN-sanctioned invasion was warranted. The vast majority of countries rejected this idea, which also involved a rejection of the "evidence" that the US claimed to have. However, despite a massive wall of opposition, the US decided to go it alone (or, almost alone, with the support of a handful of other countries).

As it happens, the US's "incontrovertible evidence" is yet to be proved to be correct and it seems like the action may have been based on incorrect assumptions. The US went into discussions on Iraq knowing that it had a particular objective in mind, and had the power to achieve it; and even if the rest of the world opposed it, the US would ignore them and go ahead to achieve its objective. This attitute was extremely arrogant and insensitive to the pluralism of views in the world.

Many would argue that the US would be best suited to deploying its great power in global actions for the benefit of the world. The US often claims to do this, but the history of US involvement in global issues shows that the US generally gets involved in something only when there is a question of self-interest involved (and I mean 'self-interest' in a broad sense, including matters where there is no direct benefit to the US but rather where the US is seeking to suppress ideas and regimes contrary to its own beliefs eg Vietnam, Panama, Chile, El Salvador).

So, the US is often seen as helping others only when it thinks it is helping itself; seeking to impose its views and values upon others by reason of its great force with little regard to pluralism; and of having little commitment to a truly global consensus approach to peacekeeping.

I don't hate the US, or Americans in general. But I do think that it does use its privileged and potent position irresponsibly.

Buzzer

09-04-2003, 09:18 PM

I think far too many national and industrial leaders believe the only ways to a strong economy is through war and fashion. (Advertising is a big expense, too.)
Important things as food medicine and entertainment seem to take a back seat on their agendas.

09-04-2003, 09:38 PM

Leave it to Robin Williams to come up with the perfect plan... what we need now is for our UN Ambassador to stand up and repeat this message.

Robin Williams' plan... (Hard to argue with this logic!)

I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a plan for peace. So, here's one plan:

1. The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Noriega, Milosovich and the rest of those 'good ole boys.' We will never "interfere" again.

2. We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea and the Philippines. They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one sneaking through holes in the fence.
3. All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are. France would welcome them.

4. All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist
nation would be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers.

5. No "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home baby.

6. The US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise. This will include developing non-polluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while.

7. Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go some place else.
They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.)

8. If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere." They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given to the army. The people who need it most get very little, if anything.

9. Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island some place. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the
building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.

10. All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us "Ugly Americans"! any longer.

Now, ain't that a winner of a plan?!

"The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying 'Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses.' She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'You want a piece of me?'"

Hooked

09-04-2003, 11:15 PM

Back to the original question posed "Why do people fear and hate us?" The answer is a simple one...it's because we are mutants and people fear what they do not understand.

All the fanboys and fangirls out there will appreciate this one...just lightening things up a bit

Hooked

Buzzer

09-05-2003, 07:13 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by hw:
Leave it to Robin Williams to come up with the perfect plan... what we need now is for our UN Ambassador to stand up and repeat this message.

Robin Williams' plan... (Hard to argue with this logic!)

I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a plan for peace. So, here's one plan:

1. The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Noriega, Milosovich and the rest of those 'good ole boys.' We will never "interfere" again.

2. We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea and the Philippines. They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one sneaking through holes in the fence.
3. All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are. France would welcome them.

4. All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist
nation would be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers.

5. No "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home baby.

6. The US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise. This will include developing non-polluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while.

7. Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go some place else.
They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.)

8. If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere." They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given to the army. The people who need it most get very little, if anything.

9. Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island some place. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the
building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.

10. All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us "Ugly Americans"! any longer.

Now, ain't that a winner of a plan?!

"The Statue of Liberty is no longer saying 'Give me your poor, your tired, your huddled masses.' She's got a baseball bat and she's yelling, 'You want a piece of me?'" <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Hmmmm, Robin Williams for president ?!? We could do worse.

09-05-2003, 10:32 AM

There have been some remarkably intelligent posts in this topic by a number of people. Way to go!

However, this one is so full of holes, so thoughtless and ignorant of the truth I have to counter it.
Robin Williams' plan... (Hard to argue with this logic!)

I see a lot of people yelling for peace but I have not heard of a plan for peace. So, here's one plan:

1. The US will apologize to the world for our "interference" in their affairs, past & present. You know, Hitler, Mussolini, Tojo, Noriega, Milosovich and the rest of those 'good ole boys.' We will never "interfere" again.

Is refusing to help keep peace in the world really
"a plan for peace"? Sounds more spiteful than anything. And was it interference really? Wasn't this country asked to participate in some instances?

2. We will withdraw our troops from all over the world, starting with Germany, South Korea and the Philippines. They don't want us there. We would station troops at our borders. No one sneaking through holes in the fence.

Again, how does that keep world peace? It is once again a solution just to piss off the rest of the world but then again so was invading Iraq.

3. All illegal aliens have 90 days to get their affairs together and leave. We'll give them a free trip home. After 90 days the remainder will be gathered up and deported immediately, regardless of who or where they are. France would welcome them.

Who would do the jobs only the illegal aliens do now? Would you be the one out picking fruit and doing the worst of jobs as they do now? How does making them leave promote peace? Why would France take the Hispanics and the orientals and the wide variety of aliens we have here?

4. All future visitors will be thoroughly checked and limited to 90 days unless given a special permit. No one from a terrorist
nation would be allowed in. If you don't like it there, change it yourself and don't hide here. Asylum would never be available to anyone. We don't need any more cab drivers or 7-11 cashiers.

Who gets to decide what is a terrorist nation? The US would fall into most definitions, did you know that? How would not offering asylum promote peace? Sounds like more spiteful behavior, taking innocent aliens and making them pay for a personal vendetta. We may not need more cab drivers but what of the professors, the engineers, the doctors?

5. No "students" over age 21. The older ones are the bombers. If they don't attend classes, they get a "D" and it's back home baby.

What proof is there that students over 21 are bombers? Most of the ones involved in 9/11 were from a country friendly to the US, not one considered to be full of terrorists. How does throwing students out promote peace?

6. The US will make a strong effort to become self-sufficient energy wise. This will include developing non-polluting sources of energy but will require a temporary drilling of oil in the Alaskan wilderness. The caribou will have to cope for a while.

What makes you think there is enough oil in Alaska to make us self sufficient long term? Did you know that we get most of our oil from places other than the Middle East already? If we destroy our wilderness would it be worth a very few years of oil? The wilderness won't just pop back up, once gone it takes decades and centuries to go back like it was and some of the wildlife will be gon permanently. How will destroying all that promote peace?

