<!--QuoteBegin--eggmac+Mar 20 2003, 04:32 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eggmac @ Mar 20 2003, 04:32 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--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'... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The american people did not get to together and say lets rename french fries freedom fries. America is probably alot more diverse then Yugoslavia were mostly a nation of imigrants. How does this make america facist anyways? Wow some people have nationalism that dosent mean they hate democracy.
Apparently, none of the above people understand what the word fascism means. Go look it up and see if it has any applicability to a dozen rednecks renaming french fries. When you have an idea of what fascism is you would not throw it around so loosely. By its very definition you cannot have fascist citizens, only fascist governments. Gah... I get so irritated by ignorance of language...
And what precisely do french fires have to do with a conversation about Milosevic (a fascist dictator, by the way).
<!--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--> 'freedom fries' 'either you're with us or against us'... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, 'fascist' would be if the government forced <i>all</i> restaurants to rename 'french fries' to 'freedom fries', and had the police crush or jail those who didn't comply.
But if you want to play that game, I'm sure we can pick up stupid little things that <i>all</i> governments do, and label the entire world as 'fascist', if you like.
Holding people in jail without any trial for indefinite time. General suspicion towards muslims from the state authority. The idea of taking away the passport if a suspision of terrorism arises etc. etc. That doesn't sound very much democratic for me...
What Mieze was refering to, by the way, is in my opinion the foreign policy of the USA and there <i>is</i> some similarity to fascism. You do not have the right to ban him from this forum for such a statement if you are really interested in controversial debates.
I have no idea what you're talking about at this point. Again please?
BM and I pointed out that if a restaraunt owner decides to call his fries a new name, that is not fascism. That is marketing. If a king or generalisimo or dictator or whatever <i>forces</i> that restaurant owner to name his fries 'freedom fries', that is fascism. You can't just decide what words mean, or they have no meaning.
Me calling the fascist dictator of Serbia a scumbag does not make me a fascist as well. Only a dictatorial government can be a fascist, and I'm not even king of my own home, as I live with a woman. Who basically does meet the criteria for fascism, at least as far as the dishes are concerned...
<!--QuoteBegin--eggmac+Mar 20 2003, 05:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (eggmac @ Mar 20 2003, 05:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Holding people in jail without any trial for indefinite time. General suspicion towards muslims from the state authority. The idea of taking away the passport if a suspision of terrorism arises etc. etc. That doesn't sound very much democratic for me...
What Mieze was refering to, by the way, is in my opinion the foreign policy of the USA and there <i>is</i> some similarity to fascism. You do not have the right to ban him from this forum for such a statement if you are really interested in controversial debates. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> They are not American citizens, and were captured while in combat with US troops. That does not give them any rights under US law, as the courts have upheld. Being suspicious of certain muslims makes pretty much all governments fascist, under your definition. Taking away the passport of a suspected terrorist sounds like a terrific idea to me, but again, makes all governments fascist under your definition (although I think you mean Visa's, not passports).
And I have the right to ban anyone I want from this forum who decides to be personally insulting, and call forum members fascists. This forum (unlike America) is a benign dictatorship. Not a free area to insult people who pay a lot of money to run it. It was not about debate, it was about a personal attack. He repeated his statement to me and Nem in emails, and was consequently suspended. Read the forum rules you agreed to by registering for this forum, as well as the forum FAQ's that outline our policies. They are very clear on this. You are on private property and like any guests, are subject to the rules of the house.
<!--QuoteBegin--Shrike+Mar 19 2003, 03:19 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Shrike @ Mar 19 2003, 03:19 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> "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. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Gyldendals Fremmedorbog is an authoritative source of words of a foreign origin in Denmark. It is contemporary, so at least in Denmark we've gotten so far down the road we've stopped using attribute races to nationality. I'll condede that genetics is an outdated way of thinking race. Race is a social construct according to your source, and I agree. I do think that describing anti-americanism as racism is still a wrong categorization on par with race being something of genetics - I do not think of nationalities as hacing ANYTHING to do with racism. Anti-americanism is based on observations about how american governments etc. act., leading to animosity. Such as mucking about in the middle east, wholly supporting Israel. That fuels animosity amongst many arab nations it seems.
