There are a number of things wrong with the USA, which causes many of us to view it with distrust (in my case from the UK).
1) Too much money in politics. The amount of money ploughed into the pockets of politicians by individuals and corporation in the USA is mind-boggling, and would be illegal in many countries. Likewise, the sort of political advertisements from various sources you see are not allowed in the UK. This distorts your political system immensely. Your politics are extremely right-wing, as western democracies go. What you would call "liberal" would barely register as centrist in most European countries. You'd probably call our left-wing parties communist. You have two major parties, one of which openly and brazenly touts itself as being there to provide tax-cuts to the rich and low regulation & tax (or even state funding, and favourable trade deals) to corporations, and the other which sort of would like to move in the other direction, but is afraid to because of the sheer weight of financial lobbying power ranged against it. This is hardly an electoral choice. Unfortunately, in the UK our politics seems to be headed in the same direction - having seen their success, the Labour party remodelled itself on Clinton's Democrats, and are now barely distinguishable from the Conservative party...
2) The endless use of the words "democracy" and "freedom" as code for untramelled capitalism - especially letting American-owned multinational corporations move in. If Bush et al really cared about democracy he wouldn't be getting his family to rig the ballots for him - I mean how tin-pot dictatorship is that? It seems the US has already handed out all the construction contracts to rebuild Iraq to various American companies that the members of the administration used to work for. This is Keynesian economics as practiced in the USA at its best - paying one lot of workers to create holes, another to fill them in, while at the same time stuffing the pockets of the men in power. The miltary-industrial complex is staggering.
3) The blatant use of patriotism by the government and media to get the people to rally behind it. The way that the American TV channels (even straightforward news bulletins) blanket themselves with USA flags is bizarre, and resembles North Korea or Iraq more than any European country. And the way all the politicians wander around with little USA badges is just a little creepy to an outside observer. I understand schoolchildren even do their pledge or allegiance to the flag in the morning. This seems a little heavy-handed from my UK point of view, and resembles the way dictatorships endlessly praise the glorious leader.
4) The arrogant belief by the administration, and many of the people, that they are obviously the "good guys". This then leads on to the belief that as they're the good guys, they don't need to waste their time agreeing to climate control protocols, international courts, sticking to nuclear weapons treaties, agreeing to further restrictions on biological and chemical weapons, or observing the Geneva convention for their prisoners-of-war locked away in Guantanemo Bay. All those international laws and protocols are just to keep the bad guys in check, not something for the USA to worry itself about. Saddam's not allowed to have any chemical weapons, because he's a "bad guy". But it's okay for the USA is allowed to have as many nuclear and chemical weapons as it can get its hands on, and start developing more, as the USA is a "good guy". The extreme right-wing politicians like Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld are trying to pretend that this doesn't set a very dangerous precedent. What if, say, North Korea thought that they were the "good guys" and decided they'd better start upping their defence budget massively to try to keep up with the arms race the USA has just re-started?
5) The amount of "religious" involvement in politics is also unnerving to most other democracies. Most other democracies are basically secular, with a religious tradition in the background, usually Christian. In the USA there is a very strong Christian movement, which has allied itself to the Republicans, which manages to significantly influence the administration's approach. This leads to a "faith-based" government, in some ways not dissimilar to the Islamic governments of the Middle East. This distorts policies - you get extreme views about abortion, women in politics, and the whole approach to Israel, which is as much dictated by extreme Christian movements in the USA as it is from the Jewish lobby. But any entry of any religion into politics seems to me to be a bad thing in itself - it allows people to start thinking too much in terms of "right" and "wrong" - and of course it's always them who are in the right, and the others who are in the wrong. And it can cloud people's judgement, much like patriotism.
6) The American media is mind-bogglingly insular. Every time I've been in the USA I feel like I've been locked in a padded cell. It is VERY hard to find any news of what is going on in the outside world. If I wasn't in a hotel with (the admittedly mind-numbingly tedious) BBC World, I wouldn't have the faintest idea what was going on in the rest of the world. So I can't blame many of the American public for not fully understanding what is going on outside their borders. It probably suits corporate-owned media and the (corporate-owned?) government equally to not have their subjects too well informed. Indeed, I heard in a recent server that 45% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussain was personally involved in the terrorist attack on New York. Somehow the government and media have managed to create that impression through their propaganda machine, to justify the attack on Iraq that they have been planning for years.
7) In the run-up to Bush's "election" various members of the current administration (under the mantle of the "<a href='http://www.newamericancentury.org/' target='_blank'>New American Century</a>" project) have been planning how to ensure American supremacy, and how to take advantage of any "new Pearl Harbour" to garner support for a new unilateral approach to "full-spectrum dominance". And boy, did the World Trade Centre attacks hand them an opportunity on a plate. And the media seem to be happy to play along with their game, cowed into submission by patriotism, and the fear of being called "anti-american".
Basically, the rest of the world is afraid. America has such huge power, and soon it's military spending will equal the rest of the world's combined. To many of us it seems that the USA is determined to start a new arms race - one that other countries will be forced to follow. Richard Perl et al have declared that their objective is to ensure that no other country or group of countries can challenge the USA militarily or economically, and they seem to be determined to bring this about, by fair means or foul. If that means destroying the United Nations or undermining the European Union, then so be it. They may feel that this is in America's national interest. Just don't be so surprised that the rest of the world doesn't agree that it's in the world's best interests.
It seems to me that the USA will end up with its relationship to the rest of the world looking like that between Israel and Palestine. Israel has massive financial and technological might, and is able to crush Palestine whenever it feels like it. It even uses its might to destroy the Palestinian economy by arranging to make life very difficult for any Palestinian companies wanting to compete with Israeli ones. The Palestinians end up fighting back as best they can, with the most powerful weapon they have - the desparate suicide bomber. They can't afford precision guided weapons, and have no way of getting to military targets, so they inflict massive civilian casualties. I see the USA acting more and more like Israel, and there are a lot of potential Palestines.
Now, most other countries in the world are far from perfect, and all could be accused of operating in their own self-interest a lot of the time. But America is the most powerful, and with this great power comes great responsibility. It does not seem that America is acting responsibly under this Bush regime.
The whole question about why a lot of people seems to hate US right now, is that US acts in a way as it is above international rules. Want a proof? You got one right in this Irak story. Quoting the UN Chart:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The Purposes of the United Nations are: [...]to bring about by peaceful means adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace; <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> A lot of UN Security Council members (Germany,France,Russia,China) still think of a peaceful way to settle Irak's case as possible. Why does US think itself as above laws?
True, but the UN <i>does</i> need to have some teeth in order to be an effective organization. While I'm <i>incredibly</i> skeptical of the impending war here, the UN's team <b>has</b> declared that Iraq's cooperation thus far has been unsatisfactory-- and this is after more than a decade of ostensible disarmament? There's only so many times that you can say, 'Ok . . . <i>this</i> time we mean business' before some show of force is necessary.
I'm <i>not</i> saying that now is the time to exercise that force-- it's just a general observation that if the UN is to remain a relevant organization, it needs to have some sort of military option and can't simply rely on peaceful coercion as its only means to its goals. Peace is obviously much preferable, and should be the primary route, but it's not always possible or practical. (How do you like that alliteration?)
Otherwise, the UN's authority reminds me much of a Robin Williams bit on British policeman (Bobbies?) and how they don't (didn't?) carry any sort of firearm-- "Stop! Or . . . . I'll say 'Stop' again!"
(And that quote is used to illustrate a point . . . if someone jumps on this as an opportunity to launch a tangent on American police brutality, heads will roll)
<!--QuoteBegin--Shrike+Mar 17 2003, 05:38 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Shrike @ Mar 17 2003, 05:38 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Nationalism doesn't mean prejudice against a nation or its people. I'd say that racism is the best word anyways. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Then, sir, you are a fool. Racism is depending on your gene stock, your parents. Any one that moves to america and is granted citizenship is then a citizen of USA. Thereby susceptible to anti-americanism, no matter which country they originated from and what race they should belong to. Racism is saying negroes are naturally inferior to caucasian white people. Or that all asian people have lower intelligence etc. A concept that I am sure was developed in Europe, alas <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> If an american moves to England and is granted citizenship, he ceases to be american and thus no longer susceptible to anti-americanism. A black person would be black no matter where he went and what citizenship he enjoyed. Therefore always a potential target for hostilities from racist people who think his his birth determines his qualities.