7. Offer Saudi Arabia and other oil producing countries $10 a barrel for their oil. If they don't like it, we go some place else.
They can go somewhere else to sell their production. (About a week of the wells filling up the storage sites would be enough.) [b]

They already sell most of it someplace else. We aren't their biggest customer by a long run, and how would this promote peace?[b]

8. If there is a famine or other natural catastrophe in the world, we will not "interfere." They can pray to Allah or whomever, for seeds, rain, cement or whatever they need. Besides most of what we give them is stolen or given to the army. The people who need it most get very little, if anything.

We already don't interfere many times when there is famine in the world. It seems we only like to "help out" when there is something in it for ourselves. Look at Liberia... Bush just begrudgingly sent a couple thousand troops there while 150,000 are in Iraq.

And how does watching people starve promote peace?

9. Ship the UN Headquarters to an isolated island some place. We don't need the spies and fair weather friends here. Besides, the
building would make a good homeless shelter or lockup for illegal aliens.

Fair weather friends? Because Bush couldn't prove (and stillcan't) that Hussein was really a threat? You know, we wouldn't need so many homeless shelters if Bush wouldn't have been in office. The numbers of families living on the streets with little children is skyrocketing while Bush spends all the funds on Iraq. Most of the world watched in horror as we invaded another country for reasons that were never made clear even to this day. Again, how would this promote peace?

10. All Americans must go to charm and beauty school. That way, no one can call us "Ugly Americans"! any longer.

Believe me, that is hardly what is wrong with the US. Every single reason posted had nothing to do with peace at all. What would help bring peace would be allowing legitimate trials of those poor souls stuck in Guantanamo. Bush is no better than Hussein and his sons with the way they are being treated. Imagine having no rights at all, stuck in limbo, facing horribly dirty and inhumane conditions and not knowing when it will end. Many of them are suicidal and it's no wonder.

And have you looked at Afghanistan lately? Bush promised them many things and they have gotten very little back.

Did you ever investigate Bush's COalition of the Willing? If you had you would have seen that many of the countries on there have civil rights violations and histories of torture that are as bad if not worse than Iraq's. Just saying they were on our side made torture ok? Do you know there are US citizens sitting in prison, some since 9/11 that can't even see a lawyer? Do you know that this administration has passed laws that allow them to spy on us, his own citizens for no reason at all and that they want to expand on those powers substancially?

Taking care of these things would promote peace... those ten "suggestions" do not.

Boreas

09-05-2003, 05:00 PM

Hey Cyndiann I like your thoughts! Well said. I wanted to do similar and then you summed it up nicely. As much as I like Robin Williams this list is somewhat disturbing for a variety of reasons.

I think it also epitomizes the hubris of America at times. For instance, he talks about not having to go to Saudi Arabia for oil...they can develop other sources. The Alaska option has been in the forefront lately, and the risk to the wildlife and land reserves etc. So, if they did get oil from there, guess where they would have to pipe it through...your good friend Canada. Believe me, that has caused a stir or two. Of course there is the fighting to get the pipeline because of the revenue etc. The there is the fighting to not get it because of the environmental damage.

That brings me to another point. The US has been trying to get Canadian water, electricity, gas, softwood and other resources. The perception (of the outside) is that it cannot manage its own resources well enough that it has to go outside to get more. The they will drain another country's resources dry. AND we have to basically give the US our resources under their conditions and be grateful for it. Hmmm?

I have been thinking of this thread as I have listened to Colin Powell's request for more assistance from the UN and other nations. It is interesting that he wants support for a "mission" that no one else supported, and the US has to be in charge. Didn't he buck the UN a few months ago. It seems kind of like the kid next door who will only play with you if s/he can be the boss and only his/her toys are good enough. I used to admire Gen Powell. There is a word for that...hubris.

Thank you AussieBeachBoy for your comments as well. I agree with your points.

David77

09-05-2003, 05:26 PM

MSNBC report states,
"U.N. troops may hurt more than help".
See,
http://www.msnbc.com/news/962396.asp?0bl=-0

Doug H

09-05-2003, 07:44 PM

As much as I found the Robin Williams' list amusing, and yes, such policies would let the world know what we were doing right, because those resources would get withdrawn and the rest of the world may or may not be able or willing to take up the slack. That's something that is probably missing in foriegn media for much the same reason that the things we do wrong overseas don't show up brightly in our own media. The local government wants to limit the amount of bad press available about itself to its constiuents. In the case of the more restrictive regimes, they might even need an outside "hate figure" to keep their people focused on foreign threats than internal problems. Been done before, and "W" and those around him could be accused of this in their post 9-11 disregard for the Constitution.

For those who are taking Mr. Williams' rant a little too literally. I think you are missing the element of satire inherent in such overboard declarations. If you read closely, he is managing to simultaneously show the necessary message to the world that you really do want us to be an active part of it, while showing (through its outlandishness) the consequences of taking those policies too far. Pure genius!!

Doug H.

Naturist Mark

09-05-2003, 09:17 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Doug H:
Pure genius!!
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>For what it is worth, that wasn't written by Robin Williams.

Urban Legends Reference Pages (http://www.snopes.com/politics/soapbox/williams.asp)

-Mark

09-05-2003, 11:49 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
There have been some remarkably intelligent posts in this topic by a number of people. Way to go!
However, this one is so full of holes, so thoughtless and ignorant of the truth I have to counter it.
Robin Williams'
-------------------------------------------------
cyndiann, since it was written by someone other than myself I don't think I can answer for them. But I would like to address a couple of your concerns.
*************************************************
[b]It is once again a solution just to piss off the rest of the world but then again so was invading Iraq.
-------------------------------------------------
I don't think the whole world was pissed off about the U.S. invading Iraq. As a matter of fact I think England is actually part of this world. If they were so pissed, why did they help? Hmmmmm and what about the other countries?
*************************************************

France would welcome them.
-------------------------------------------------
Oh that's right, France was pissed off.
*************************************************

Who would do the jobs only the illegal aliens do now? Would you be the one out picking fruit and doing the worst of jobs as they do now?
-------------------------------------------------
Been there done that, still do at times. Not an easy job, but someone has to do it. Have you ever picked fruit in a field in midday heat? How about chopped "hoed" cotton? Driven a cotton picker? How about packed cotton into a cotton trailer? Picked up nuts off the ground, bucked hay? I could go on.....but. Kids who grow up on farms do this work everyday.
*************************************************

Fair weather friends? Because Bush couldn't prove (and stillcan't) that Hussein was really a threat?
-------------------------------------------------
Hmmmmmmmmm...9-11 was a wake-up call to most of the U.S.
*************************************************

You know, we wouldn't need so many homeless shelters if Bush wouldn't have been in office.
-------------------------------------------------
Again hmmmmmmmm. I think there were lots of homeless people before either Bush was in office.
*************************************************

