Why Do Europeans Hate Us?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
282

[quote]Chushin wrote:

I do not really get why it so hard for you to grasp that oppressive dictators don’t give up their control without a fight, and that sometimes the “people” don’t have the means to fight back on their own. Why is it ok for “domestic” rulers to use force against their own, but not for others to use force to free the oppressed majority?

Your tax-related statements are interesting. Do you pay your taxes in Austria? Is that money used to significantly influence people you’ve never heard of? Do you agree with everything your government does? How can you willingly (otherwise, it’s “by force” – your phrase --) support a government that treats immigrants so inhumanely, for example?
[/quote]

Your first argument is nonsense.

As you can clearly see, no one keeps a lid on Baghdad if the Iraqis do not want him to. They could have gotten rid of him, he just did not piss them off enough yet, something the US managed to do. Maybe 10 years of genocidal sanctions make people rally around their leaders, even the really, really bad ones?

The second one is full of half truths.

A) We treat our immigrants pretty well.

B) Usually we treat our asylum seekers like shit, unless of course we see that they truly have a political reason to flee.

We took more people in per head and sometimes in absolute numbers during the uprisings against communism in Prague, Hungary and the war on the balcans and we are a small country.

Yet, with more immigrants per head than Paris, London or Rome in Vienna no subways explode, no ghettos burn (since we don`t have any) and the one kebab stand that exploded was probably a case of insurance fraud.

So, while I do agree that people seeking political asylum for all kinds of reasons are not treated well, we do not go out in the world to kick some asylum seeking ass, in fact we do not kick them when they are here.

It is pretty easy to avoid Austrian violence. Don´t come here and start shit.

We do not kidnap, we do not torture, we do not start wars.

283

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

We can’t use bombs tanks and jets, but car and suicide bombs are ok? How exactly would you want to overthrow a dictator, by giving them flowers?
[/quote]

I know it seems like it is in the best interest of an oppressed public to rid them of their oppressor as soon as possible. But how many instances of regime change have been good for that public? No sane person can honestly claim that Saddam, if left in place, would have killed as many Iraqis in the last 4.5 years as have died under the current occupation, especially given his declining power. The continuance of the sanctions may have been able to come close though.

The issue of the power vacuum left in the wake of a deposed dictator can be very dangerous if the society in question isn’t ready for revolution. All the great people’s revolutions in history were successful because the society was willing and ready to make the necessary sacrifices. If sacrifices are needed, they shouldn’t be forced upon an unwilling public. How would we like it?

Did this come straight out of a 60’s propaganda video? You’re right, lots of other countries engage in this type of behavior. Does that alone make it just? No serious scholar believes that Vietnam, Laos and others were struggles for American survival.

Let he who is without sin…

You know what? If you want to talk about the crimes of other countries, why don’t you start threads about them. I’ve noticed that most of the threads in this forum center around US policy. This is to be expected as most of the people that post here are American, and the US is, of course, the most powerful and influential country in the world. For that reason, you can’t expect people from other countries to stay out of these debates as everything that happens in the US effects everyone else in the world (a burden of empire). Finally, criticizing obviously brutal regimes is a) redundant and b) ineffectual. Only the people of those countries can effect change.

So, start up some alternative threads and see how they do.

285

[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:

I know it seems like it is in the best interest of an oppressed public to rid them of their oppressor as soon as possible. But how many instances of regime change have been good for that public? No sane person can honestly claim that Saddam, if left in place, would have killed as many Iraqis in the last 4.5 years as have died under the current occupation, especially given his declining power. The continuance of the sanctions may have been able to come close though.

[/quote]

In another thread didn’t you say 500,000 children died from sanctions? The sanctions that lead to “his declining power.” Of course Saddam did kill many of those himself by scamming the Oil for Food program (which also reversed his decline to some degree.) And of course, had the world turned away and dropped the sanctions, he’d have restarted his WMD production. While stockpiles weren’t found, a key finding was that he had compartmentalized programs with the intention to restart in the future.