Get your concepts straight, people! Anti-americanism is NOT RACISM! It's a kind of extrovert nationalism, hating another nation more than lovign your own. It involves a high mistrust against the american govenrnment and the corporate america. In other words U$A. When mad frenchmen torch a McDonald in Britanny it is because they hate american corporate colonialism. Big evil companies moving in to tread down the french cultural heritage with their inferior industrial pulp. They don't go around clubbing american tourists though.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This distorts your political system immensely. Your politics are extremely right-wing, as western democracies go. What you would call "liberal" would barely register as centrist in most European countries. You'd probably call our left-wing parties communist.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Sure, I agree that there is too much money in the political system.. but non sequitur that it becomes very right-wing. And you are mistaken that America is right-wing compared to Europe... if anything it is LEFT wing. In the political spectrum, massive domestic spending on welfare, education and health care is considered right wing... VERY right wing if it is in the degree that much of Europe does. Some European countries can even be considered Socialist (that's on the right side). Even the UK has had a government owned health care system for about half a century now.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The endless use of the words "democracy" and "freedom" as code for untramelled capitalism - especially letting American-owned multinational corporations move in.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It's not as if the use of these terms was coined in the past decade or so... back when America was one of the few economically free republics around (not as long ago as you'd think), spreading democracy and economic freedom was a very real thing. If you'll forgive a little American arrogance, our motives could be questioned a little back then too.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The arrogant belief by the administration, and many of the people, that they are obviously the "good guys". This then leads on to the belief that as they're the good guys, they don't need to waste their time agreeing to climate control protocols, international courts, sticking to nuclear weapons treaties, agreeing to further restrictions on biological and chemical weapons, or observing the Geneva convention for their prisoners-of-war locked away in Guantanemo Bay.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's because for the most part, these are attempts by less powerful countries to try and curtail America's power. This IS the logical for them to try to do, but it is equally logical for America, while it is in such power, to reject such attempts.
This isn't Major League Baseball, where many people hate the Yankees for having a lot more money (i.e. power) and trying to prevent attempts at creating some parity. It's different because it's better for baseball and the Yankees if the Yanks don't try to win at all costs. That's not the case here. If the nuclear powers can keep other countries from getting nukes, all the better. And so on.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The blatant use of patriotism by the government and media to get the people to rally behind it. [...] The American media is mind-bogglingly insular. Every time I've been in the USA I feel like I've been locked in a padded cell. It is VERY hard to find any news of what is going on in the outside world.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That is flatly not true. My personal news sources are the New York Times and National Public Radio (which isn't state-owned propaganda <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ). If anything, they have a liberal tilt, which isn't what you're complaining about anyway. In case you're wondering, they are easily accessible; I've found the NYT in every hotel I've been to outside of New York City.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Get your concepts straight, people! Anti-americanism is NOT RACISM! It's a kind of extrovert nationalism, hating another nation more than lovign your own<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I hate it when other people bust out the dictionary on me too, but it's needed here...
<b>rac·ism</b> 1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular <b>race</b> is superior to others. 2. Discrimination or prejudice based on <b>race</b>.
<b>race</b> n. 1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics. 2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, <b>nationality</b>, or geographic distribution: the German race.
<b>na·tion·al·ism</b> 1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation. 2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals. 3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.
While racism can mean prejudice based on genetic qualities, it also applies here. And nationalism doesn't have any of the meaning you allege. Dictionary.com (my source) also has a helpful note on race in their definition <a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=race' target='_blank'>Dictionary.com: Race</a>.
You're not the only one who can shoot with canned definitions:
<b>racism</b> <i>n</i>(1936) <b>1</b>: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race <b>2</b>: racial prejudice or discrimination
That's from Encyclopædia Britannica 2002. It's clear that racism is the notion that some races are superior to other. What is a race then? Would you call the inhabitants of USA a "race"? You'd have to in order for racism to be a fitting terminology. No, anti-americanism is something that goes with nationalism. Racism would imply that people think that americans are by breeding alone prone to neo-colonialism, self righteousness, war mongering and AAAAAAAAAALL that other crap we hear all the time. If you bred an american in another country they'd still have these traits in spite of them being far away from "home". On the other hand, if you believe that americans are as they are due to the culture and society they are brought up in, then we're talking something else. Cultural heritage, sociology etc. That's merely something in people's mind sets, and any old person no matter what their racial heritage (ie- their "stock") can become a True American - or anti-american, depending on where they were brought up.
For the last time: anti-americanism is NOT RACISM! I'm not claiming that anti-americanism is Cool or anyhting, because as racism it's a fundamentally chauvinistic view of the world. Ie. what I stand for is superior and great, what others stand for is inferior to me and my background.
If you want to say the use of the word "racism" isn't valid, you have to argue against every possible definition. Look up race in any dictionary; it can mean people grouped by a non-genetic characteristic.
Just because this use of the word race "sounds weird" or isn't the definition you're used to doesn't mean it's wrong.
[edit] I also like how your definition adds nothing to the discussion... it's just an almost exact rehash of what I've said. A differing definition of race or something would have helped.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
Can we dismiss with the semantics and just agree that the various attitudes we are trying to describe with the words racism, nationalism, whatever are all equally heinous? In think we all know what we are talking about by now. The word doesnt matter. We all now know what meaning is intended.
<!--QuoteBegin--Shrike+Mar 18 2003, 12:59 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Shrike @ Mar 18 2003, 12:59 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If you want to say the use of the word "racism" isn't valid, you have to argue against every possible definition. Look up race in any dictionary; it can mean people grouped by a non-genetic characteristic.
Just because this use of the word race "sounds weird" or isn't the definition you're used to doesn't mean it's wrong.
[edit] I also like how your definition adds nothing to the discussion... it's just an almost exact rehash of what I've said. A differing definition of race or something would have helped. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, first my dictionary's definition of race:
"a group of individuals within a species with certain common heriditary traits". Origin: razza (ital.). No mention of nationality here. Good. racism: "an ethnic group's egocentrical belief in own superiority and inherited right to rule leading to a disdain of other ethnic groups" This is from Gyldendals Fremmedordbog.
Throwing dictionary defintions at each other won't bring us far. Now I got a definition that does not bring into play a country's inhabitant and race as the same thing. But in no way I am going to give up on semantics, so I am going to have to teach you the difference then. Racism is some of the most evil thing ever invented by man. Iti is categorizing people on their BIRTH alone and designating them to inferiority alone because their ethnic grouping is not equal to your own. To equal a race with the country they live in is so stupid that I cannot believe it is still in a dictionary. Dictionary.com should do us all a favour and make sure to note that race is a <i>historical</i> term, not used today. Or answer this: if a vietnamese farmer moves to america with his wife. What are they? American race or Vietnamese race - or asians merely? The children they have, will they be american race, vietnamese race or what? Can't you see how idiotic that definition is?
A race definition is to try and put people into categories based on their inherited stock, and traits. Such as negroid, caucasion, sinoid (or mongoloid), eskimo etc. Nations are arbirtrarily drawn up lines in the sand and they shift easily. Nations can hold many kinds of racial minorities inside them, and equalling race with country is just not working in the real world.
It's funny, I've never heard of the German race. Or the american race. Or the canadian race. Or the paraguayan race. Or the Lichtensteinian race. Please tell me the last time you heard someone describing all the inhabitants of a country as "a race". Not even the japanese are one race, they're at least two different stocks. That particular notion went SO out of fashion half a century ago. Try and catch up with today please. Just because it's in a dictionary doesn't make it Canonical all of a sudden.
Now nationalism has caused it's fair share of problems but it characterizes people based on where they LIVE. Anti-americanism is a funny kind of irrational hatred or dislike towards american culture and companies, government. It is based upon how americans ACT, not how they look or whom their fathers and mothers were. Therein lies the important distinction between racism and anti-americanism. Enlightened people have learned to distinguish between your heritage and your culture. Back in the 1930s and before it was another ball game. I dunno which ancient definition that Dictionary.com bought for a dime, but it's sure is pure bollocks or referring to a historical usage that we all better not repeat. It could very well BE from those dark ages of our history. Race = genetics. Period. Comma. Exclamation Mark. Ampersand. Any other usage of the word is just watering it out on purpose or because you're being in the dark. By jove, I think I'll start calling my dog a citizen because people seems to equal race with the country you live in. From now on all dog breeds will be categorized after which country they live in. Only great danes can live in Denmark! In america you will have Great Americans and here we will have Danish Bulldogs. (actually, I worry you'd do it! Renaming french fries to freedom fries ranks up there on the top ten list of Idiocy Cause by Patriotism - if anti-americanism is racism, wth do you call THAT?)