Still, using race to describe a nation is main stream? It's the first time in my time I've run into that particular use I must say! Up to now it has at best been in historic records.
<!--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 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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, true. This whole sub-debate might have been totally waste of good time. One-eyed stereotyping and disdain is indeed what racism is about. Except that I want to proselytize for the retirement of "race" as equalling a nation. It's rubbish! Have all my arguments been totally invalid to why you shouldn't do that? Mostly because the term is more inconsistent that you'd want it to be. Race is a bad synonym for nation! But your point I see, some people migth be so hooped up on anti-americanism that they're duplicating racism in effect, taking it out on any hapless american that might stroll by just, or refuse to serve them in their restaurant, or even talk to them, just because they're american. But that is what I call discrimination, NOT racism! Racism is a particular kind of discrimination that I see used on people's physical characteristics, where as discrimination is a much broader term. You with me so far on that distinction?
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
<!--QuoteBegin--Immacolata+Mar 20 2003, 05:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Immacolata @ Mar 20 2003, 05:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> But still, it's discrimination, NOT racism! Racism is a particular kind of discrimination. You with me so far on that distinction? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Recognizing a difference between any two things is "discrimination". That word has a connotation now that doesn't relate well to its denotation. I referred to it as racism because racism is a form of discrimination that most everyone feels to be negative. I agree the term isn't quite as broadly applicable as it should have been to be used. I think the point was conveyed though and we have since moved on from that little misunderstanding. Its high time to drop the semantics argument since it is realy clouding the discussion. Would you be content if we refer to it as bigotry from now on?
<!--QuoteBegin--MonsieurEvil+Mar 20 2003, 11:44 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (MonsieurEvil @ Mar 20 2003, 11:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> They are not American citizens, and were captured while in combat with US troops. That does not give them any rights under US law, as the courts have upheld. Being suspicious of certain muslims makes pretty much all governments fascist, under your definition. Taking away the passport of a suspected terrorist sounds like a terrific idea to me, but again, makes all governments fascist under your definition (although I think you mean Visa's, not passports). <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> That's the problematic part. Under US law. The institutions of war is being messed with. It's a strange way to treat prisoners of war. Technicalities are used to avoid having to treat them under the established doctrines. Keeping people locked up indeterminatibly doesn't make USA look very good. It's bollocks.
They were captured while in combat with us troops. Where? In afghanistan. Is that US territory? No. But time will tell for how long the taliban rebels will be kept in their cuban oubliette. Because that is what it is.
<!--QuoteBegin--moultano+Mar 21 2003, 12:08 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (moultano @ Mar 21 2003, 12:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Would you be content if we refer to it as bigotry from now on? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Thumbs up! I am too exhausted to look up bigotry in my dictionary and start another row, at least <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
[edit] I couldn't resist. It seems a fitting term [/edit]
Arab-Americans, followers of Islam, people with Middle Eastern names or ancestors, should be subject to special scrutiny by the government and their fellow citizens.
Furthermore: <!--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 breaks the political backs of the judiciary and legislative branches of government. It allows random arrests and detention without hearings or trials for anyone or any group designated by the President. Retroactive Prosecution, too! It allows the concealment of Presidential records. It permits secret "Military Tribunals" for presidentially-designated "terrorists". It legalizes "sneak-n-peek" searches and seizures. It allows the unlawful infiltration and surveillance of legal, domestic religious, labor and political organizations. It allows the wholesale surveillance of private citizens, private business records and other materials without proof of probable cause. It destroys all e-mail and internet privacy... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where exactly are you quoting from? The law itself? Or more likely, from some very slanted website that you failed to give us a source to because it is silly nonsense?
As for special scrutiny for arabs... hard to say. The way police scrutinize people is not my field. I am not opposed however to people from the mideast (not born here - I mean foreign nationals from the mideast), being scrutinized a bit more. Does it hurt them? No. Does it strip them of their rights? No. Does it maybe mean we don't let political correctness blind us from catching the next several hundred suicide terrorists, all who happened to have been foreign nationals from the mideast? Yes.
