Pervasive Anti-Americanism

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
202

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

If we don’t act in our self-interest, then in whose interest should we act? Should we then wait around for others to act in OUR interest?
LOL! Enjoy the wait…

No, it is just that you did not fight WWII because you are the champion of all that is innocent, pure and fluffy, but because rational self interest forced you to do it.

If that insight helps to tone down the rhetoric concerning WWII, that would be a lot.

You are contrasting innocence with rational self-interest. I, and most Americans, don’t accept that contrast. To act in your rational self-interest is a highly moral action.

Ever read Ayn Rand? She is the quintessential American philosopher.

[/quote]

Jefferson was the quintessential American philosopher.

If Rand is so ueber-American, how come her basic ideas sound so Austrian to me?

There is little in her work that can not be found written by Hajek or Popper.

204

[quote]Shaved wrote:
orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

And they had the good sense to put “In GOD We Trust” on our money. Wonder why?

That was actually added in 1956 during the red scare.
[/quote]

I think you are confused with our Pledge of Allegiance.

Care to guess when ‘under God’ was added to our Pledge of Allegiance?

206

[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Go-Rilla wrote:
rainjack wrote:
Name a time since the war of 1812 that we needed Euro troops to help us in any war. I doubt you will find any. France bank rolled the revolution, and donated some troops. But when was the last time any Euro-troopers were here - or anywhere else on the globe because we needed them?

I never said we were the new Rome. We are not imperialist like them, or the british, or the Spanish, or the French, or the Portuguese - or even the Germans of the 20th century.

We have no desire to rule the world. Although we are, and have been, the world’s baby sitter for some time now - that is because of the weakness of Europe not the imperialistic desires of the U.S.

The world’s currencies are pegged to the U.S. dollar because we are the model of stability compared to the rest of the world.

Like I said - make all the jokes you want. Dream up the wittiest retorts you can. The fact remains - much to your chagrin - that the U.S. is the standard by which all nations are measured.

Let me rephrase that in Zap’s vernacular: We are the Alpha Male. Europe is at best a bitchy little yippy beta male.

Until we are knocked off - nothing will change. You can look 50 years down the road with baited breath if you like, but the U.S. will still be at the front of the pack, while Europe continues to bitch and moan.

I normally stay out of these threads and just enjoy reading them but this is one of the best posts I’ve seen yet.

Very well put indeed!

The notion that the US is not imperialist is rediculous. And you’re offending every primate by calling this one of the best posts.
It’s just another stupid post by another stupid flag waving moron.

No one can argue that there are similarities between previous world empires and the U.S. but also some very big important differences too.

We don’t have official institutionalized military colonization of territory and enslavement of populations. Until we do being hateful towards Americans because we are imperial tyrants is ridiculous.

These types of anger filled simplistic posts don’t add much weight to your views or to the discussion in general. In fact this is the exact type of crap that this thread rightfully challenges.

Rainjack’s tone might be blunt and confrontational as well but at least he adds some reasonable points to the topic while he’s at it.

[/quote]

Time to put on my history hat.

At least you acknowledge that there are some similarities between previous world empires and the US. You guys have troops stationed around the world.
I know, I know, that’s just to protect these people. But that’s just what the Romans said about their legions abroad.

But you don’t enslave people.
Neither did the Romans. They forged alliances with the people they protected. They would never be able to conquer them all with their armies. Did you know that Caesar allowed Celtic leaders in the Roman Senate?

The US is imperialistic. That’s not necesarily a bad thing. I’m not saying the US is the evil empire. But it is an empire. And an empire, every empire, acts imperialistic.

So when did I become anti-American? Was it when I pointed out the stupidity of that war? The lies and the cheats to get it going?
Isn’t that war anti-American. Aren’t the lies and the cheats anti-American?

207

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Most of the world feels towards us like Wreckless does — no matter what we do, we’re evil. The problem is that America is the first country created by reason and not by chance or a club.

We especially remind the rest of the world of what THEY COULD BE, if they had balls and brains. Sure, we’re not perfect, but who is? We are the most moral and most noble country on earth and this will forever be a reproach against the immoral, the slothful, and the just plain evil in the rest of the world.