<!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Mar 18 2003, 05:27 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Mar 18 2003, 05:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Can we dismiss with the semantics and just agree that the various attitudes we are trying to describe with the words racism, nationalism, whatever are all equally heinous? In think we all know what we are talking about by now. The word doesnt matter. We all now know what meaning is intende<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually no, the original remark about anti-americanism being like racism was alarming me because it would shed a dirty, evil kind of light on the anti-americanism idea which I believe is fundamentally wrong. It is an attempt to make anti-americanism an equally big crime against mankind - and that's taking things a bit too far out of town. It is like making it illegal to not like america because they did stuff to your country (racism is BAD so we cannot be racists, which anti-americanism is). I believe this particular animosity described by anti-americanism to stem from ACTS performed by various american entities such as foreign policy on Israel - whic pisses off everyone in the middle east but the israelis, messing about in Chile making sure they got a brutal dictator, bomb your countrymen or seeing all kinds of american franchise stores mushroom in your country, all your local movies shoved out of the cinema by hollywood drivel etc. People dont like THAT part of it. But for simplicity's sake they ascribe everything american as being like that. They see selfish intents into american entities, dreams of taking over the world as the british once fantasized about. Anti-americanism relates to culture and politics. This is about not liking America (corporate, political) because they act how they do. Not because they are born as a certain race. Now if America suddenly stopped doing what creates animosity, the anti-americans would stop being anti-american. If it was racism, nothing what america did would change anything - which is probably how some americans fell some times, but they are not the ones who controls foreign policy etc.
Had it been racism, no american movie would ever have been SEEN, because it was made by the inferior american race whom we all know have underdeveloped brains and cannot really make culture worthy of our fine race. It's funny, just like jazz was described soon 100 years ago, a musical genre for black people, clearly inferior to the white man's music. Can't anyone see how stupid that is? It's not what anti-americanism is about.
Anyway, it only reinforces my main point that Anti-americanism is not racism, because the former is caused by the USAs way of acting in foreign policy mostly.
<!--QuoteBegin--miezekatze+Mar 18 2003, 10:52 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (miezekatze @ Mar 18 2003, 10:52 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I am from Yugoslavia (serbia more exactly). And it´s not racism. I like Hip-Hop, R&B and Detroit Techno so I can not say I dislike US stuf. The only thing I feel angry is US foreign policy..and them messing with the rest of the world how they see fit. Then they wonder why they get so many terrorist attacks.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> See? Miezekatze is a rational being. He can discern the difference between not liking america due to them having bombed his country (anti-american), and not liking americans because they are an evil race of war mongers that have a natural born tendency to drop bombs on foreigners and make inherently inferior cultural products such as hip hop and r&B (racism). Ok with the Iraq war looming I am beginning to wonder if that isn't really the case..... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> No of course not. So any one still objecting to me firmly denying anti-americanism equals racism? No? Good!
excuse me but I have difficulty to understand your post? me rational? Is that true or you sarcastic? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> No, I say you have a rational cause to being anti-american. They dropped Da Bizomb on your country. That's hard facts. Thereby rational. Hatred or disdain is not something that is rationale, though, it's your feelings (but that's another discussion).
The second part of my thread was perhaps sarcastic, a bit of ribbing the USA as we foreigners enjoy <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
[edit] Hey, I graduated to Dark Queen! All your topics are belong to me! 600 posts! Yay![/edit]
<!--QuoteBegin--Immacolata+Mar 18 2003, 05:28 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Immacolata @ Mar 18 2003, 05:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> No, I say you have a rational cause to being anti-american. They dropped Da Bizomb on your country. That's hard facts. Thereby rational. Hatred or disdain is not something that is rationale, though, it's your feelings (but that's another discussion). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, but the way I interpreted this while reading it is that it makes good sense to be politically opposed to a country solely on the basis that it attacked parts of yours.
I wouldn't call that the height of rationalism. By itself it is only reactionary and instinctive. In fact, being personally affected by an event is usually seen as an OBSTACLE to impartial rationalism, (think of jury selection.)
In order to gain the respect of being in the ballpark of "rational", it would be necessary to first address the alleged reasons that the U.S. attacked in the first place. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, due to lack of familiarity, but it would seem that a place to start would be countering the claims of justification by the U.S. Maintaining that the U.S. was wrong in taking military action, without ever addressing the issue of Milosevic, isn't by itself a strong argument because it doesn't in any way counter or de-bunk the competing opinions.
Again, just to be clear- I'm not trying to say whether the U.S. was justified in its military actions in Yugoslavia. But it seems any dissenting opinion that doesn't counter the charges of genocide by Milosevic is pretty groundless. By the same rationale, German and Japanese citizens in WWII would have a "legitimate" reason to be anti-American, even though most people would think that in an ethical sense their countries created a necessity for reprisal action. You shouldn't be "against the police for shooting my dad" if your dad was allegedly in the middle of strangling an old lady. For any legitimacy you would need to first show that dad was actually giving a neck massage, and thus wrongly slain.
You might be very right, I do not have a great knowledge about what went on in Serbia except that air strikes were executed. By rationale I mean you draw a conclusion on observed facts and following contemplation. You can only rationalize on what information you have.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->hahaha well I think the US got pretty **** at osama too for his attack.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, note that he said 'country'. It's possible to separate the citizens of a nation from their government's foreign policy--but Al Queda is a group bound by ideology, not geography or nationality. Their membership in that group is based solely on the fact that they <i>want</i> to perpetrate those sorts of attacks. So Osama and all his pals are fair game.
<!--QuoteBegin--miezekatze+Mar 18 2003, 11:40 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (miezekatze @ Mar 18 2003, 11:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, but the way I interpreted this while reading it is that it makes good sense to be politically opposed to a country solely on the basis that it attacked parts of yours.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
hahaha well I think the US got pretty **** at osama too for his attack.
ok you want to turn this into a evil milosevic discussion? ok first off I don´t think milosevic is responsible for genocides in a CIVIL WAR. I think you are pretty disinformed about the things that happened in bosnia and kosovo. The only reason milosevic was removed was because he did not want to bootlick the US and because yugoslavia had a red star in its flag. There have been soooo many war crimes in this civil war of which I don´t think he was responsible for that. So a comparison to WWII is very questionable.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By the same rationale, German and Japanese citizens in WWII would have a "legitimate" reason to be anti-American, even though most people would think that in an ethical sense their countries created a necessity for reprisal action. You shouldn't be "against the police for shooting my dad" if your dad was allegedly in the middle of strangling an old lady. For any legitimacy you would need to first show that dad was actually giving a neck massage, and thus wrongly slain. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well Milosevic did not invade half the continent and kill millions of people. He is a president that was trapped in the ugly situation of a civil war with all the western media paid to make him (serbia, red star) look very evil in the news.. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> very true. There has been a grand disinformation campaign throughout the war. Faked facts were presented by the media, such as 'mass graves' which never existed (this was then said AFTER the war) and 'crimes' of the Serb army were invented in order to evoke hatred against that country. The worst thing was that the media did fully comply to NATO's propaganda strategy. Milosevic is surely responsible for several war crimes, but presenting him like the 'Hitler of the Balkans' is just irresponsible. And there is no legitimation for a war at all, which actually started the humanitarian catastrophe.
<!--QuoteBegin--miezekatze+Mar 18 2003, 11:40 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (miezekatze @ Mar 18 2003, 11:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->hahaha well I think the US got pretty **** at osama too for his attack.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Those who are angry at UBL without first educating themselves on his claims and then making their value judgement are ignorant and are in a weak position to debate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ok you want to turn this into a evil milosevic discussion? ok first off I don´t think milosevic is responsible for genocides in a CIVIL WAR. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The only reason milosevic was removed was because he did not want to bootlick the US and because yugoslavia had a red star in its flag. There have been soooo many war crimes in this civil war of which I don´t think he was responsible for that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The opinions you have expressed are the starting point for a rational debate. They counter the stated justifications of the U.S., and allow other people to make evaluations and compare facts. (For example, whether the U.S. would spend billions of dollars on a war over the graphic design of a flag, or whether there was any evidence of who gave soldiers what orders to kill whom.) Without them, the previously stated position of:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have very very *rational* reasons for my anti-amercanism. It´s for dropping bombs on my homeland. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
does not by itself show rationality nor offer any defense for the alleged crimes of Milosevic.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think you are pretty disinformed about the things that happened in bosnia and kosovo. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> We agree. I'll make a reference to what I said earlier:
"I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, due to lack of familiarity..." "Again, just to be clear- I'm not trying to say whether the U.S. was justified in its military actions in Yugoslavia. "
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So a comparison to WWII is very questionable. ... well Milosevic did not invade half the continent and kill millions of people. He is a president that was trapped in the ugly situation of a civil war with all the western media paid to make him (serbia, red star) look very evil in the news.. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> The comparison I made was to the result of a style of THOUGHT- that simply being negatively affected by something means there was no justification for the cause. There WAS a reason why Germans and Japanese were being attacked in WWII. There MIGHT have been a reason why the U.S. attacked Milosevic. I was stating that for purposes of credible debating it is necessary to address and disprove those causes before arriving at your firm opinions.