Most of the world watched in horror as we invaded another country for reasons that were never made clear even to this day. Again, how would this promote peace?
-------------------------------------------------
I think the world was more horrified by watching the Twin Towers collapse and burn on 9-11!
At least Iraq was warned; for months!
*************************************************

[b]Believe me, that is hardly what is wrong with the US. Every single reason posted had nothing to do with peace at all. What would help bring peace would be allowing legitimate trials of those poor souls stuck in Guantanamo. Bush is no better than Hussein and his sons with the way they are being treated. Imagine having no rights at all, stuck in limbo, facing horribly dirty and inhumane conditions and not knowing when it will end. Many of them are suicidal and it's no wonder. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>-------------------------------------------------
Would you rather have Maddass Insane running our country? Girl, you think nudists have it bad now, what would it be like if all the women of this country had to cover from head to toe when out in public? /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

missouriboy

09-06-2003, 03:56 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
...You know, we wouldn't need so many homeless shelters if Bush wouldn't have been in office. The numbers of families living on the streets with little children is skyrocketing while Bush spends all the funds on Iraq... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Skyrocketing? I don't think so...

What does skyrocket during every Republican administration is the volume of media reporting of the subject of homelessness. During Democratic administrations the subject is largely mothballed.

The real number of homeless people probably stays fairly constant year over year, regardless of who's in the White House. But the subject itself is a favorite topic for partisan sniping.

Methinks your perception of "skyrocketing" is only a result of this media shift that happens every time there's a change in administration.

Doug H

09-06-2003, 06:19 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by missouriboy:
The real number of homeless people probably stays fairly constant year over year, regardless of who's in the White House. But the subject itself is a favorite topic for partisan sniping.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>ANY subject capable of stirring up emotions will be used (and probably already has been...several times) as media fodder for politicians to sling at each other. And our "anything-to-sell-(our)-news" media is of course more than willing to cooperate and exacerbate. And issues with emotions (as well as issues that generate emotions) are a shortcoming for people in the US.

Doug H.

Croydon

09-06-2003, 06:21 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by missouriboy:
Skyrocketing? I don't think so...

The real number of homeless people probably stays fairly constant year over year, regardless of who's in the White House. But the subject itself is a favorite topic for partisan sniping. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>The keyword in your statement is probably which gives the idea that you really do not know. Let me tell you, the number of homeless people HASN'T remained constant year over year. Each year, the number of people living in poverty goes up. Just recently, NY Times reported a new study that came out last week (can not recall the name) that indicates that poverty and homelessness hasn't gotten any beteter. Furthermore, Bush's term has made it worse b/c most of the money is being sent on war on Iraq. During Clinton's term, we had a surplus and now we have one of the worst deficits since the depression era. Education funding is horribly down and many families are without jobs meaning they do not have enough money to care for themselves and their family.

CNN had a great peace couple months ago about a food drive in a town in PA. These citizens of this working/middle clss town never had issue w/ poverty. Many in the town were let go of their jobs and the families barely can provide. They had a food drive for the people of the town and the reporter spoke to people who were managers and providing well for family. One guy was even a finance manager who was making over 50K and now he has no money.

During Clinton's term, people HAD jobs and money. Furthermore, Clinton did a great job w/ welfare reform and shelters had enough money to provide food/shelter/medical care to the homeless.

Recently, economist say that they economy doesn't show much sign of picking up. It will take 8-10 years for the U.S. to recover from this deficit. Yes, unemployment is down. But do you know why? It isn't because people are finding jobs. Unemployment is defined as not working and looking for work. That being said, reason why unemployment is down is because people have given up on looking for job. They are no longer seeking work and are living off their savings and when you are not seeking work and do not have job, you are not considered unemployed.

Doug H

09-06-2003, 06:22 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by naturistmark1:
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>For what it is worth, that wasn't written by Robin Williams.

-Mark [/QUOTE]

It doesn't much matter to me who wrote it. It's still genius. How many people do you know that can express "We need to get someone's attention!" and "But, don't take it too far..." AT THE SAME TIME? Whoever did write it has talent!!!!

Too bad such talent often goes over most peoples' heads.

Doug H.

Doug H

09-06-2003, 06:39 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Croydon:
During Clinton's term, people HAD jobs and money. Furthermore, Clinton did a great job w/ welfare reform and shelters had enough money to provide food/shelter/medical care to the homeless.
[/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I doubt that economic boom of the '90s had much to do with Clinton's policies. Congress spent too much time and energy opposing him on the principle that THEY wanted the credit and weren't willing to share. Clinton had the good fortune, unlike Carter, to preside over an economic boom that was being driven by a technology boom. When the technology boom slowed down, the rest of the economy slowed down with it.

BTW, that technology boom created entire classes of jobs that didn't exist before. Much to the chagrin of the unionized sector, those jobs required education and technical training. Those willing to invest in themselves, both educationally and emotionally, got ahead and got ahead in unprecedented fashion. Those wanting to slip by through school and make a cushy living doing 'do nothing' jobs found themselves losing out to someone willing to work cheaper. Unfortunately that person was usually in a foreign country where what the US considers to be "in poverty" is living quite well. We have a distorted view of poverty in the US. Compared to most other countries, our poor live quite well.

As has been said, such issues are make good media fodder for political campaigns. And since it sells well, the media is more than willing keep helping them sell it.

Doug H.

Buzzer

09-06-2003, 07:07 AM

Was there ever a president of the U.S. who was popular with everybody while in office ? It seems that about six months after any election it's hard to find anyone who voted for the people elected.

09-06-2003, 09:18 AM

If I remember right ...Eisenhower was pretty popular..."I Like Ike"...Outdoorbare

Boreas

09-06-2003, 09:32 AM

I have a question as a non-American here. I seem to remember stats that said that whenever Republicans were in office, the group who says they have business principles etc, the economic health of the US goes down. When Democrats are in office, the folks who are concerned about social welfare etc, that economic health of the country goes up. I understand that this trend can be traced back for quite a long time. (whole 1900's?) Has anyone else seen this?

I'd like to see similar stats for Canada, but our politics aren't so black and white.

As for homelessness, if you look at research that is separate from the media, you will see that it goes up when right wing "regimes" are in office. When Ontario elected a very right-wing government the rates of homelessness in Toronto particularly went up. Cuts to services to the mentally ill, working poor, health care, education and parents (etc) meant that people who were living on the edge fell off it. Even, as has been posted before, people who you would not expect to be homeless ended up close to that point and using food banks. I know that you just have to walk through any large city downtown in Canada and see this. I understand that the same or worse has happened in the US.