God bless (and has blessed!) the United States of America, God’s strong right hand here on earth!!

HH, you’re an extremist right wing pig. You don’t have a clue and only half a brain cell.

I’m not anti-American. I’m anti-stupidity. You don’t see the difference, because in your case, there IS no difference.

That being said, let’s explore the original post.

I’m not saying the US had it coming, but that’s what people like you hear when someone explains to them why it happened. You want to live in this pretty little magic world, where you stupid actions don’t have any consequences. That’s your choice. But don’t call me anti-American for shoving the realitiy back in your face.

Is it anti-American to say 9/11 was nog big deal?
I dunno. Was it a big deal? That depends what you compare it to. Was it a big deal compared to the dent in my car. Yeah, it was a very big deal. 3000 people dead, compared to a dent in my car, there’s no comparison.

But was it a big deal compared to the holocaust? To WWI & WWII? 3000 people dead compared to millions dead. In that light, it’s not so big a deal.

Is it a big deal compared to the situation in Africa where thousands die every day. Can you imagine that? Thousands dying every day? A 9/11 every day? Of course you can’t. Nobody can.

So why are a cheering on from the sidelines when the shit hits the fan?
Why is that Headhunter.

Is it because you’re a stupid, stupid, stupid extremist right wing nutcase? A christian fascist?

You’re as dangerous as Osama. He also believes he’s on a mission from God, striking infidels left right and center.

And like Osama, you prefer to keep a safe distance from the actual danger.

And the same goes for your ugly cheargirl Lorisco.

I’m sure you’ll both rot in hell.

Wreckless,

You do realize that you are a product of your circumstances? You live in a tiny country. Your only hope of survival is to beg the big boys to either protect you or leave you alone. This creates in you the mentality you have, that of a whining child. You are then unable to distinguish your protectors from your assasins. Furthermore, since your country is small and weak, this eventually makes you and your ilk fearful of ALL conflict, even IN SELF DEFENSE!

America will probably always protect you, save you from the big bad Nazis or those wicked Soviets. Consider it a gift from the most noble, moral, people on earth, to the whimpering little boy in a tiny country.

[/quote]

When did you ever protect anybody, you stupid cowardly fuck?

208

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

If we don’t act in our self-interest, then in whose interest should we act? Should we then wait around for others to act in OUR interest?
LOL! Enjoy the wait…

No, it is just that you did not fight WWII because you are the champion of all that is innocent, pure and fluffy, but because rational self interest forced you to do it.

If that insight helps to tone down the rhetoric concerning WWII, that would be a lot.

You are contrasting innocence with rational self-interest. I, and most Americans, don’t accept that contrast. To act in your rational self-interest is a highly moral action.

Ever read Ayn Rand? She is the quintessential American philosopher.

[/quote]

Rational self-interest. I like it.

What is so rational self-interest about the war in Iraq? About pissing of the enitre world? About making the fundamentalists more popular in the Muslim world? About vastly expanding their recruitment base?
What is so ration self interest about alienating your allies? About digging a hole (the deficit) that will take generations to crawl out from? About tying down your military (and therefore you political options regarding North Korea and Iran) for years and years? About side-tracking the war on terror and loosing sight of Osama?

Where is the rational self-interest here.

The reason most of us are pissed at the US policy is simply because it’s irrational and doesn’t serve their, nor does it serve our, self-interest.

209

Very good point about Rousseau, Irish. Those guy’s ideas have all been appropriated and corrupted now, too. The Enlightenment has been perverted.

And wreckless, despite what many others have said, you’ve made some very good points. How sad. You, and sometimes i, say that the US/west could be great, but is involved in shady stuff (and conceptualise, contextualise and elaborate on this). We are anti-American?

Isn’t the word people are searching for ‘honest’?

Uncritical thinking will be the first step towards the end of America, not outsiders lucidly pointing at errors, hoping they’ll be repaired.