You have obviously begun to list your responses to the claims of the U.S. For my part that's all I was asking for- a response of some kind to the alleged justifications that allows other people to see where you're coming from. However, as I said, I don't consider myself familiar enough with the subject to bother debating it. I was critiqueing your method of reasoning in general, from your original statement of:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have very very *rational* reasons for my anti-amercanism. It´s for dropping bombs on my homeland. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did not feel that statement by itself showed a rational method, and was not content to let it sit there without complaining.
It doesn't suprise me that the world hates America. Number 1; we are the most powerful nation on the planet and are most likely to stay that way for some time. Number 2; we impose on others our policies when we feel they are doing something that might threaten our way of life. Number 3; we are the policemen of the world, and if current culture is any indication, people hate cops.
<!--QuoteBegin--CanadianWolverine+Mar 15 2003, 04:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (CanadianWolverine @ Mar 15 2003, 04:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> you <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Wow. Not only did you so obviously miss my entire point, you also managed to both quote me out of context and misrepresent my message at various points. I commend you on that achievement, even if it is a negative one.
Now, let's make this as short as possible.
1. I am very aware of the definition of the word "you", and I do not need it posted for my benefit. Several people may want to brush up on its proper usage, however. If nothing else, learn from the type of mistake that Ross Perot made, when he infuriated a huge number of black voters by addressing them as "you people".
2. You have incorrectly accused me of not participating in our political process. I didn't wish to go into more detail than was necessary, but for your benefit, I now must do so. There <b>is</b> nothing that the individual in this country can do to affect what is happening in regards to this escalation. Voters <i>tried</i> to make a difference during the last election, but because the process is flawed, those votes were rendered useless. In any case, the voter has absolutely no power in a situation such as this. The decision to declare or not to declare war on another country, whatever the reason, is not one that is decided by public voting.
3. Again, you took my comment about my beliefs in a deity completely out of context. It was simply part of the complete response to another's post. It had nothing else to do with the issue at hand. There is no need for me to "check myself", but there is most definitely a need for you to take more care in your reading comprehension.
4. I did not ask the question upon which this thread is based, and yet again, if taken in context to the rest of my post and the post to which I was replying, it is very relevant and constructive to this debate. The general point which you have missed is just this: there is a difference in having dislike of an entity (such as the United States as a political/economic/military/etc. being) and professing a dislike of "Americans". It is ignorant and wrong to assume that anyone, regardless of nationality, is automatically given to certain beliefs or behaviours. Engaging in that form of stereotyping borders on bigotry. To say that I deny the existance of the 'American label' (read: stereotype) by some non-Americans is absurd. It is this very thing that I am speaking against. You really infuriated me with the following statement. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It can be that simple, its not like you don't label others in the world, as is demonstrated later in your post, US politicians, and US media sources (which report what the US politicians say).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> This implies in no uncertain terms that I have labeled others as part of a group stereotype, and I challenge anyone to present evidence of this. I do not wish to be prejudged, labeled, or insulted solely because of my nationality, and I would never do the same to another, regardless of that person's citizenship.
5. I have not ignored the <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->reality that people from other countries (not just their politicians, which we get to notice thanks to freedom of speech) perceive that you Americans are really an arrogant, self serving, and ignorant lot that control a good portion of economic, cultural, and military power.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How can I have ignored it when it serves as the focus of my entire argument?
6. This is yet another statement pulled out of context, but my statement of "I don't care what 'image is projected to the world" could, in fact, be reworded as, "I don't care what the stereotype of the average American is, because anyone who would gauge me as a person based solely on that is simply incorrect." If someone really wishes to be a bigot, there is little I could possibly do to change that. The only image for which I need to 'fight' is my own, as an individual, not as an American.
7. Nowhere in my post do I insult the intelligence of anyone outside this country <i>as a group</i>. There are ignorant people outside of this country, just as there are plenty of ignorant people within the borders of the United States. My statements in no way were contrasting or contradictory. It is a very simple concept, one that I'm amazed that you misread or misunderstood. So let's try again. I said that the US has never taken part in an international conflict with the primary motivation of forcing its values on the affected country. There is always more than one reason for any involvement. These matters are never black and white, but there is always the ever-present reason that the US is protecting its own interests. How you equate forcing a value set on another country and the US preserving its interests (as in economic or strategic interests) is beyond me. One purports to be beneficient (which could be arrogant and insulting to others), the other is purely selfish.
8. You are incorrect if you put forth that it is only my personal version of the "irrefutable truth". If you must insist on pulling things out of context so often, then you risk losing respect and credibility for your argument because of misuse of your supporting evidence.
9. I meant what I said when I wrote that I was no longer interested in the "what" of the perception of the common American. I am interested in the "why". I question how this stereotype came to be, and the truth behind why it propogates, when I know from experience that it does not apply correctly to many people living here. I want to know why someone would <i>choose</i> to assume an individual was a certain way, just because of his nationality. It would not be acceptable for me to prejudge or stereotype anyone else in this way, so why does it seem to be acceptable or even fashionable when it is applied to Americans?
10. The following is just silly. <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, it does not. No one ever claimed that the US is always right and the rest of the world is always wrong. That came from you, a member of "the rest of the world." <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> And from yourself with your "irrefutable" truths. Truth implies that itself is right and everything contrary to the truth is wrong or false.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Your argument here is fundamentally flawed. I, as an individual, am not the US. I have also never implied or stated that I am "always" right.
11. I am not venting at all at how the USA, as an entity, is perceived. To say that I have furthered those perceptions in any way is both incorrect and highly irresponsible of you, when so much of what you claim to be "outlined in you post with examples I presented", is incorrect, poorly argued, and contextually misplaced.
It is because of posts like yours that I will no longer take part in these discussions. When a significant number of people show such blantant disregard for the subject at hand and prefer to lower the debate to a personal attack, it is no longer worth my, or anyone else's, time. It is fruitless to share ideas when people unable to debate or discuss an issue properly must stoop to semantic bickering without bothering to make even a half-hearted attempt at understanding or comprehension of the submitted ideas. It is important to note that not everyone (not nearly the majority) that contributes to these forums is guilty of this behavior. I applaud those of you who act with thoughtfulness, a willingness to learn, and an open mind to the ideas of others. To the rest, do not waste your time. It is better spent seeking other forms of self-education. Perhaps when you are tired of consistently being wrong, you'll finally stop talking/writing and listen/read for once.
"Gyldendals Fremmedordbog"? <i>Please</i>... how long did you have to search to find a definition that fit your explanation? I didn't have access to the Oxford English, but my sources were Merriam-Webster and the American Heritage Dictionary, both of which are very common dictionaries. At the very least, this proves that this use of the word is mainstream. It certainly debunks the idea that you can't use this word at ALL.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That particular notion went SO out of fashion half a century ago. Try and catch up with today please. Just because it's in a dictionary doesn't make it Canonical all of a sudden.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> It is clear you didn't even bother looking at my source... according to the American Heritage Dictionary, if anything, the usage of race to describe genetic traits has gone out of fashion. It's <a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=race' target='_blank'>here.</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Race = genetics. Period. Comma. Exclamation Mark. Ampersand. Any other usage of the word is just watering it out on purpose or because you're being in the dark<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Again, you're basing this on a definition from a publisher/dictionary maker that I've never even <i>heard</i> of. And I've googled it, for a total of two hits. Furthermore, both of my sources are very commonly used, and right there for you to look at and ponder: "<a href='http://www.dictionary.com' target='_blank'>Dictionary.com</a> and <a href='http://www.m-w.com' target='_blank'>Merriam Webster Online</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><i>Immacolata</i>: Actually no, the original remark about anti-americanism being like racism was alarming me because it would shed a dirty, evil kind of light on the anti-americanism idea which I believe is fundamentally wrong<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><i>moultano</i>: First of all, please quit treating Americans as a homogenous entity. I find your remarks rascist and insulting.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> That quote is what started it all... it doesn't really say anything about anti-Americanism in general... after all some of is directed at the government and foreign policy. But to call the stereotyping, hateful remarks referred to above nationalism is just incorrect and they should be categorized with the similarly irrational hate of the post-Reconstruction era, or Japanese internment, and all that.
<!--QuoteBegin--miezekatze+Mar 18 2003, 11:40 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (miezekatze @ Mar 18 2003, 11:40 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> well Milosevic did not invade half the continent and kill millions of people. He is a president that was trapped in the ugly situation of a civil war with all the western media paid to make him (serbia, red star) look very evil in the news.. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Yeah, he only killed tens or hundreds of thousands, probably not millions. What a humanitarian.
<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A64169-2002Feb12¬Found=true' target='_blank'>War Crimes Trial Opens in the Hague </a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->THE HAGUE, Feb. 12 – At the start of the first-ever war crimes trial against a head of state, United Nations prosecutors today accused former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic of using executions, torture, forced relocations and genocide to try to cleanse non-Serbs from large chunks of the Balkans in a drive to create an ethnically pure Serbian nation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't go before war crimes tribunals in The Hague based on a newspaper not liking you. Milosevic is a dictator and a murdering scumbag and will hopefully hang then be buried in an unmarked grave. He has caused untold suffering in that region for decades.