Doug H

09-06-2003, 09:00 PM

Boreas,

Having given thought to relating "party in power" to national economic health, they don't seem to match my memories. The 70's overall were not a good period for the US economy and towards the end, there was double-digit inflation AND double-digit unemployment (A previously thought economic impossibility.) And there were both Republican and Democratic Presidents. From '81 to '92, there were Republican Presidents, and those years included the economic boom of the mid-late 80's and the recession of '91-2. So I'm not sure if the correlation you mentioned is really all that accurate. /infopop/emoticons/icon_confused.gif Or maybe my memories are a little foggy. /infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Doug H.

09-07-2003, 12:00 AM

"I don't think the whole world was pissed off about the U.S. invading Iraq. As a matter of fact I think England is actually part of this world. If they were so pissed, why did they help? Hmmmmm and what about the other countries?

England was with Bush and look at Blair now. The Brits are ready to throw him out of office right now. You are free to think the world wasn't pissed off of course but that would be denying the facts.

Who would do the jobs only the illegal aliens do now? Would you be the one out picking fruit and doing the worst of jobs as they do now?
-------------------------------------------------
Been there done that, still do at times. Not an easy job, but someone has to do it. Have you ever picked fruit in a field in midday heat? How about chopped "hoed" cotton? Driven a cotton picker? How about packed cotton into a cotton trailer? Picked up nuts off the ground, bucked hay? I could go on.....but. Kids who grow up on farms do this work everyday.

Fine...you keep on doing it. I surely am not. And you missed the real point. How do any of the "solutions" you posted cause peace?

Fair weather friends? Because Bush couldn't prove (and stillcan't) that Hussein was really a threat?
-------------------------------------------------
Hmmmmmmmmm...9-11 was a wake-up call to most of the U.S.

Sure was... now what relevance does that have to Hussein? And what does it have to do with peace?

You know, we wouldn't need so many homeless shelters if Bush wouldn't have been in office.
-------------------------------------------------
Again hmmmmmmmm. I think there were lots of homeless people before either Bush was in office.

Sure there were but now there are lots more. Do just a little research hon. What you think and reality just aren't in the same hemisphere. I keep reading about soup kitchens running out of food and how the rate of entire families on the streets is rising fast.

Most of the world watched in horror as we invaded another country for reasons that were never made clear even to this day. Again, how would this promote peace?
-------------------------------------------------
I think the world was more horrified by watching the Twin Towers collapse and burn on 9-11!
At least Iraq was warned; for months!

Yeah, warned about WMD's that didn't exist. We invaded them over fairytales. There was no way they could produce evidence of something that was not there. There was no way for Hussein to stop Bush from invading.

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=441051

Would you rather have Maddass Insane running our country? Girl, you think nudists have it bad now, what would it be like if all the women of this country had to cover from head to toe when out in public?

Hussein had no intention and no capabilities to invade the US. He couldn't even get his own planes off the ground. Now you are getting just plain silly.

And you still didn't tell me how any of that would be related to peace.

Frank R

09-07-2003, 05:45 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Boreas:

As for homelessness, if you look at research that is separate from the media, you will see that it goes up when right wing "regimes" are in office. ... Cuts to services to the mentally ill, working poor, health care, education and parents (etc) meant that people who were living on the edge fell off it. Even, as has been posted before, people who you would not expect to be homeless ended up close to that point and using food banks... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If we accept your logic, then cancer has increased (deaths per capita) over 1,000% since 1900. Of course, in 1900, one in every three deaths was from causes unknown. I would very strongly suggest you read the book "How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff. Even our History books lie. Specific: one of the books used in our schools states that the depression was so bad in the early 1930's that over 600,000 new farms were created between 1930 and 1935 so at least people wouldn't starve. What they didn't say was that FDR had changed the definition of a farm and, with the stroke of pen, magically created over 600,000 new farms!

Croydon

09-07-2003, 06:36 AM

I am who made these things but I thought I address some of the statements...

#1: I don't think the whole world was pissed off about the U.S. invading Iraq. As a matter of fact I think England is actually part of this world. If they were so pissed, why did they help? Hmmmmm and what about the other countries?

WRONG. U.S. received little to no support from the word. Many countries were pissed off about U.S. invading Iraq. What were the reason for the global protests months and weeks before the invasion? To be considered for Survivor tv show? I don't think so. The English were never in support of the war. The job of Blair was to convince the parliament to support U.S. in the war. The decisions of Blair and the parliament is not a indicator of the views of the English people.
Oprah Winfrey in partnership w/ CNN did a great program in which CNN reporters traveled all over the world to get opinions about invading Iraq. Reporters traveled to London, Paris, South Africa, Indonesia, Japan, China, Italy, Nigeria, Canada, and Ireland. Everyone interviewed but probably 3 people stated that they were not supportive of the war. Weeks before the invasion theh world held a global protest. Countries from all continents participated. So please do not say that the world wasn't pissed because they were. Now that we have invaded Iraq, things are not going as planned, the world is basically saying "I told you so." Bush is coming up with lies after lies, excuses after excuses. And you know what makes me laugh? Many Americans fall for his excuses...too lazy to go out and do their own research. If many Americans got out of their comfort zone and did research, they would realaize that "liberating" Iraq isn't going well and U.S. NEVER had the resources and planning methods to "liberate" Iraq. Think about this: Why is Bush pleading to U.N. for help? Think about it.

Fair weather friends? Because Bush couldn't prove (and still can't) that Hussein was really a threat?
-------------------------------------------------
Hmmmmmmmmm...9-11 was a wake-up call to most of the U.S.

How have Bush administration (or you)linked Sadam to 911? There has been no critical proof that Saadam had something to do w/ 911. All you have heard from Bush is pure speculations. Recall that at one point, U.S. did remove Saadam from power. Bet you didn't know that did you? But what did U.S. do? U.S. gave Saadam the power back. Bet you didn't know that too.

09-07-2003, 08:17 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
Sure there were but now there are lots more. Do just a little research hon. What you think and reality just aren't in the same hemisphere. I keep reading about soup kitchens running out of food and how the rate of entire families on the streets is rising fast.
And you still didn't tell me how any of that would be related to peace. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>cyndiann: Do you honestly believe there is ever going to be world peace? I don't think so, but maybe that is just my, " What you think and reality just aren't in the same hemisphere." In the history of man has there ever been world peace? /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

"I keep reading about soup kitchens running out of food and how the rate of entire families on the streets is rising fast." Yes, you keep reading and believing what the media chooses to print. There has always been homelessness, some choose that way of life, others are there because of poor choices made in their own lives; living beyond their means. I belive in the philosophy: Take care of your own, and charity begins at home .

I belive the U.S. spends way to much money on foreign countries. We should keep that money here to take care of our own. Maybe there would be no need for soup kitchens then. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Do you blame George W. Bush for all the problems here in the U.S.? I certainly don't. The problems we face have been on-going for as long as I can remember.