If over the last 50 years pretty much every terrorist attack against your country and your allies had been made by people from Paraguay, wouldn't you be just a bit more cautious keeping an eye on visiting Paraguaians? Be honest.
/sidenote: Eggmac, you never answer questions. You just reply with questions when you have no real answer. It's very tiresome, and not really debating or even discussion.
To reiterate - a foreign national does not have the same rights as a US national. I'll be happy to provide more documentation on the laws if you like. But being scrutinized is not being placed in a concentration camp.
<!--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 am anti-"american" because of the unprofessional, arrogant gung-ho attitude of america in all military conflicts in the past 10 years. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
World War II started because of pacifists and the attitude of uncaring. If people had actually done something where there was time the atom bomb might not have had to been dropped... Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it...
<!--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-->My primary reason for disliking american policy is their flat rejection to even consult international environmental policies. They break treaties! (Recently UN policy and the satellite weapons platform program are the 2 treaty/contract violations that concern me the most) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not sure what this has to do with anti-americanism... more like anti-government... The UN doesn't exactly like America too much either in the treaty department.
Yes. Your post started off with 'I couldn't be bothered to read all the other posts in this topic'. So we couldn't be bothered to read yours. Don't be disrespectful to these posters - if you are going to ask that people read your posts, you will read theirs.
lol I think i have the most deleted posts in the forum, makes me think Im losing it when posts disappear <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo-->
I think that the main problem people have with "Americans" is in the inverted commas. I know a few Americans, and by and large they are decent, respectful <i>normal</i> people. "America" as a cultural identity is where you start to encounter the problems seen in posts above. For me, the initial post (I read it!) begins to outline why some people (I'm carefully stying neutral here) have problems with the culture.
For a start lumping one continent together for the sake of a convient soundbite. Ouch. If you are taking the position that not all Americans are (the same) the extremes we see on television and the reporting media, please don't ignore the cultural history of nations that have been (and still are) struggling to define their own Nations. Otherwise theres no point in having a United Nations (point for debate, everyone).
Similarly religion. Please do not assume that because you subscribe to a religious ideology that you are incapable of making an informed decision with regards to world events.
The problem that any debate like this will have is that its all to easy to project motives on to what people are saying (you're just jealous! / you're ignorant of the facts!) so people will read without really comprehending, or considering. This topic is bound to be emotive at the best of times. When the USA is at war which some are debating the validity and legality of, especially so.
I think essentially anti-americanism (in whatever form) distills down to the USA's "lack of respect" for its position in world affairs / its hypocrisy. Now you can take this positively, which I'm assuming that Americans do - i.e. getting the job done without the red tape, or you can take it as a "who do you think you are?". America has (for whatever motive) set itself up as the "Guardian of Democracy" laudable, but democracy was doing ok for the 1600 odd years before North America as a nation appeared (AFAIK the Native Americans had no real unifying government). Again, this can be read as jealousy, or legitimate concern over a single nation setting itself apart and above others. The possession of so many natural resources, and an economic model thats worked well for America for the past century does mean that in general American products are cheap and numerous. American companies do well as a result. What rankles anti-americanists is that more often than not, whilst extoling the values of popular development and social reform, large American organisations are paying 20 cents an hour to workers in another nation to create their goods. Americans decry restrictive trade practices, then subsidise their own primary industries to try to make them competitive, promote competition, then impose a 72% tax on profits made by foreign organisations locating subsidiaries in the US. Claim freedom of information, then have an institution of secret police spying on your own citizens. Take the moral high ground, then...well...Jerry Springer.
Simply, by setting yourselves up as a paragon of free democratic fair government, America sets itself up for monumental criticism should they fail (or appear to fail) to conform to its own standards. Its not jealousy, its not envy, its not faded glory, its a case of judging you by your own standards. Until Americans themselves have a concept of their own history, cultural identity, and role in the grand scheme of things, you will be on the receiving end of these sentiments, because of your own stance.
As a British (English no less) citizen, I live with a legacy of colony and empire (along with an image of evil but ineffectual super-villainhood). As a result of this, any success or celebration is seen as arrogance. I suppose we are slightly more lucky in that at the moment the UK has little to shout about, so theres little anti-british sentiment. We accept this and move on. Sticks and stones. By shouting loudest, America will have the loudest detractors I'm afraid.