Plus he has great friends like these that <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17783-2003Mar12.html' target='_blank'>Assasinate Serbia's Prime Minister for trying to bring democracy to the region</a>.
one reason why some french people are anti-american is the fact that some idiots rename their fries for "patriotism" (im not saying everyone. I'm not anti-american. I'm anti-american-idiots-that-rename-their-fries-and-think-its-patriotic)
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Can you prove me that HE killed them all.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The leader is in charge and must accept the responsibility. Especially if they are his policies, which they were. But I don't have to prove anything, I can let the world court take care of it. I am confident he will be found guilty, and that's good enough for me. I know this will never convince you, but tough. He'll be in jail or at the end of a rope, and I will be happy. Love him all you want, I really don't care, and his removal from power was the first good thing to happen to that **** up corner of the world in 20 years.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Of course you get your nice CNN reports that show yu how evil he is so that you can not even have a clear view on things that actually happen because of that nice demagogue news. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Though I know for a fact that Msr. Evil is bright enough to scour alternate (and international) news sources for his information (as are most intelligent Americans I know), becuase <i>your</i> media presents Americans as CNN lackey drones who believe everything they read, it must be so.
It's such a convenient stance to take: I will believe everything my media outlets tell me about you, and because they are speaking out against American interests, they <i>must</i> be true. Therefore, I can simply dismiss anything you say, because it's perfectly ok for me to assume that you have been lied to and I have been told the truth.
<i>Everyone</i> has an agenda my friend, and as soon as you realize that, you can ditch the naive condescension and learn to look for the propeganda in <i>all</i> news sources.
Excellent excellent rebuttal miez. That is unfortunately your last word, as this is not the 'call people fascists' forum. PM an apology if you feel like getting your rights back, but don't bother for at least a week.
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 20 2003, 02:49 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 20 2003, 02:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Excellent excellent rebuttal miez. That is unfortunately your last word, as this is not the 'call people fascists' forum. PM an apology if you feel like getting your rights back, but don't bother for at least a week.
/edit: Well said, Bmonkey. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Sorry my friend, but Mieze is right. The opinion in the USA is turning fashist right now, 'freedom fries' 'either you're with us or against us'...
Comments
Typo i ment many of you (NOT all but lots) are....
1) Too much money in politics. The amount of money ploughed into the pockets of politicians by individuals and corporation in the USA is mind-boggling, and would be illegal in many countries. Likewise, the sort of political advertisements from various sources you see are not allowed in the UK. This distorts your political system immensely. Your politics are extremely right-wing, as western democracies go. What you would call "liberal" would barely register as centrist in most European countries. You'd probably call our left-wing parties communist. You have two major parties, one of which openly and brazenly touts itself as being there to provide tax-cuts to the rich and low regulation & tax (or even state funding, and favourable trade deals) to corporations, and the other which sort of would like to move in the other direction, but is afraid to because of the sheer weight of financial lobbying power ranged against it. This is hardly an electoral choice. Unfortunately, in the UK our politics seems to be headed in the same direction - having seen their success, the Labour party remodelled itself on Clinton's Democrats, and are now barely distinguishable from the Conservative party...
2) The endless use of the words "democracy" and "freedom" as code for untramelled capitalism - especially letting American-owned multinational corporations move in. If Bush et al really cared about democracy he wouldn't be getting his family to rig the ballots for him - I mean how tin-pot dictatorship is that? It seems the US has already handed out all the construction contracts to rebuild Iraq to various American companies that the members of the administration used to work for. This is Keynesian economics as practiced in the USA at its best - paying one lot of workers to create holes, another to fill them in, while at the same time stuffing the pockets of the men in power. The miltary-industrial complex is staggering.
3) The blatant use of patriotism by the government and media to get the people to rally behind it. The way that the American TV channels (even straightforward news bulletins) blanket themselves with USA flags is bizarre, and resembles North Korea or Iraq more than any European country. And the way all the politicians wander around with little USA badges is just a little creepy to an outside observer. I understand schoolchildren even do their pledge or allegiance to the flag in the morning. This seems a little heavy-handed from my UK point of view, and resembles the way dictatorships endlessly praise the glorious leader.
4) The arrogant belief by the administration, and many of the people, that they are obviously the "good guys". This then leads on to the belief that as they're the good guys, they don't need to waste their time agreeing to climate control protocols, international courts, sticking to nuclear weapons treaties, agreeing to further restrictions on biological and chemical weapons, or observing the Geneva convention for their prisoners-of-war locked away in Guantanemo Bay. All those international laws and protocols are just to keep the bad guys in check, not something for the USA to worry itself about. Saddam's not allowed to have any chemical weapons, because he's a "bad guy". But it's okay for the USA is allowed to have as many nuclear and chemical weapons as it can get its hands on, and start developing more, as the USA is a "good guy". The extreme right-wing politicians like Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld are trying to pretend that this doesn't set a very dangerous precedent. What if, say, North Korea thought that they were the "good guys" and decided they'd better start upping their defence budget massively to try to keep up with the arms race the USA has just re-started?
5) The amount of "religious" involvement in politics is also unnerving to most other democracies. Most other democracies are basically secular, with a religious tradition in the background, usually Christian. In the USA there is a very strong Christian movement, which has allied itself to the Republicans, which manages to significantly influence the administration's approach. This leads to a "faith-based" government, in some ways not dissimilar to the Islamic governments of the Middle East. This distorts policies - you get extreme views about abortion, women in politics, and the whole approach to Israel, which is as much dictated by extreme Christian movements in the USA as it is from the Jewish lobby. But any entry of any religion into politics seems to me to be a bad thing in itself - it allows people to start thinking too much in terms of "right" and "wrong" - and of course it's always them who are in the right, and the others who are in the wrong. And it can cloud people's judgement, much like patriotism.
6) The American media is mind-bogglingly insular. Every time I've been in the USA I feel like I've been locked in a padded cell. It is VERY hard to find any news of what is going on in the outside world. If I wasn't in a hotel with (the admittedly mind-numbingly tedious) BBC World, I wouldn't have the faintest idea what was going on in the rest of the world. So I can't blame many of the American public for not fully understanding what is going on outside their borders. It probably suits corporate-owned media and the (corporate-owned?) government equally to not have their subjects too well informed. Indeed, I heard in a recent server that 45% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussain was personally involved in the terrorist attack on New York. Somehow the government and media have managed to create that impression through their propaganda machine, to justify the attack on Iraq that they have been planning for years.
7) In the run-up to Bush's "election" various members of the current administration (under the mantle of the "<a href='http://www.newamericancentury.org/' target='_blank'>New American Century</a>" project) have been planning how to ensure American supremacy, and how to take advantage of any "new Pearl Harbour" to garner support for a new unilateral approach to "full-spectrum dominance". And boy, did the World Trade Centre attacks hand them an opportunity on a plate. And the media seem to be happy to play along with their game, cowed into submission by patriotism, and the fear of being called "anti-american".
Basically, the rest of the world is afraid. America has such huge power, and soon it's military spending will equal the rest of the world's combined. To many of us it seems that the USA is determined to start a new arms race - one that other countries will be forced to follow. Richard Perl et al have declared that their objective is to ensure that no other country or group of countries can challenge the USA militarily or economically, and they seem to be determined to bring this about, by fair means or foul. If that means destroying the United Nations or undermining the European Union, then so be it. They may feel that this is in America's national interest. Just don't be so surprised that the rest of the world doesn't agree that it's in the world's best interests.
It seems to me that the USA will end up with its relationship to the rest of the world looking like that between Israel and Palestine. Israel has massive financial and technological might, and is able to crush Palestine whenever it feels like it. It even uses its might to destroy the Palestinian economy by arranging to make life very difficult for any Palestinian companies wanting to compete with Israeli ones. The Palestinians end up fighting back as best they can, with the most powerful weapon they have - the desparate suicide bomber. They can't afford precision guided weapons, and have no way of getting to military targets, so they inflict massive civilian casualties. I see the USA acting more and more like Israel, and there are a lot of potential Palestines.
Now, most other countries in the world are far from perfect, and all could be accused of operating in their own self-interest a lot of the time. But America is the most powerful, and with this great power comes great responsibility. It does not seem that America is acting responsibly under this Bush regime.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The Purposes of the United Nations are: [...]to bring about by peaceful means adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace; <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A lot of UN Security Council members (Germany,France,Russia,China) still think of a peaceful way to settle Irak's case as possible. Why does US think itself as above laws?
Regards,
Draco
I'm <i>not</i> saying that now is the time to exercise that force-- it's just a general observation that if the UN is to remain a relevant organization, it needs to have some sort of military option and can't simply rely on peaceful coercion as its only means to its goals. Peace is obviously much preferable, and should be the primary route, but it's not always possible or practical. (How do you like that alliteration?)