The world has always hated/envied the U.S. for the power and resources we possess. Nothing I originally posted was pointed toward world peace. Just something to make you think. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Have a great day all! /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Boreas

09-07-2003, 09:48 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>The world has always hated/envied the U.S. for the power and resources we possess. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>This statement reflects exactly what bothers non-Americans about the US. There is a certain self-centredness in this type of statement, that people actually envy the US and want to live in "the best country in the world". Because they don't live there, they obviously hate the US.

I believe that I live in the best country in the world...and I also believe that we need to feel that way about the country in which we live. As much as a like Americans and living near the US, I have no desire to live there, much less become American. There is no disrespect intended in that statement. It would be much the same as someone from Washington State enjoying visiting Vancouver and Canadians, and having no desire to become Canadian. I would expect any American to feel that s/he lives in the best country in the world. Just please don't be so self-centred as to believe the rest of the world feels that way.

I don't think that the fact that the US has power and certain resources is what causes people to become angry at the US. It is how they are used. This has already been discussed in this thread.

I agree to some degree about taking care of our own. I am apalled that in countries such as the US and Canada, people live in the level of poverty they do. And it is getting worse. The rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the divide between the two is widening. I think both countries have the resources to look after helping neighbours or poorer nations, and helping their own weaker members. Creating fake wars to distract us doesn't make the problem go away.

As for dreaming of world peace...I rather doubt it will happen in my lifetime. Having said that, I can chose to live in a way that is peaceful and peace promoting, or I can live in a way that increases conflict. I chose to live in a way that supports peace with the hope that this will increase the odds that the world will become more peaceful. The fact that the whole world spoke out in favour of peace gives me some hope too. Maybe things are changing towards a more peaceful world.

Boreas

09-07-2003, 09:54 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Frank R:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Boreas:

As for homelessness, if you look at research that is separate from the media, you will see that it goes up when right wing "regimes" are in office. ... Cuts to services to the mentally ill, working poor, health care, education and parents (etc) meant that people who were living on the edge fell off it. Even, as has been posted before, people who you would not expect to be homeless ended up close to that point and using food banks... <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If we accept your logic, then cancer has increased (deaths per capita) over 1,000% since 1900. Of course, in 1900, one in every three deaths was from causes unknown. I would very strongly suggest you read the book "How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff. Even our History books lie. Specific: one of the books used in our schools states that the depression was so bad in the early 1930's that over 600,000 new farms were created between 1930 and 1935 so at least people wouldn't starve. What they didn't say was that FDR had changed the definition of a farm and, with the stroke of pen, magically created over 600,000 new farms! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>I agree that you can lie with statistics. I am speaking from the experience of working in a field that allows me to talk to real people and to hear their stories. Real people are actually affected by bad policy. It is a fact of life. Walk down the streets in the downtown of any big city and you will see evidence of this. At least in Toronto and Vancouver.

Rik

09-07-2003, 11:29 AM

As a non-US citizen perhaps I could make a few observations about how the world sees the United States.

I'm not sure 'hate' is the right word to use to express the European view of the US although it might well apply in Islamic countries.

The view in Europe has shifted significantly since G W Bush came to power. Indeed it was the farcical presidential elections which, I think, first caused alarms bells to ring this side of the Atlantic. Until that time we had all happily gone along with the idea that the US was an OK country - we took our holidays there, watched it's TV output and felt (certainly in the UK) that there was a bond between us.

In the relatively short time since then there are many, many Europeans (including many in the UK) who see the US as the biggest threat to world peace rather than the world's best peace keeper. The events of 9/11 were, perhaps, an opportunity for the world to come together and support the US. I remember the day as clearly as any American and like just about everyone else felt stunned and shocked. The opportunity however was wasted because on that very day the upper echelons of the US government were also talking about the events as an 'opportunity': an opportunity to invade Afghanistan and subsequently Iraq both of which had been on the 'radar' for many years. All this is well documented but, in the country which prides itself on free speech, you will find little evidence because to even think such a thing seems to amount to treason.

The linking of Iraq to Al Quaida (or any other terrorist group) has never been proven. Even the US administration doesn't continue to make the link so it is surprising that, according to a report I read only yesterday, nearly 70% of Americans still believe that it was the reason for going to war.

So a lot of the stuff around 9/11 and Iraq has caused, I believe, those in other countries to become very sceptical about the US, it's foreign policy motives and the information fed to US citizens which is heavily censored. Not only in the traditional sense but also in the sense that it appears to have become almost treasonable to speak out against the administration. Look at what happened to the Dixie Chicks when singer Natalie Maines said "we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas." In Europe such a statement directed at any European leader would have gone unnoticed but, even though the group felt forced to apologize, it didn't stop the American public and media getting into a frenzy about it.

This scepticism leads us to analyse more closely anything which Bush and those around him say and the more we analyse the more worried we become that the US is bent on world domination. That may sound like an exageration to the average American but believe me it's how many outside the US sees it. We now believe that much of US policy is defined not by what is good for America but what is good for the handful of people at the top of the administration - in other words greed.

Good American citizens can wave the flag as much as they like and point to all the supposed good things about America but the bottom line is that many outside the US view the administration as corrupt and self-serving. And because so many US citizens proclaim their support for this corruption then they view the average American as unintelligent at best.

So I don't believe that Europeans 'hate' America. Rather they feel frustrated that the megalomaniac tendencies being displayed by the administration are blindly supported by many American citizens who seem to believe every word that GWB says.

If you don't like what I've said please don't attack me. All I'm trying to do is provide some sort of answer from a European (and not necessarily a personal) perspective to the original poster's question.

Rik

Trailscout

09-07-2003, 12:24 PM

Rik,

The United States government is far from what I would like it to be, but perhaps you could say the same for Great Britain, since one of your own is imprisoned in Scotland for being his natural self on what should have been an uneventful Land's End to John O'Groats hike.

The US government has itself involved in the Middle East largely because we never did the unpleasant and difficult task of achieving energy independence and begun the transition to relying totally on renewable energy sources. It has given strategic value to obscure places.

But until we are free from this part of the world, we saw the clear need to do what Europe is too weak, corrupt or cowardly to do. I think some in London and Paris are afraid of uprisings and terrorism by the hordes of radical violent Moslems that live in their midst. French Jews have recently seen lots of violence at their hands.

French and German corporations were complicit in military aide to the brutal Baathist regime and their respective governments were too much beholden to these companies not to do their bidding. I would gladly have flown the planes to bomb the headquarters of these companies.

I will be quick to add that multinational corporations are the bane of populists in all nations everywhere and I would love to see an end to overseas job outsourcing and the presence of foreign businesses in the United States. We should nationalize all their holdings and enact high tariffs to protect and rebuild our mission-critical industries.