210

Ok look. Oil is traded in the commoditites market. Oil is bought an sold in an open market. Anyone can go and buy oil. The government does not controll the price of crude and anyone who thinks they do is simply a fool. The price of a barrel of oil is determined by the physical cost, to make find, refine, etc. and by specualtion as to whether they will find more or what have you. About HALF to 40% of oil’s by the barrel price is based on specualtion. I hope I made it clear enough. It is even more likly there is a far larger reserve then what is estimated and that we will find more off the east cost.

211

That’s probably true, my man. But the problem is, many of the largest oil-producing states (not all) are in bed with the US, or are occupied by the US. This makes what you just said quite irrelevant. You COULD go to Saudi. You could buy oil, if you were fluent in Arabic, and very rich. You could ship it back, if you had a ship capable of such a task.

In other words, you could buy oil if you were a successful capitalist. Or you could dig it up. I’m not sure what that has to do with prominent anti-US attitudes, so i’ll try to reconcile the two-

America has a big economy. That’s a good thing. America has a lot of obese people, and their analogous leeches, huge-fucking-car drivers. This is in direct contrast to the sentiments on this website (besides the just fucking eat gang). So i’m surprised that none of you want to change things for the better.

Massive consumption of a finite resource, ‘because you can’ makes you a bully. And unpopular. Thinking you are a defacto power will court challenge, bloodshed, and ultimately, humility.

I’m not wanting to be the architect of American evolution, or destruction, or anything. Like i said before, The OP is an effect, if you want to be blind to the causes, just be a man and admit it.

212

[quote]dannyrat wrote:
That’s probably true, my man. But the problem is, many of the largest oil-producing states (not all) are in bed with the US, or are occupied by the US. This makes what you just said quite irrelevant. You COULD go to Saudi. You could buy oil, if you were fluent in Arabic, and very rich. You could ship it back, if you had a ship capable of such a task. [/quote]

Define “in bed”. List those that are “in bed”. IF we have trade agreements with a sovereign nation - we are therefore “in bed” with them?

We have trade agreements with every country in the world except maybe Cuba. Are we in bed with France? Germany?

Does that also mean they they are also “in bed” with us?

Bullshit. Bullshit. Bullshit. ALl you have to do in order to buy oil is to open an account with the CME or CBT or NYBT - any commodity trading company - and you can buy all the oil you can afford.

What are you blaming on the “huge-fucking-car-drivers”? I swear - you are the biggest fucking tool they have ever let join T-Nation.

SO we use a lot of gas - and the world hates us? For the last time - we ARE the defacto power. That is not hubris. That is a fact. How many times does it have to be told to you before you get it through your head?

Being the defacto power is the main reason we are disliked. But like it or not - you continue to need the U.S. in that position.

I think that is the real reason for the dislike. Europe wants to be the leader - but cannot even control their own members enough to agree on how to run things at home.

Being hated is part of the job. Putting up with whiny little bitches like you should not be.

213

Thanks rainjack.

214

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
orion wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

If we don’t act in our self-interest, then in whose interest should we act? Should we then wait around for others to act in OUR interest?
LOL! Enjoy the wait…

No, it is just that you did not fight WWII because you are the champion of all that is innocent, pure and fluffy, but because rational self interest forced you to do it.

If that insight helps to tone down the rhetoric concerning WWII, that would be a lot.

You are contrasting innocence with rational self-interest. I, and most Americans, don’t accept that contrast. To act in your rational self-interest is a highly moral action.

Ever read Ayn Rand? She is the quintessential American philosopher.

Rational self-interest. I like it.

What is so rational self-interest about the war in Iraq? About pissing of the enitre world? About making the fundamentalists more popular in the Muslim world? About vastly expanding their recruitment base?
What is so ration self interest about alienating your allies? About digging a hole (the deficit) that will take generations to crawl out from? About tying down your military (and therefore you political options regarding North Korea and Iran) for years and years? About side-tracking the war on terror and loosing sight of Osama?

Where is the rational self-interest here.

The reason most of us are pissed at the US policy is simply because it’s irrational and doesn’t serve their, nor does it serve our, self-interest.[/quote]

Securing the worlds energy future is a rational self interest and this is one of the foundations of our policies.

China and India are predicted to surpass U.S. oil consumption very soon. Its not just in U.S. interest that we have policies that relate to increasing and protecting mid east oil production.