Otherwise, the UN's authority reminds me much of a Robin Williams bit on British policeman (Bobbies?) and how they don't (didn't?) carry any sort of firearm-- "Stop! Or . . . . I'll say 'Stop' again!"
(And that quote is used to illustrate a point . . . if someone jumps on this as an opportunity to launch a tangent on American police brutality, heads will roll)
Then, sir, you are a fool. Racism is depending on your gene stock, your parents. Any one that moves to america and is granted citizenship is then a citizen of USA. Thereby susceptible to anti-americanism, no matter which country they originated from and what race they should belong to. Racism is saying negroes are naturally inferior to caucasian white people. Or that all asian people have lower intelligence etc. A concept that I am sure was developed in Europe, alas <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo--> If an american moves to England and is granted citizenship, he ceases to be american and thus no longer susceptible to anti-americanism. A black person would be black no matter where he went and what citizenship he enjoyed. Therefore always a potential target for hostilities from racist people who think his his birth determines his qualities.
Get your concepts straight, people! Anti-americanism is NOT RACISM! It's a kind of extrovert nationalism, hating another nation more than lovign your own. It involves a high mistrust against the american govenrnment and the corporate america. In other words U$A. When mad frenchmen torch a McDonald in Britanny it is because they hate american corporate colonialism. Big evil companies moving in to tread down the french cultural heritage with their inferior industrial pulp. They don't go around clubbing american tourists though.
Sure, I agree that there is too much money in the political system.. but non sequitur that it becomes very right-wing. And you are mistaken that America is right-wing compared to Europe... if anything it is LEFT wing. In the political spectrum, massive domestic spending on welfare, education and health care is considered right wing... VERY right wing if it is in the degree that much of Europe does. Some European countries can even be considered Socialist (that's on the right side). Even the UK has had a government owned health care system for about half a century now.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The endless use of the words "democracy" and "freedom" as code for untramelled capitalism - especially letting American-owned multinational corporations move in.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's not as if the use of these terms was coined in the past decade or so... back when America was one of the few economically free republics around (not as long ago as you'd think), spreading democracy and economic freedom was a very real thing. If you'll forgive a little American arrogance, our motives could be questioned a little back then too.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The arrogant belief by the administration, and many of the people, that they are obviously the "good guys". This then leads on to the belief that as they're the good guys, they don't need to waste their time agreeing to climate control protocols, international courts, sticking to nuclear weapons treaties, agreeing to further restrictions on biological and chemical weapons, or observing the Geneva convention for their prisoners-of-war locked away in Guantanemo Bay.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's because for the most part, these are attempts by less powerful countries to try and curtail America's power. This IS the logical for them to try to do, but it is equally logical for America, while it is in such power, to reject such attempts.
This isn't Major League Baseball, where many people hate the Yankees for having a lot more money (i.e. power) and trying to prevent attempts at creating some parity. It's different because it's better for baseball and the Yankees if the Yanks don't try to win at all costs. That's not the case here. If the nuclear powers can keep other countries from getting nukes, all the better. And so on.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The blatant use of patriotism by the government and media to get the people to rally behind it. [...] The American media is mind-bogglingly insular. Every time I've been in the USA I feel like I've been locked in a padded cell. It is VERY hard to find any news of what is going on in the outside world.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That is flatly not true. My personal news sources are the New York Times and National Public Radio (which isn't state-owned propaganda <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> ). If anything, they have a liberal tilt, which isn't what you're complaining about anyway. In case you're wondering, they are easily accessible; I've found the NYT in every hotel I've been to outside of New York City.
I hate it when other people bust out the dictionary on me too, but it's needed here...
<b>rac·ism</b>
1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular <b>race</b> is superior to others.
2. Discrimination or prejudice based on <b>race</b>.
<b>race</b>
n.
1. A local geographic or global human population distinguished as a more or less distinct group by genetically transmitted physical characteristics.
2. A group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, <b>nationality</b>, or geographic distribution: the German race.
<b>na·tion·al·ism</b>
1. Devotion to the interests or culture of one's nation.
2. The belief that nations will benefit from acting independently rather than collectively, emphasizing national rather than international goals.
3. Aspirations for national independence in a country under foreign domination.
While racism can mean prejudice based on genetic qualities, it also applies here. And nationalism doesn't have any of the meaning you allege. Dictionary.com (my source) also has a helpful note on race in their definition <a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=race' target='_blank'>Dictionary.com: Race</a>.
<b>racism</b>
<i>n</i>(1936) <b>1</b>: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race <b>2</b>: racial prejudice or discrimination
That's from Encyclopædia Britannica 2002.
It's clear that racism is the notion that some races are superior to other. What is a race then? Would you call the inhabitants of USA a "race"? You'd have to in order for racism to be a fitting terminology. No, anti-americanism is something that goes with nationalism. Racism would imply that people think that americans are by breeding alone prone to neo-colonialism, self righteousness, war mongering and AAAAAAAAAALL that other crap we hear all the time. If you bred an american in another country they'd still have these traits in spite of them being far away from "home". On the other hand, if you believe that americans are as they are due to the culture and society they are brought up in, then we're talking something else. Cultural heritage, sociology etc. That's merely something in people's mind sets, and any old person no matter what their racial heritage (ie- their "stock") can become a True American - or anti-american, depending on where they were brought up.
For the last time: anti-americanism is NOT RACISM! I'm not claiming that anti-americanism is Cool or anyhting, because as racism it's a fundamentally chauvinistic view of the world. Ie. what I stand for is superior and great, what others stand for is inferior to me and my background.
Just because this use of the word race "sounds weird" or isn't the definition you're used to doesn't mean it's wrong.
[edit] I also like how your definition adds nothing to the discussion... it's just an almost exact rehash of what I've said. A differing definition of race or something would have helped.
Just because this use of the word race "sounds weird" or isn't the definition you're used to doesn't mean it's wrong.
[edit] I also like how your definition adds nothing to the discussion... it's just an almost exact rehash of what I've said. A differing definition of race or something would have helped. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Right, first my dictionary's definition of race:
"a group of individuals within a species with certain common heriditary traits". Origin: razza (ital.).
No mention of nationality here. Good.
racism:
"an ethnic group's egocentrical belief in own superiority and inherited right to rule leading to a disdain of other ethnic groups"
This is from Gyldendals Fremmedordbog.
Throwing dictionary defintions at each other won't bring us far. Now I got a definition that does not bring into play a country's inhabitant and race as the same thing. But in no way I am going to give up on semantics, so I am going to have to teach you the difference then. Racism is some of the most evil thing ever invented by man. Iti is categorizing people on their BIRTH alone and designating them to inferiority alone because their ethnic grouping is not equal to your own. To equal a race with the country they live in is so stupid that I cannot believe it is still in a dictionary. Dictionary.com should do us all a favour and make sure to note that race is a <i>historical</i> term, not used today. Or answer this: if a vietnamese farmer moves to america with his wife. What are they? American race or Vietnamese race - or asians merely? The children they have, will they be american race, vietnamese race or what? Can't you see how idiotic that definition is?
A race definition is to try and put people into categories based on their inherited stock, and traits. Such as negroid, caucasion, sinoid (or mongoloid), eskimo etc. Nations are arbirtrarily drawn up lines in the sand and they shift easily. Nations can hold many kinds of racial minorities inside them, and equalling race with country is just not working in the real world.
It's funny, I've never heard of the German race. Or the american race. Or the canadian race. Or the paraguayan race. Or the Lichtensteinian race. Please tell me the last time you heard someone describing all the inhabitants of a country as "a race". Not even the japanese are one race, they're at least two different stocks. That particular notion went SO out of fashion half a century ago. Try and catch up with today please. Just because it's in a dictionary doesn't make it Canonical all of a sudden.
Now nationalism has caused it's fair share of problems but it characterizes people based on where they LIVE. Anti-americanism is a funny kind of irrational hatred or dislike towards american culture and companies, government. It is based upon how americans ACT, not how they look or whom their fathers and mothers were. Therein lies the important distinction between racism and anti-americanism. Enlightened people have learned to distinguish between your heritage and your culture. Back in the 1930s and before it was another ball game. I dunno which ancient definition that Dictionary.com bought for a dime, but it's sure is pure bollocks or referring to a historical usage that we all better not repeat. It could very well BE from those dark ages of our history. Race = genetics. Period. Comma. Exclamation Mark. Ampersand. Any other usage of the word is just watering it out on purpose or because you're being in the dark. By jove, I think I'll start calling my dog a citizen because people seems to equal race with the country you live in. From now on all dog breeds will be categorized after which country they live in. Only great danes can live in Denmark! In america you will have Great Americans and here we will have Danish Bulldogs. (actually, I worry you'd do it! Renaming french fries to freedom fries ranks up there on the top ten list of Idiocy Cause by Patriotism - if anti-americanism is racism, wth do you call THAT?)