I have at the moment only one problem with the USA; protectionism. I don't like the freezing out of other nations from international trade, it keeps poor nations poor and wastes the wealth of the rich; it also tends to (long term, think long term) exacerbate the problems it was set up to prevent or alleviate. (Yes, I can back that statement up). Part of the problem is that short-term protection for any given industry becomes a political bargaining chip and therefore cannot be wound back at the appropriate time.
Having said that, the USA is not the world's worst offender in this area and besides, it's an unfortunate by-product of political processes. In fact I think (IMO, right?) that the vested interests that continue the political campaigns that see for instance, 80% of sugar-growers subsidies for the entire nation going to one family, USE the <i>idealism</i> of the average American to get their own way. However I can also understand why other nations being frozen out of agricultural exports would be very angry without that understanding- but note that they are equally angry at the EU for exactly the same practices.
Ka-ching, 2c worth of opinion <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Where just sick of hearing everyone dissing our country. No matter how much we help the world around us, we are always the focus of anti-american idealist who say we push our ideals on people, and bully the world. When in fact these anti-americans are pushing thier false biased oppinions. We spend trillions of dollors on other crounties,and recieve rothing in return.
so if your having that hard time figuring out why we're so vindictive, take a closer look.
Comments
/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'... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
The american people did not get to together and say lets rename french fries freedom fries. America is probably alot more diverse then Yugoslavia were mostly a nation of imigrants. How does this make america facist anyways? Wow some people have nationalism that dosent mean they hate democracy.
And what precisely do french fires have to do with a conversation about Milosevic (a fascist dictator, by the way).
Actually, 'fascist' would be if the government forced <i>all</i> restaurants to rename 'french fries' to 'freedom fries', and had the police crush or jail those who didn't comply.
But if you want to play that game, I'm sure we can pick up stupid little things that <i>all</i> governments do, and label the entire world as 'fascist', if you like.
Edit: ****, Ned beat me to the punch . . .
<span style='font-size:8pt;line-height:100%'> I'm scared... </span>
CNN is made of <i>people</i>!
A goverment ruled by a dictator that controls the means of production. Maybe i should say he means nationalism or pseudointelectual but eh
That doesn't sound very much democratic for me...
What Mieze was refering to, by the way, is in my opinion the foreign policy of the USA and there <i>is</i> some similarity to fascism. You do not have the right to ban him from this forum for such a statement if you are really interested in controversial debates.
BM and I pointed out that if a restaraunt owner decides to call his fries a new name, that is not fascism. That is marketing. If a king or generalisimo or dictator or whatever <i>forces</i> that restaurant owner to name his fries 'freedom fries', that is fascism. You can't just decide what words mean, or they have no meaning.
Me calling the fascist dictator of Serbia a scumbag does not make me a fascist as well. Only a dictatorial government can be a fascist, and I'm not even king of my own home, as I live with a woman. Who basically does meet the criteria for fascism, at least as far as the dishes are concerned...
>_<
That doesn't sound very much democratic for me...
What Mieze was refering to, by the way, is in my opinion the foreign policy of the USA and there <i>is</i> some similarity to fascism. You do not have the right to ban him from this forum for such a statement if you are really interested in controversial debates. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
They are not American citizens, and were captured while in combat with US troops. That does not give them any rights under US law, as the courts have upheld. Being suspicious of certain muslims makes pretty much all governments fascist, under your definition. Taking away the passport of a suspected terrorist sounds like a terrific idea to me, but again, makes all governments fascist under your definition (although I think you mean Visa's, not passports).