We need a pro western, peacful, and terrorist free middle east for many reasons. The chance of anyone achieving this goal with or without the U.S. is slim. The best case scenarios will be grim. How we approach all this will always be a gray area and hotly debated. Thats not the same as irrational.

Two efforts are needed. One is to promote western ideals such as democracy in the region. The other unfortunately is to police with military force extremist tyrants and terrorist. These goals can and will contradict each other but to ignore either would be foolish.

Eliminating a warlike tyrant and proven threat to oil production and regime change in Iraq makes sense.

Lessening the chance of nuclear conflict and regime change in N.Korea and Iran are also important.

Bin Laden escaping justice is meaningful but even more significant is the mass destruction of his organization.

Placing so much emphasis on Iraq is costly and limiting but setting a priority isn’t irrational just because there are reasons to disagree with it.

Right now war and terrorism in the mid east is very dangerous but this danger will grow far greater as non middle east oil continues to fade.

Its not irrational to expect long term influence and change to require turmoil and setbacks in the short term.

Time is a limited resource and deficits are an imperfect tool to try and overcome it.Using credit is risky but not necessarily irrational.

We aren’t a nation blindly following irrational policy and you haven’t made your case that we are very effectively.

You still might be right and our policies are causing more problems than they solve. Being pissed at America and predicting we fuck up seems a pretty safe bet but blaming the the worlds political mess on us is not the same as it being our fault.

215

[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
Securing the worlds energy future is a rational self interest and this is one of the foundations of our policies.

China and India are predicted to surpass U.S. oil consumption very soon. Its not just in U.S. interest that we have policies that relate to increasing and protecting mid east oil production.

We need a pro western, peacful, and terrorist free middle east for many reasons. The chance of anyone achieving this goal with or without the U.S. is slim. The best case scenarios will be grim. How we approach all this will always be a gray area and hotly debated. Thats not the same as irrational.

Two efforts are needed. One is to promote western ideals such as democracy in the region. The other unfortunately is to police with military force extremist tyrants and terrorist. These goals can and will contradict each other but to ignore either would be foolish.

Eliminating a warlike tyrant and proven threat to oil production and regime change in Iraq makes sense.

Lessening the chance of nuclear conflict and regime change in N.Korea and Iran are also important.

Bin Laden escaping justice is meaningful but even more significant is the mass destruction of his organization.

Placing so much emphasis on Iraq is costly and limiting but setting a priority isn’t irrational just because there are reasons to disagree with it.

Right now war and terrorism in the mid east is very dangerous but this danger will grow far greater as non middle east oil continues to fade.

Its not irrational to expect long term influence and change to require turmoil and setbacks in the short term.

Time is a limited resource and deficits are an imperfect tool to try and overcome it.Using credit is risky but not necessarily irrational.

We aren’t a nation blindly following irrational policy and you haven’t made your case that we are very effectively.

You still might be right and our policies are causing more problems than they solve. Being pissed at America and predicting we fuck up seems a pretty safe bet but blaming the the worlds political mess on us is not the same as it being our fault. [/quote]

…short term solutions to a long term problem does not solve the problem, especially when those solutions are engaged with violence. To think otherwise is shortsighted to say the least. The importance of oil is undeniable, but it’s illogical to have everything riding on one commodity…

…talking about rational selfinterest sounds like a foreign language to me. We’re all in the same boat here, and if the ship goes down in flames, we’re all going down with it. What’s so hard to understand about that? We no longer have the luxury of polarizing the world due to our destructive capabilities, inspite of the efforts of many. If you really want to play the leading role on the worldstage, make sure your interests lie with the interests of mankind, and not just a portion of it…

216

[quote]Shaved wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
Shaved wrote:
orion wrote:
Lorisco wrote:

And they had the good sense to put “In GOD We Trust” on our money. Wonder why?

That was actually added in 1956 during the red scare.

Sounds like you need to open a history book Bro, the “In God We Trust” statement was actually added in 1864, not 1956.

Well kiss my grits you are correct sir.

I must have confused that with the fact that it wasn’t changed to our national motto until 1956.

[/quote]

Hey bro, no one is kissing anyone’s grits around here, got it!