<!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Mar 18 2003, 05:27 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Mar 18 2003, 05:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Can we dismiss with the semantics and just agree that the various attitudes we are trying to describe with the words racism, nationalism, whatever are all equally heinous? In think we all know what we are talking about by now. The word doesnt matter. We all now know what meaning is intende<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually no, the original remark about anti-americanism being like racism was alarming me because it would shed a dirty, evil kind of light on the anti-americanism idea which I believe is fundamentally wrong. It is an attempt to make anti-americanism an equally big crime against mankind - and that's taking things a bit too far out of town. It is like making it illegal to not like america because they did stuff to your country (racism is BAD so we cannot be racists, which anti-americanism is). I believe this particular animosity described by anti-americanism to stem from ACTS performed by various american entities such as foreign policy on Israel - whic pisses off everyone in the middle east but the israelis, messing about in Chile making sure they got a brutal dictator, bomb your countrymen or seeing all kinds of american franchise stores mushroom in your country, all your local movies shoved out of the cinema by hollywood drivel etc. People dont like THAT part of it. But for simplicity's sake they ascribe everything american as being like that. They see selfish intents into american entities, dreams of taking over the world as the british once fantasized about. Anti-americanism relates to culture and politics. This is about not liking America (corporate, political) because they act how they do. Not because they are born as a certain race. Now if America suddenly stopped doing what creates animosity, the anti-americans would stop being anti-american. If it was racism, nothing what america did would change anything - which is probably how some americans fell some times, but they are not the ones who controls foreign policy etc.
Had it been racism, no american movie would ever have been SEEN, because it was made by the inferior american race whom we all know have underdeveloped brains and cannot really make culture worthy of our fine race. It's funny, just like jazz was described soon 100 years ago, a musical genre for black people, clearly inferior to the white man's music. Can't anyone see how stupid that is? It's not what anti-americanism is about.
Anyway, it only reinforces my main point that Anti-americanism is not racism, because the former is caused by the USAs way of acting in foreign policy mostly.
See? Miezekatze is a rational being. He can discern the difference between not liking america due to them having bombed his country (anti-american), and not liking americans because they are an evil race of war mongers that have a natural born tendency to drop bombs on foreigners and make inherently inferior cultural products such as hip hop and r&B (racism). Ok with the Iraq war looming I am beginning to wonder if that isn't really the case..... <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.natural-selection.org/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo--> No of course not. So any one still objecting to me firmly denying anti-americanism equals racism? No? Good!
excuse me but I have difficulty to understand your post? me rational? Is that true or you sarcastic? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No, I say you have a rational cause to being anti-american. They dropped Da Bizomb on your country. That's hard facts. Thereby rational. Hatred or disdain is not something that is rationale, though, it's your feelings (but that's another discussion).
The second part of my thread was perhaps sarcastic, a bit of ribbing the USA as we foreigners enjoy <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
[edit] Hey, I graduated to Dark Queen! All your topics are belong to me! 600 posts! Yay![/edit]
I don't want to put words in anybody's mouth, but the way I interpreted this while reading it is that it makes good sense to be politically opposed to a country solely on the basis that it attacked parts of yours.
I wouldn't call that the height of rationalism. By itself it is only reactionary and instinctive. In fact, being personally affected by an event is usually seen as an OBSTACLE to impartial rationalism, (think of jury selection.)
In order to gain the respect of being in the ballpark of "rational", it would be necessary to first address the alleged reasons that the U.S. attacked in the first place. I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, due to lack of familiarity, but it would seem that a place to start would be countering the claims of justification by the U.S. Maintaining that the U.S. was wrong in taking military action, without ever addressing the issue of Milosevic, isn't by itself a strong argument because it doesn't in any way counter or de-bunk the competing opinions.
Again, just to be clear- I'm not trying to say whether the U.S. was justified in its military actions in Yugoslavia. But it seems any dissenting opinion that doesn't counter the charges of genocide by Milosevic is pretty groundless. By the same rationale, German and Japanese citizens in WWII would have a "legitimate" reason to be anti-American, even though most people would think that in an ethical sense their countries created a necessity for reprisal action. You shouldn't be "against the police for shooting my dad" if your dad was allegedly in the middle of strangling an old lady. For any legitimacy you would need to first show that dad was actually giving a neck massage, and thus wrongly slain.
Actually, note that he said 'country'. It's possible to separate the citizens of a nation from their government's foreign policy--but Al Queda is a group bound by ideology, not geography or nationality. Their membership in that group is based solely on the fact that they <i>want</i> to perpetrate those sorts of attacks. So Osama and all his pals are fair game.
hahaha well I think the US got pretty **** at osama too for his attack.
ok you want to turn this into a evil milosevic discussion? ok first off I don´t think milosevic is responsible for genocides in a CIVIL WAR. I think you are pretty disinformed about the things that happened in bosnia and kosovo. The only reason milosevic was removed was because he did not want to bootlick the US and because yugoslavia had a red star in its flag. There have been soooo many war crimes in this civil war of which I don´t think he was responsible for that. So a comparison to WWII is very questionable.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->By the same rationale, German and Japanese citizens in WWII would have a "legitimate" reason to be anti-American, even though most people would think that in an ethical sense their countries created a necessity for reprisal action. You shouldn't be "against the police for shooting my dad" if your dad was allegedly in the middle of strangling an old lady. For any legitimacy you would need to first show that dad was actually giving a neck massage, and thus wrongly slain. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
well Milosevic did not invade half the continent and kill millions of people. He is a president that was trapped in the ugly situation of a civil war with all the western media paid to make him (serbia, red star) look very evil in the news.. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
very true. There has been a grand disinformation campaign throughout the war. Faked facts were presented by the media, such as 'mass graves' which never existed (this was then said AFTER the war) and 'crimes' of the Serb army were invented in order to evoke hatred against that country.
The worst thing was that the media did fully comply to NATO's propaganda strategy. Milosevic is surely responsible for several war crimes, but presenting him like the 'Hitler of the Balkans' is just irresponsible. And there is no legitimation for a war at all, which actually started the humanitarian catastrophe.
Those who are angry at UBL without first educating themselves on his claims and then making their value judgement are ignorant and are in a weak position to debate.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->ok you want to turn this into a evil milosevic discussion? ok first off I don´t think milosevic is responsible for genocides in a CIVIL WAR. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The only reason milosevic was removed was because he did not want to bootlick the US and because yugoslavia had a red star in its flag. There have been soooo many war crimes in this civil war of which I don´t think he was responsible for that. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The opinions you have expressed are the starting point for a rational debate. They counter the stated justifications of the U.S., and allow other people to make evaluations and compare facts. (For example, whether the U.S. would spend billions of dollars on a war over the graphic design of a flag, or whether there was any evidence of who gave soldiers what orders to kill whom.) Without them, the previously stated position of:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have very very *rational* reasons for my anti-amercanism. It´s for dropping bombs on my homeland. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
does not by itself show rationality nor offer any defense for the alleged crimes of Milosevic.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think you are pretty disinformed about the things that happened in bosnia and kosovo. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We agree. I'll make a reference to what I said earlier:
"I don't have a strong opinion on the matter, due to lack of familiarity..."
"Again, just to be clear- I'm not trying to say whether the U.S. was justified in its military actions in Yugoslavia. "
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->So a comparison to WWII is very questionable. ... well Milosevic did not invade half the continent and kill millions of people. He is a president that was trapped in the ugly situation of a civil war with all the western media paid to make him (serbia, red star) look very evil in the news..
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The comparison I made was to the result of a style of THOUGHT- that simply being negatively affected by something means there was no justification for the cause. There WAS a reason why Germans and Japanese were being attacked in WWII. There MIGHT have been a reason why the U.S. attacked Milosevic. I was stating that for purposes of credible debating it is necessary to address and disprove those causes before arriving at your firm opinions.
You have obviously begun to list your responses to the claims of the U.S. For my part that's all I was asking for- a response of some kind to the alleged justifications that allows other people to see where you're coming from. However, as I said, I don't consider myself familiar enough with the subject to bother debating it. I was critiqueing your method of reasoning in general, from your original statement of:
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have very very *rational* reasons for my anti-amercanism. It´s for dropping bombs on my homeland. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did not feel that statement by itself showed a rational method, and was not content to let it sit there without complaining.
Wow. Not only did you so obviously miss my entire point, you also managed to both quote me out of context and misrepresent my message at various points. I commend you on that achievement, even if it is a negative one.
Now, let's make this as short as possible.
1. I am very aware of the definition of the word "you", and I do not need it posted for my benefit. Several people may want to brush up on its proper usage, however. If nothing else, learn from the type of mistake that Ross Perot made, when he infuriated a huge number of black voters by addressing them as "you people".