I also think that European pacificists spend a lot of time on the streets and in front of news camaras and may be disproportionately represented in the media.

Rik

09-07-2003, 01:48 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Trailscout:
The United States government is far from what I would like it to be, but perhaps you could say the same for Great Britain, since one of your own is imprisoned in Scotland for being his natural self on what should have been an uneventful Land's End to John O'Groats hike. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Absolutely. But the debate here is not about comparing one country with another but specifically what it is about the United States which the rest of the world currently find so distasteful.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>The US government has itself involved in the Middle East largely because we never did the unpleasant and difficult task of achieving energy independence...
... we saw the clear need to do what Europe is too weak, corrupt or cowardly to do.
... I think some in London and Paris are afraid of uprisings and terrorism by the hordes of radical violent Moslems that live in their midst.
... French and German corporations were complicit in military aide to the brutal Baathist regime and their respective governments were too much beholden to these companies not to do their bidding.

etc etc <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Whether you are right or wrong with all this is irrelevant because the issue is about how the USA is perceived. That's what I tried to convery in my post. Your issue should be "what, if anything, should the US do to change the perception"
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I would gladly have flown the planes to bomb the headquarters of these companies. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>If that is intended to be a serious comment then what you are saying is that you're quite happy to blow people to bits for the sake of your principles. However what you say does not surprise me for, again, Europeans look at what is going on in Iraq today and what they see is American soldiers indiscriminately killing Iraqi civilians who just happen to get in the way of some more sinister target. It may be that in the states CNN doesn't report things which show the US in a bad light but that doesn't mean these atrocities aren't happening - and all for the sake of principles.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>I also think that European pacificists spend a lot of time on the streets and in front of news camaras and may be disproportionately represented in the media. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>No, I think you're wrong. Europeans are not naturally pacifist but as far as Iraq is concerned the majority of people througout Europe were opposed to the war because they just felt that George Bush was lying about the reasons for war. The British Government is currently undergoing what must be a deeply embarrassing public enquiry into the way intelligence was used (or misused) to support the war. This, in my view, is the most serious political problem ever faced by a UK government and they will almost certainly lose the next election as a result. On a personal level that grieves me as I voted for the current government and the alternatives in the UK are only likley to be worse.

As I said in my previous post it's no good trying to justify the US position if you want to understand why the world 'hates' the US.

I'm not trying to grind some personal axe here. I'm only trying to give you a flavour of European thinking.

Rik

09-07-2003, 04:36 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by hw:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
Sure there were but now there are lots more. Do just a little research hon. What you think and reality just aren't in the same hemisphere. I keep reading about soup kitchens running out of food and how the rate of entire families on the streets is rising fast.
And you still didn't tell me how any of that would be related to peace. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>cyndiann: Do you honestly believe there is ever going to be world peace? I don't think so, but maybe that is just my, " What you think and reality just aren't in the same hemisphere." In the history of man has there ever been world peace? /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Did I ever say there would be world peace? What does that have to do with my questions? What I wanted to know was why that piece you posted had anything to do with peace. All it was about is spiteful moves to piss the world off even more.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>

"I keep reading about soup kitchens running out of food and how the rate of entire families on the streets is rising fast." Yes, you keep reading and believing what the media chooses to print. There has always been homelessness, some choose that way of life, others are there because of poor choices made in their own lives; living beyond their means. I belive in the philosophy: Take care of your own, and charity begins at home .

I belive the U.S. spends way to much money on foreign countries. We should keep that money here to take care of our own. Maybe there would be no need for soup kitchens then. /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Again, of course there has always been homelessness but not at the rate it is now.Why do you keep avoiding the facts I am giving you? What has changed is the number of families with children that are homeless, quite a bit. How many times must I explain this to you before it sinks in? Try turning on any news program like 20/20 and watch all the pieces on entire towns going on public assistance and standing in line at churches for a box of food. If Bush wasn't wasting all those bucks in Iraq for no good reason (no WMD reported and never will be, what a liar) we could be taking care of what we have here. Instead Bush has gotten this country into a very expensive mess that keeps on getting more and more expensive as time goes on. We don't even have enough troups to keep this up past spring. And Bush shows his gratitude by slashing veteran's benefits. Don't blame our troups being all over the world on anyone but our commander in chief.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>
Do you blame George W. Bush for all the problems here in the U.S.? I certainly don't. The problems we face have been on-going for as long as I can remember.

The world has always hated/envied the U.S. for the power and resources we possess. Nothing I originally posted was pointed toward world peace. Just something to make you think. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>It made me think alright. The problems this country has right now have not been ongoing. Homeless families are up, jobs are lost, stocks are down, national debt has skyrocketed all since W took office. Obviously if you didn't read enough to know about the homeless situation you won't know about the other situations either. If that first post wasn't about world peace then why did it say it was? What did you think it would prove by posting it here? Here are some more of Bush's accomplishments.

1) Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
2) The human and financial costs of occuption are spiralling out of
control.
3) The economic recovery has come with a net job loss of 2.7 million
jobs, the worst performance in any recovery since the Great
Depression.
4) The current administration squandered a federal budget surplus
plunging us into more deficits.
5) Al Qaeda is still a threat; Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar remain
at large.
6) Saddam Hussein remains at large; his loyalists may be combining
forces with Muslim extremists to undermine the occupation.
7) Israelis and Palestinians are still killing each other; the
"Roadmap" is in shambles.
8) The US is now viewed a rogue superpower by a large portion of the
world.
9) The evidence is now in on global warming, but the Bush
administration rejected the Kyoto accords.

florida-david

09-07-2003, 07:16 PM

cyndiann - i agree with you 100%, Bush is an idiot that has no real game plan for his actions. as far as he is concerned, all us stupid citizens will continue dumping money into our government so he can continue on his attempt of world domination. what really pisses me off is that the American sheep will vote him in again (well, we never really voted him into power in the first place). when will the american public wakeup and see the light? why do we think the entire world was protesting the war and now bush is begging for U.N. assistance in controlling the iraqi's. we are not in control in the middle east, all the chest-beating from our little president will not help. notice i did not attack anyone on this site specifically, only general beliefs.

hw - i agree that we should all seek peace, no use fighting other nudists on this site. i wish we could debate on this site with out all the personal attacks. thanks for your peaceful statements....

rik - thanks for your input, i do believe that your opinion represents a vast majority of europeans, and i definitely do not believe the beliefs are out of envy. i think the european continent has a lot going for it and a bright outlook on the future.

to all those who do not like my opinions, that's cool, its your right. but we should all think a bit more critically before we vote this lunatic into power again. he is a sad representative of the peaceful americans (and there are a lot of us and we are pissed). but since we are peacefull, we tend to sit back and get ingnored. make your vote count, even if it gets cheated away from you by the war-mongers.