217

[quote]ephrem wrote:

…short term solutions to a long term problem does not solve the problem, especially when those solutions are engaged with violence. To think otherwise is shortsighted to say the least. The importance of oil is undeniable, but it’s illogical to have everything riding on one commodity…

…talking about rational selfinterest sounds like a foreign language to me. We’re all in the same boat here, and if the ship goes down in flames, we’re all going down with it. What’s so hard to understand about that? We no longer have the luxury of polarizing the world due to our destructive capabilities, inspite of the efforts of many. If you really want to play the leading role on the worldstage, make sure your interests lie with the interests of mankind, and not just a portion of it…[/quote]

I don’t like it any more than any other sane person but violence to some degree is needed and will continue to be needed as world leaders struggle to stabilize the Middle East and inhibit terrorism. I think the degree of military conflict and policing is a gray area and we may be over doing it but no one can really say for certain.

I don’t like how dependent we are on oil either but the prediction that China and India will surpass U.S. oil consumption in the near future and perhaps increase demand faster than supply is a dangerous possibility. The development of a regoin that has 50% or more of the worlds proven reserves seems practical. Once again our leaders may be biased and even wrong in thinking middle east oil is crucial to the way we should handle this but their position isn’t devoid of science or reason.

To me the term rational self interest immediately meant that a reasonable person would seek to benefit himself in a way that would be as beneficial to others as possible but also understands that any act of self preservation will come at the expense of something or someone else.

I agree that the reality that mankind faces extinction not just from nature but from our own selves does up the stakes of all we do. Unfortunately any leader’s decision will always reflect the interest of some at the expense of others.You hope and try to cause more good than ill but even the greatest of men and nations is not immune to error.

218

[quote]Wreckless wrote:
Time to put on my history hat.

At least you acknowledge that there are some similarities between previous world empires and the US. You guys have troops stationed around the world.
I know, I know, that’s just to protect these people. But that’s just what the Romans said about their legions abroad.

But you don’t enslave people.
Neither did the Romans. They forged alliances with the people they protected. They would never be able to conquer them all with their armies. Did you know that Caesar allowed Celtic leaders in the Roman Senate?

The US is imperialistic. That’s not necesarily a bad thing. I’m not saying the US is the evil empire. But it is an empire. And an empire, every empire, acts imperialistic.

So when did I become anti-American? Was it when I pointed out the stupidity of that war? The lies and the cheats to get it going?
Isn’t that war anti-American. Aren’t the lies and the cheats anti-American?[/quote]

Ok your history hat seem to make you prone to cherry picking. Heres a more complete picture of how the Romans treated Gaul. Your point about comparing Roman and U.S. slave policy and your implication that the Romans were benevolent protectors compared to the U.S. are both ludicrous.

He (Julius Ceasar) conquered over 350,000 sq. miles of territory, killed over 1 million Gauls and enslaved a near equal number. Of the original estimated population of 3 million Gauls, only 1/3 remained after the wars of Caesar. Vast amounts of wealth and slaves were brought back to Rome, and Gaul remained from that time on a loyal and generally Romanized province of the growing empire.

Heres the full link if your interested:

219

Yeah thanks rainjack. I didn’t know about that commodities trading. It’s sure that you know more about business than me. If this will become a discussion about oil-selling, i’ll have to bow out.

Helio- what i was saying (don’t take offense, it’s a government policy not a personal insult) is that US is unpopular, as the regime changes seem to be inspired by oil-demand, not human compassion for those suffering under said evil regimes.

I do agree with many of your points though. Nothing is all-America’s-fault. I can respect that this is a complex situation with infinite variations.

[quote] Right now war and terrorism in the mid east is very dangerous but this danger will grow far greater as non middle east oil continues to fade.[/quote] This is what i, and i think wreckelss also mean in reference to the duplicity of ‘rational self-interest’.
An oppositional reading of this could be ‘justified greed’.

There is no innate right of the US to resources outside the US (or even inside it, if we extend the timeline far enough and want to be pedantic. I don’t) so it is the assumption that all the world’s ‘fruits’ are for America would be a problem.

Ephrem- very nice paragraph my man. Liberal though it may be.