And I have the right to ban anyone I want from this forum who decides to be personally insulting, and call forum members fascists. This forum (unlike America) is a benign dictatorship. Not a free area to insult people who pay a lot of money to run it. It was not about debate, it was about a personal attack. He repeated his statement to me and Nem in emails, and was consequently suspended. Read the forum rules you agreed to by registering for this forum, as well as the forum FAQ's that outline our policies. They are very clear on this. You are on private property and like any guests, are subject to the rules of the house.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Gyldendals Fremmedorbog is an authoritative source of words of a foreign origin in Denmark. It is contemporary, so at least in Denmark we've gotten so far down the road we've stopped using attribute races to nationality. I'll condede that genetics is an outdated way of thinking race. Race is a social construct according to your source, and I agree. I do think that describing anti-americanism as racism is still a wrong categorization on par with race being something of genetics - I do not think of nationalities as hacing ANYTHING to do with racism. Anti-americanism is based on observations about how american governments etc. act., leading to animosity. Such as mucking about in the middle east, wholly supporting Israel. That fuels animosity amongst many arab nations it seems.
Still, using race to describe a nation is main stream? It's the first time in my time I've run into that particular use I must say! Up to now it has at best been in historic records.
<!--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 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.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, true. This whole sub-debate might have been totally waste of good time. One-eyed stereotyping and disdain is indeed what racism is about. Except that I want to proselytize for the retirement of "race" as equalling a nation. It's rubbish! Have all my arguments been totally invalid to why you shouldn't do that? Mostly because the term is more inconsistent that you'd want it to be. Race is a bad synonym for nation! But your point I see, some people migth be so hooped up on anti-americanism that they're duplicating racism in effect, taking it out on any hapless american that might stroll by just, or refuse to serve them in their restaurant, or even talk to them, just because they're american. But that is what I call discrimination, NOT racism! Racism is a particular kind of discrimination that I see used on people's physical characteristics, where as discrimination is a much broader term. You with me so far on that distinction?
Recognizing a difference between any two things is "discrimination". That word has a connotation now that doesn't relate well to its denotation. I referred to it as racism because racism is a form of discrimination that most everyone feels to be negative. I agree the term isn't quite as broadly applicable as it should have been to be used. I think the point was conveyed though and we have since moved on from that little misunderstanding. Its high time to drop the semantics argument since it is realy clouding the discussion. Would you be content if we refer to it as bigotry from now on?
That's the problematic part. Under US law. The institutions of war is being messed with. It's a strange way to treat prisoners of war. Technicalities are used to avoid having to treat them under the established doctrines. Keeping people locked up indeterminatibly doesn't make USA look very good. It's bollocks.
They were captured while in combat with us troops. Where? In afghanistan. Is that US territory? No. But time will tell for how long the taliban rebels will be kept in their cuban oubliette. Because that is what it is.
Thumbs up! I am too exhausted to look up bigotry in my dictionary and start another row, at least <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile.gif'><!--endemo-->
[edit] I couldn't resist. It seems a fitting term [/edit]
Arab-Americans, followers of Islam, people with Middle Eastern names or ancestors, should be subject to special scrutiny by the government and their fellow citizens.
Furthermore:
<!--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 breaks the political backs of the judiciary and legislative branches of government.
It allows random arrests and detention without hearings or trials for anyone or any group designated by the President. Retroactive Prosecution, too!
It allows the concealment of Presidential records.
It permits secret "Military Tribunals" for presidentially-designated "terrorists".
It legalizes "sneak-n-peek" searches and seizures.
It allows the unlawful infiltration and surveillance of legal, domestic religious, labor and political organizations.
It allows the wholesale surveillance of private citizens, private business records and other materials without proof of probable cause.
It destroys all e-mail and internet privacy...
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As for special scrutiny for arabs... hard to say. The way police scrutinize people is not my field. I am not opposed however to people from the mideast (not born here - I mean foreign nationals from the mideast), being scrutinized a bit more. Does it hurt them? No. Does it strip them of their rights? No. Does it maybe mean we don't let political correctness blind us from catching the next several hundred suicide terrorists, all who happened to have been foreign nationals from the mideast? Yes.
If over the last 50 years pretty much every terrorist attack against your country and your allies had been made by people from Paraguay, wouldn't you be just a bit more cautious keeping an eye on visiting Paraguaians? Be honest.
To sum up what you've just said:
"Bye bye democratic rights"
To reiterate - a foreign national does not have the same rights as a US national. I'll be happy to provide more documentation on the laws if you like. But being scrutinized is not being placed in a concentration camp.
