Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why the world hates/fears us

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why the world hates/fears us

    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?

  • #2
    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?

    Comment


    • #3
      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.

      Comment


      • #4
        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.

        Comment


        • #5
          Sad!!! Also problbly the wrong thread to post that one. This is off topic stuff.


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

          Comment


          • #6
            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!!!!

            Comment


            • #7
              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.

              Comment


              • #8
                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.

                Comment


                • #9
                  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.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    U.S. considering U.N. force in Iraq

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

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Greenman, what is the name of the article in the Time Magazine which you refer to (and what issue)? Thanks.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I'm sorry! It was News week March 24,2003 not TIME.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          quote:
                          Originally posted by R.M. Greenman:
                          [qb] 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. [/qb]
                          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.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Yeah, I wasn't sure about the Reagan/Iran thing as being credible. I was hazy about what came of that theory. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              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.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X