Next post- helio- i agree with the severity of mideast terrorism etc. But the terrorism is teh effect. It’s wise to rememebr that. Before western-originated meddling, there was no anti-west terrorism from them.

Your point about self-interest (only if neccessary) is a good one. This would, of course, make such an agent very unpopular (so here is your ‘problem’)

[quote]You hope and try to cause more good than ill but even the greatest of men and nations is not immune to error.[/quote] That’s exactly why i’m saying ‘this is wrong. Here’s why’. If people are so blinded by national eminence that they forget their fallibility, it results in the kind of personal sniping and rejection i’ve encountered and commented on here in this forum.

220

I’m still trying to put my finger on the problem here, which stems from a lack of communication.
At my first US duty station I went out with some other Soldiers. One of them told me that in England, a quarter pounder with cheese is called a “Royale with cheese.” I told him he was mistaken. I mean, I was only born & raised there 26years; maybe I would know. Joe goes on to rant about how I don’t know what I’m talking about & gets quite bolshie.

Why the boring story? This attitude is being projected to the world at large more pervasively then before from America. There appears to be the pre-conception that America wants everyone else to be American. A lot of people are happy to be British/ German/ Austrian / Iraqi/ Iranian etc. instead. When this happens a disproportionately representative group of Americans reply with ignorance or emotional/ inflammatory comments. This gives Americans a very bad reputation overseas.

The other problem is inconsistency in the portrayed image of America; the perceptions non-Americans have shaped by American media. America has been represented as the guiding light of Democracy, fair play, tolerance etc.; a paragon of virtue where everyone can win, with the ?most noble, moral people on Earth.? On the whole it is. I admit the standards of living are better here than in the UK. The people are happier. I remember growing up and America was COOL! EVERYONE wanted to emigrate there. I feel lucky I did.

When America so forcefully represents itself in this way in all aspects of it?s culture and political dealings with other countries, even small inconsistencies can be glaring. The last Presidential election was not democracies finest hour and so, based on the pre-conditioned notions of America, the rest of the world could not reconcile this with America being democracies leading light. America launched into Iraq without UN or European support. Then Americans complain they are not getting enough support from the Europe? This inconsistency is confusing. Noble actions that were carried out in the name of brotherhood and the greater good (WWI, WWII, the cold war) amongst allies are now being portrayed as solely American victories and that the rest of the world should now be grateful (almost bow down in homage), where as previously they were a joint effort.

221

[quote]dannyrat wrote:

There is no innate right of the US to resources outside the US (or even inside it, if we extend the timeline far enough and want to be pedantic. I don’t) so it is the assumption that all the world’s ‘fruits’ are for America would be a problem.

[/quote]

Resources are openly and freely traded on a world market. Oil is not dispersed evenly throughout the world and I argue that all people have an innate right to trade for it even if their particular nation has zeroe oil reserves. The U.S. policy of supporting nations and individuals that share their economic views towards oil in the middle east and elsewhere is more about making the “fruits” of the world equally available to all nations on an open market. Of course we benefit but so does every other person that uses oil in the entire world.

[quote]dannyrat wrote:

Next post- helio- i agree with the severity of mideast terrorism etc. But the terrorism is teh effect. It’s wise to rememebr that. Before western-originated meddling, there was no anti-west terrorism from them.

[/quote]

Historically this comment makes little sense. The cold war was all about spheres of influence and western nations and the U.S. would have been extremely foolish to not seek influence in such an important region and allow the Soviets to be unchecked. Even if the threat of middle east terrorism today could be proven as the sole result of western policy(which it can not)I think even in hindsight many would say it was worth it to prevent communism and the Soviets from gaining dominance of the middle east.

Previous to this there has been many Western and Middle Eastern conflicts. European colonialism,
the wars of the Ottoman successesion still echo in the conflicts of the Balkans, the Turks sacked Constantinople after hundreds of years of muslims seeking its destruction, Saldin versus Richard the Lionheart, and even Alexander the Great versus Darius.

Trying to imply terrorism is the effect of some recent unjustified “western originated meddling” is an absurd simplification and a shallow insight into the history of Western and Near Eastern relations.