World War II started because of pacifists and the attitude of uncaring. If people had actually done something where there was time the atom bomb might not have had to been dropped... Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it...
<!--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-->My primary reason for disliking american policy is their flat rejection to even consult international environmental policies. They break treaties! (Recently UN policy and the satellite weapons platform program are the 2 treaty/contract violations that concern me the most) <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not sure what this has to do with anti-americanism... more like anti-government... The UN doesn't exactly like America too much either in the treaty department.
"America" as a cultural identity is where you start to encounter the problems seen in posts above. For me, the initial post (I read it!) begins to outline why some people (I'm carefully stying neutral here) have problems with the culture.
For a start lumping one continent together for the sake of a convient soundbite. Ouch. If you are taking the position that not all Americans are (the same) the extremes we see on television and the reporting media, please don't ignore the cultural history of nations that have been (and still are) struggling to define their own Nations. Otherwise theres no point in having a United Nations (point for debate, everyone).
Similarly religion. Please do not assume that because you subscribe to a religious ideology that you are incapable of making an informed decision with regards to world events.
The problem that any debate like this will have is that its all to easy to project motives on to what people are saying (you're just jealous! / you're ignorant of the facts!) so people will read without really comprehending, or considering. This topic is bound to be emotive at the best of times. When the USA is at war which some are debating the validity and legality of, especially so.
I think essentially anti-americanism (in whatever form) distills down to the USA's "lack of respect" for its position in world affairs / its hypocrisy. Now you can take this positively, which I'm assuming that Americans do - i.e. getting the job done without the red tape, or you can take it as a "who do you think you are?". America has (for whatever motive) set itself up as the "Guardian of Democracy" laudable, but democracy was doing ok for the 1600 odd years before North America as a nation appeared (AFAIK the Native Americans had no real unifying government). Again, this can be read as jealousy, or legitimate concern over a single nation setting itself apart and above others.
The possession of so many natural resources, and an economic model thats worked well for America for the past century does mean that in general American products are cheap and numerous. American companies do well as a result. What rankles anti-americanists is that more often than not, whilst extoling the values of popular development and social reform, large American organisations are paying 20 cents an hour to workers in another nation to create their goods. Americans decry restrictive trade practices, then subsidise their own primary industries to try to make them competitive, promote competition, then impose a 72% tax on profits made by foreign organisations locating subsidiaries in the US. Claim freedom of information, then have an institution of secret police spying on your own citizens. Take the moral high ground, then...well...Jerry Springer.
Simply, by setting yourselves up as a paragon of free democratic fair government, America sets itself up for monumental criticism should they fail (or appear to fail) to conform to its own standards. Its not jealousy, its not envy, its not faded glory, its a case of judging you by your own standards. Until Americans themselves have a concept of their own history, cultural identity, and role in the grand scheme of things, you will be on the receiving end of these sentiments, because of your own stance.
As a British (English no less) citizen, I live with a legacy of colony and empire (along with an image of evil but ineffectual super-villainhood). As a result of this, any success or celebration is seen as arrogance. I suppose we are slightly more lucky in that at the moment the UK has little to shout about, so theres little anti-british sentiment. We accept this and move on. Sticks and stones. By shouting loudest, America will have the loudest detractors I'm afraid.
Now I should be doing some work.....
Having said that, the USA is not the world's worst offender in this area and besides, it's an unfortunate by-product of political processes. In fact I think (IMO, right?) that the vested interests that continue the political campaigns that see for instance, 80% of sugar-growers subsidies for the entire nation going to one family, USE the <i>idealism</i> of the average American to get their own way. However I can also understand why other nations being frozen out of agricultural exports would be very angry without that understanding- but note that they are equally angry at the EU for exactly the same practices.
Ka-ching, 2c worth of opinion <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
No matter how much we help the world around us, we are always the focus of anti-american idealist who say we push
our ideals on people, and bully the world. When in fact these anti-americans are pushing thier false biased oppinions.
We spend trillions of dollors on other crounties,and recieve rothing in return.
so if your having that hard time figuring out why we're so vindictive, take a closer look.
Thread necro is bad - KFDM