Doug H

09-07-2003, 07:21 PM

As has been said, the point under discussion is why the world doesn't like us; NOT what happenned to incur our wrath. I think one point where we've weaken our position in the Middle East is by blithely following along with almost 350 years of Western diplomatic tradition and picking our allies based on who our enemy at the moment is. George W. Bush is acting a little like Louis XIV did, and I'll tell you what eventually happenned to France in the end. Prior to 1520, most European wars could be described a family squabbles because the European royal families were very intermingled and the provocation was most rival claims to thrones. From 1520-1660, the wars were predominantly Protestant vs. Catholic or France vs. the Habsburgs. After 1660, when Louis XIV formally took the authority of the throne in his own name, everyone fought a war with everyone else sometime in the next almost 300 years. One of the most telltale signs in Europe that all previously held alliances, rivalries, and restrictions were off was when France goaded the Ottoman Turks to attack Vienna in 1683 as a measure to weaken Habsburg Austria, one of Louis XIV's primary enemies. (The other was the United Provinces of the Netherlands) This was a Christian monarch openly allying with a Muslim monarch. By 17th Century standards, that was unheard of. When armies from all across the Germanies and Poland marched to Vienna's aid, Louis XIV stood still and let the Ottoman Army face them alone.

How does that compare to now? Osama bin Laden and the Taliban were supported by the US as long as the Soviets were bogged down in Afghanistan. When the Soviets withdrew and they came to power as a repressive Islamic government, they were declared enemies. Saddam Hussein was supported as long as he was beating up on Iranians. Once that war ended, he was ignored until he invaded Kuwait. He was promptly declared Public Enemy #1. This "You're our friend as long as you're useful" act will only go so far.

What is the danger for the US in the current situation. Terrorists with WMD? A possibility, but I think even most terrorists don't like that idea, because they know that the reaction will verge overkill. 9-11 was the closest to a WMD attack attempted by a major international terrorist organization, and that group is now hiding in caves just trying to survive.

No, the real danger is running so far afoul of international opinion that the backlash almost overruns us. What happenned to Louis XIV? Well, he found himself in a war against almost every major power in Europe with only Spain for an ally. That war dragged on for 13 years, and France, though not actually invaded, was militarily overstretched and economically ruined. The only thing that saved her was that Britain, the Netherlands, Austria, and their German allies were also similarly spent. That's the situation we could find our country in, exhausting ourselves fighting a bunch of wars while having few if any friends.

Current foreign policy, which is very heavy-handed, if allowed to continue to its logical conclusion will come back at us eventually if we don't find a way to be tackle the problem of international terrorism using internationally agreeable methods.

(Now having said that, will the US and the world agree on a set of EFFECTIVE methods?!?!!?!!! Because, if they don't, and the US keeps being the target du jour, we won't have much choice but to keep doing what we're doing. Fighting the war on their turf is better than fighting it on ours.)

Doug H.

09-07-2003, 07:45 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by cyndiann:
Here are some more of Bush's accomplishments.

1) Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.
2) The human and financial costs of occuption are spiralling out of control.
3) The economic recovery has come with a net job loss of 2.7 million jobs, the worst performance in any recovery since the Great Depression.
4) The current administration squandered a federal budget surplus plunging us into more deficits.
5) Al Qaeda is still a threat; Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar remain at large.
6) Saddam Hussein remains at large; his loyalists may be combining forces with Muslim extremists to undermine the occupation.
7) Israelis and Palestinians are still killing each other; the "Roadmap" is in shambles.
8) The US is now viewed a rogue superpower by a large portion of the world.
9) The evidence is now in on global warming, but the Bush administration rejected the Kyoto accords. [/QB] <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Are you sure this is all due to Bush? If we follow your logic, I suppose we can all blame Floriduh for Bush being elected in the first place. /infopop/emoticons/icon_eek.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_razz.gif

Back to topic....I liked Rik's explaination on his first post here. /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif /infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ren

09-07-2003, 07:53 PM

The old adage that I learned in high school is power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Hard not to notice how true that is these days. In tonight's speech, the President has vowed to do and spend whatever it takes in order to end the war on terror. He is in position to say that, but luckily, there is a series of checks and balances that could bail the US out of that position. Lest it buckles like it did in agreeing to war, the Congress could make a statement that, yes, certain policies have been mistakes.

There is a vagueness that helps Bush find loopholes and the biggest one is that shortly after the attacks two years back, he vowed to fight a war on terror without knowledge of when that might end. His plans swept through without much argument as most wounded reactionaries would do. And now, two years later, he can use this declaration in order to justify the fact that his policies have tremendously underachieved, if not failed. Thus far. I say thus far, since he was wry enough to put no date on it so no one can say truly if something is failing. So, he's savvy, if nothing else.

So, we can sit here and discuss the inherent truths of the problem: the WMDs, the not-yet-captured terrorists and world leaders, the underdeveloped plan for "peace." And we can get caught up in words. This is the first semantically inclined world policy. "We will win" can be dropped off, because there might never be a discernable result to prop that up or refute it. It's like that kid in school who says he's cool. Well, sure, okay. And then?

The issue that must be attacked isn't that there have been no WMDs found. It's that in order to invoke warrior action against a sovereign nation, the President preyed on America's wounded dog mentality of fear without providing a thing to back it up. He said WMDs were imminent and dangerous, not just that they existed. That is where we were sold a bill of goods and where we should take off. There could be WMDs, but they were never imminent nor threatening to us. And people have wound up dead on both sides and continually. Absolute power.

Now the UN, if it has a conscience, would shun the US requests for help, because the US summarily told the UN what it could do to itself in the spring. It would require the removal of US involvement in the Middle East or a decreased role. Afghanistan was left in ruins to fend for itself and the US is talking about removing troops from Iraq. While that is good for the troops who have been unnecessarily put in harm's way, that goes against everything that had been said till now.

The policy is the opposite of FDR's: you have everything to fear, but me, says Bush. And that is where we fell asleep at democracy's wheel.

Democracy has a cost, but it's been far too taxing on the rest of the world.

Jochanaan

09-07-2003, 08:47 PM

Jochanaan

09-07-2003, 09:00 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by Rik:
Look at what happened to the Dixie Chicks when singer Natalie Maines said "we're ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas." In Europe such a statement directed at any European leader would have gone unnoticed but, even though the group felt forced to apologize, it didn't stop the American public and media getting into a frenzy about it. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>You raise a sad point. The last I read the US Constitution, I recall reading that all speech was protected (up to the equivalent of "yelling 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre, which would cause immediate death and injury). We should have defended the Dixie Chicks' right to say what they want with all our power even if we disagreed with them.