2. You have incorrectly accused me of not participating in our political process. I didn't wish to go into more detail than was necessary, but for your benefit, I now must do so. There <b>is</b> nothing that the individual in this country can do to affect what is happening in regards to this escalation. Voters <i>tried</i> to make a difference during the last election, but because the process is flawed, those votes were rendered useless. In any case, the voter has absolutely no power in a situation such as this. The decision to declare or not to declare war on another country, whatever the reason, is not one that is decided by public voting.
3. Again, you took my comment about my beliefs in a deity completely out of context. It was simply part of the complete response to another's post. It had nothing else to do with the issue at hand. There is no need for me to "check myself", but there is most definitely a need for you to take more care in your reading comprehension.
4. I did not ask the question upon which this thread is based, and yet again, if taken in context to the rest of my post and the post to which I was replying, it is very relevant and constructive to this debate. The general point which you have missed is just this: there is a difference in having dislike of an entity (such as the United States as a political/economic/military/etc. being) and professing a dislike of "Americans". It is ignorant and wrong to assume that anyone, regardless of nationality, is automatically given to certain beliefs or behaviours. Engaging in that form of stereotyping borders on bigotry. To say that I deny the existance of the 'American label' (read: stereotype) by some non-Americans is absurd. It is this very thing that I am speaking against. You really infuriated me with the following statement.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It can be that simple, its not like you don't label others in the world, as is demonstrated later in your post, US politicians, and US media sources (which report what the US politicians say).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This implies in no uncertain terms that I have labeled others as part of a group stereotype, and I challenge anyone to present evidence of this. I do not wish to be prejudged, labeled, or insulted solely because of my nationality, and I would never do the same to another, regardless of that person's citizenship.
5. I have not ignored the <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->reality that people from other countries (not just their politicians, which we get to notice thanks to freedom of speech) perceive that you Americans are really an arrogant, self serving, and ignorant lot that control a good portion of economic, cultural, and military power.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> How can I have ignored it when it serves as the focus of my entire argument?
6. This is yet another statement pulled out of context, but my statement of "I don't care what 'image is projected to the world" could, in fact, be reworded as, "I don't care what the stereotype of the average American is, because anyone who would gauge me as a person based solely on that is simply incorrect." If someone really wishes to be a bigot, there is little I could possibly do to change that. The only image for which I need to 'fight' is my own, as an individual, not as an American.
7. Nowhere in my post do I insult the intelligence of anyone outside this country <i>as a group</i>. There are ignorant people outside of this country, just as there are plenty of ignorant people within the borders of the United States. My statements in no way were contrasting or contradictory. It is a very simple concept, one that I'm amazed that you misread or misunderstood. So let's try again. I said that the US has never taken part in an international conflict with the primary motivation of forcing its values on the affected country. There is always more than one reason for any involvement. These matters are never black and white, but there is always the ever-present reason that the US is protecting its own interests. How you equate forcing a value set on another country and the US preserving its interests (as in economic or strategic interests) is beyond me. One purports to be beneficient (which could be arrogant and insulting to others), the other is purely selfish.
8. You are incorrect if you put forth that it is only my personal version of the "irrefutable truth". If you must insist on pulling things out of context so often, then you risk losing respect and credibility for your argument because of misuse of your supporting evidence.
9. I meant what I said when I wrote that I was no longer interested in the "what" of the perception of the common American. I am interested in the "why". I question how this stereotype came to be, and the truth behind why it propogates, when I know from experience that it does not apply correctly to many people living here. I want to know why someone would <i>choose</i> to assume an individual was a certain way, just because of his nationality. It would not be acceptable for me to prejudge or stereotype anyone else in this way, so why does it seem to be acceptable or even fashionable when it is applied to Americans?
10. The following is just silly.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, it does not. No one ever claimed that the US is always right and the rest of the world is always wrong. That came from you, a member of "the rest of the world."
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And from yourself with your "irrefutable" truths. Truth implies that itself is right and everything contrary to the truth is wrong or false.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Your argument here is fundamentally flawed. I, as an individual, am not the US. I have also never implied or stated that I am "always" right.
11. I am not venting at all at how the USA, as an entity, is perceived. To say that I have furthered those perceptions in any way is both incorrect and highly irresponsible of you, when so much of what you claim to be "outlined in you post with examples I presented", is incorrect, poorly argued, and contextually misplaced.
It is because of posts like yours that I will no longer take part in these discussions. When a significant number of people show such blantant disregard for the subject at hand and prefer to lower the debate to a personal attack, it is no longer worth my, or anyone else's, time. It is fruitless to share ideas when people unable to debate or discuss an issue properly must stoop to semantic bickering without bothering to make even a half-hearted attempt at understanding or comprehension of the submitted ideas. It is important to note that not everyone (not nearly the majority) that contributes to these forums is guilty of this behavior. I applaud those of you who act with thoughtfulness, a willingness to learn, and an open mind to the ideas of others. To the rest, do not waste your time. It is better spent seeking other forms of self-education. Perhaps when you are tired of consistently being wrong, you'll finally stop talking/writing and listen/read for once.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That particular notion went SO out of fashion half a century ago. Try and catch up with today please. Just because it's in a dictionary doesn't make it Canonical all of a sudden.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is clear you didn't even bother looking at my source... according to the American Heritage Dictionary, if anything, the usage of race to describe genetic traits has gone out of fashion. It's <a href='http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=race' target='_blank'>here.</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Race = genetics. Period. Comma. Exclamation Mark. Ampersand. Any other usage of the word is just watering it out on purpose or because you're being in the dark<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again, you're basing this on a definition from a publisher/dictionary maker that I've never even <i>heard</i> of. And I've googled it, for a total of two hits. Furthermore, both of my sources are very commonly used, and right there for you to look at and ponder: "<a href='http://www.dictionary.com' target='_blank'>Dictionary.com</a> and <a href='http://www.m-w.com' target='_blank'>Merriam Webster Online</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><i>Immacolata</i>: Actually no, the original remark about anti-americanism being like racism was alarming me because it would shed a dirty, evil kind of light on the anti-americanism idea which I believe is fundamentally wrong<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><i>moultano</i>: First of all, please quit treating Americans as a homogenous entity. I find your remarks rascist and insulting.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That quote is what started it all... it doesn't really say anything about anti-Americanism in general... after all some of is directed at the government and foreign policy. But to call the stereotyping, hateful remarks referred to above nationalism is just incorrect and they should be categorized with the similarly irrational hate of the post-Reconstruction era, or Japanese internment, and all that.
Yeah, he only killed tens or hundreds of thousands, probably not millions. What a humanitarian.
<a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A64169-2002Feb12¬Found=true' target='_blank'>War Crimes Trial Opens in the Hague </a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->THE HAGUE, Feb. 12 – At the start of the first-ever war crimes trial against a head of state, United Nations prosecutors today accused former Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic of using executions, torture, forced relocations and genocide to try to cleanse non-Serbs from large chunks of the Balkans in a drive to create an ethnically pure Serbian nation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You don't go before war crimes tribunals in The Hague based on a newspaper not liking you. Milosevic is a dictator and a murdering scumbag and will hopefully hang then be buried in an unmarked grave. He has caused untold suffering in that region for decades.
Plus he has great friends like these that <a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17783-2003Mar12.html' target='_blank'>Assasinate Serbia's Prime Minister for trying to bring democracy to the region</a>.
I happily spit on Milosevic and all his cronies.
The Hague Tribunal is completely biased without any doubt.
btw, my post which you quoted was not ironical.
The leader is in charge and must accept the responsibility. Especially if they are his policies, which they were. But I don't have to prove anything, I can let the world court take care of it. I am confident he will be found guilty, and that's good enough for me. I know this will never convince you, but tough. He'll be in jail or at the end of a rope, and I will be happy. Love him all you want, I really don't care, and his removal from power was the first good thing to happen to that **** up corner of the world in 20 years.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Though I know for a fact that Msr. Evil is bright enough to scour alternate (and international) news sources for his information (as are most intelligent Americans I know), becuase <i>your</i> media presents Americans as CNN lackey drones who believe everything they read, it must be so.
It's such a convenient stance to take: I will believe everything my media outlets tell me about you, and because they are speaking out against American interests, they <i>must</i> be true. Therefore, I can simply dismiss anything you say, because it's perfectly ok for me to assume that you have been lied to and I have been told the truth.
<i>Everyone</i> has an agenda my friend, and as soon as you realize that, you can ditch the naive condescension and learn to look for the propeganda in <i>all</i> news sources.
/edit: Well said, Bmonkey.
/edit: Well said, Bmonkey. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Sorry my friend, but Mieze is right. The opinion in the USA is turning fashist right now, 'freedom fries' 'either you're with us or against us'...