09-07-2003, 09:25 PM

"Are you sure this is all due to Bush? If we follow your logic, I suppose we can all blame Floriduh for Bush being elected in the first place."

Isn't his bro running the state? Big duh! Enough evidence of voting corruption was found to have changed the vote in favor of Gore anyway.

Now W is begging for help with the situation in Iraq because he knows we are in over our heads. People are getting tired of hearing how yet another soldier was killed when the war has officially been over for months. Bush had no clue what to do once the military ran Hussein out.

AussieBeachBoy

09-07-2003, 11:10 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>The world has always hated/envied the U.S. for the power and resources we possess. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>For as long as the US continues to think this way, the longer they will perpetuate the problem.

First of all, as I see it most of the world neither hates or envies the US. Rather, it's more an attitude of irritation.

Secondly, the issue has little to do with the actual possession of power and resources. Rather, it's the way the US puts that power and resources to use that causes the irritation.

In the aftermath of 9/11 two documentaries were commissioned by (I think) the BBC, "Letter to America" and "Letter from America". "Letter to America" was made by Syrian writer Rana Kabbani who travelled through the Middle East seeking opinions on the US. In it, many people made the point that they did not hate the US but questioned the effects of US foreign policy on their countries and why the US felt the need to be involved. They told the US that they felt great sympathy for 9/11, and whilst they may disagree with some cultural aspects of US life they did not seek to change the way the US lived. They merely wanted to know why the US sought to inflict their own views on the Middle East.

"Letter from America" was commissioned as a piece in response, from US documentarian Bonnie Greer. Watching this documentary suggested that Greer hadn't even watched the piece she was meant to be responding to, or if she had, she hadn't understood it. In the main the film was a justification of the American way of life as lived in America, and a plea that "we're all decent people here really". Which has nothing to do with 9/11.

For as long as Americans think that sentiment against them is motivated primarily by hatred of the US's power and wealth, they just won't get it, and won't understand what is needed for a more understanding world.

09-08-2003, 05:20 AM

Aussiebeachboy, believe me, we don't all feel that way. I find it very arrogant to feel that nobody could possibly be happy in any other country on the planet.

Ren

09-08-2003, 01:03 PM

While the welfare/homeless topic seems off the beaten path, it is important to note that because of Republican partisanship, Bill Clinton was hamstrung from reforming much in the mid-90s, especially the health care system. It would've been nice, since those of us who are young with jobs that offer health care options are tackled with exceptionally high monthly bills. And we're not the homeless. Had the Republicans not played a game of sour grapes, some real, progressive reforms could have taken place and would have kept the US out of the current crisis it is in.

As for everything else, Bush proved why the US evokes ire and disgust from other places last night. He seems on this glazed path of righteousness that doesn't take into account the sins of his own homeland. For instance, Bush likes to say that his plans are protecting Americans the world over. It always comes down to that doesn't it? Bring up Americans in peril somewhere and the country is supposed to hop to it. Problem is, it is arrogant. The US, he claims, did the "most humane" military action ever. Huh? Really? Is military action that kills ever humane? Is military action based on lies ethical? Richard Reeves put it best in today's editorial for the ten reasons Bush shouldn't be elected. Number 10: Bush lies a lot. Succinct and true.

So, the problem of those of us who are best called dissenters in all that has gone down in the past 3 years is that we have to be lumped in with the policy makers, even if we have a more expansive global view. Bush reduced emissions standards from factories a couple weeks ago, which will further help pollute the atmosphere of the entire world. The US claims to be a world leader, but seems only to be leading in its destruction.

Hopefully our democracy will work in 2004 and people won't be fooled anymore.

09-09-2003, 12:18 PM

I was really looking forward to that healthcare system. As it stands now I have no insurance, can't afford any, and it would have been nice to know I wouldn't have to worry when a health problem comes up. I mean major problems... minor things like seeing a doctor when I have the flu is just a dream.

Makes me want to move to Canada.... /infopop/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

they are so much more sensible about nudity too. If it just wasn't so freakin cold up there!

Ren

09-09-2003, 07:35 PM

Actually being naked in the cold and snow isn't so bad. Once when the house emptied out I went and made a snow angel. Now, I literally froze my butt off, but that wasn't too bad. It didn't feel as cold as it does when you're clothed.

As for moving to Canada -- I was always enamored with it when I was growing up, before I understood their politics. They actually subsidize well for their indigents and treat everyone as though they have the right to inhabit the earth.

I think the main problem with our society is that we frown on so much. It can be interracial conflicts or interethnic conflicts, which seem to perpetuate themselves with each new generation; it can be the moneyed class versus the poor; and so on. Thing is, in Canada, there seems to be a sense that everyone is in this life together, while here it is divisive. Just look at the religion posts elsewhere on here.

People don't seem to know how to be real and accepting. Now, Canada isn't utopia, I just think that governmentally, they are closer to the ideals of the US Constitution than we are. All men are not created equal here (I know that's from the Declaration of Independence), but that statement is suposedly protected by the Constitution. But is it?

butnaked

09-09-2003, 08:50 PM

! How ! " Many white-man words do not make more truth, just more words." Sitting Bull. Happy Trails /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Buzzer

09-10-2003, 04:30 PM

First of all, I don't think any one man can be the blame for an one contriy's problems. Certainly not the world's. The people who I blame are those who sit back and complain, don't make any suggestions; don't even vote in elections. Apathy is everyone's greatest enemy.
We can be the victims of apathy as well as the creaters....as we should be in turn. "What goes around, comes around."

Doug H

09-10-2003, 06:04 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote">quote:<HR>Originally posted by butnaked:
! How ! " Many white-man words do not make more truth, just more words." Sitting Bull. Happy Trails /infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Unfortunately, you've summed up how Europeans and their expatriates, in general, have dealt with non-Europeans since the First Crusade. If "Third World" countries felt like pawns during the Cold War, they had reason. It wasn't very far from the truth. And it's been pretty much how non-Europeans have been treated by Europeans and their expatriates, in general, since the First Crusade.

The President said in his speech after 9-11 about nations that don't side with the US in war against terrorism are, by definition, siding against us was eerily reminiscent of a similar statement by Eisenhower's Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, "In a battle of freedom vs. communsism, there's no middle ground. You are with us or against us." Or words to that effect. The Third World didn't like it then, and most of the world doesn't seem to like that any better now.

That said, if the world really want us to get off our soapbox and stay off of it, they really need to come up with an effective international standard for dealing with terrorists. People can think what they want, but being the "Target of Choice", when one of these groups wants to make a name for themselves is no fun, and we're sick of it.

Doug H.