286

[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:

Did this come straight out of a 60’s propaganda video? You’re right, lots of other countries engage in this type of behavior. Does that alone make it just? No serious scholar believes that Vietnam, Laos and others were struggles for American survival.

You know what? If you want to talk about the crimes of other countries, why don’t you start threads about them. I’ve noticed that most of the threads in this forum center around US policy. This is to be expected as most of the people that post here are American, and the US is, of course, the most powerful and influential country in the world. For that reason, you can’t expect people from other countries to stay out of these debates as everything that happens in the US effects everyone else in the world (a burden of empire). Finally, criticizing obviously brutal regimes is a) redundant and b) ineffectual. Only the people of those countries can effect change.

So, start up some alternative threads and see how they do.
[/quote]

First off, as far as survival goes, you need to look at the bigger picture than just Laos Cambodia and Vietnam and see that the Communists were backing rebels in every continent of the world.

Secondly, maybe I don’t want to start a thread about other countries, but it is not fair to make the US out as the worst country in the world time and time again when there were other countries which were way worse. If someone insults my country I have a right to bring up anything I want in order to defend it.

If you have a problem with me going back to the 60’s to make a point, maybe the person I was actually talking to should stay out of affairs which he knows little about other than the anti-US propaganda he has been indoctrinated with. He went back to the 60’s in his arguement, I merely responded.

As far as the US overthrowing democratically elected presidents, a lot of the world’s worst dictators were democratically elected. It does not make one a saint just because one was elected to office.

287

[quote]Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:
Chushin wrote:

Your first argument is nonsense.

As you can clearly see, no one keeps a lid on Baghdad if the Iraqis do not want him to. They could have gotten rid of him, he just did not piss them off enough yet, something the US managed to do. Maybe 10 years of genocidal sanctions make people rally around their leaders, even the really, really bad ones?

The second one is full of half truths.

A) We treat our immigrants pretty well.

B) Usually we treat our asylum seekers like shit, unless of course we see that they truly have a political reason to flee.

We took more people in per head and sometimes in absolute numbers during the uprisings against communism in Prague, Hungary and the war on the balcans and we are a small country.

Yet, with more immigrants per head than Paris, London or Rome in Vienna no subways explode, no ghettos burn (since we don`t have any) and the one kebab stand that exploded was probably a case of insurance fraud.

So, while I do agree that people seeking political asylum for all kinds of reasons are not treated well, we do not go out in the world to kick some asylum seeking ass, in fact we do not kick them when they are here.

It is pretty easy to avoid Austrian violence. Don´t come here and start shit.

We do not kidnap, we do not torture, we do not start wars.

  1. Why do you limit yourself to Iraq? Do you honestly think that the North Korean people are “choosing” the life they want? Or any other of a number of people living under dictatorship? That’s about the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard.

And BTW, I’d seriously question your assumption that the majority Shiite population of Iraq “wanted” Saddam to stay in power.

  1. Your dismissive (and insulting) attitude aside, you did not answer any of the questions I asked in my second paragraph. The “immigrant” part was only an example – maybe even a bad one. Can you please address the questions that I asked:

Do you pay your taxes in Austria? Is that money used to significantly influence people you’ve never heard of? Do you agree with everything your government does? How can you willingly (otherwise, it’s “by force”) support your government if not?

Again, BTW, it’s no grand achievement that you do not “kidnap, torture, or start wars” when you simply can’t (but have in the past.)

Anyway, it’s become clear to me that you’re not really interested in “leaving people alone”… except for when it fits with your own agenda and circumstances. [/quote]

First of all we could easily kidnap and torture you-

You might think that Austria’s intelligence agencies and military are a joke but if you really think they could not get your address, smuggle you out of wherever and rip you a new asshole you are deluded.

If Israel can do it, so can we.

If they can develop nukes, so can we.

So can`t is bullshit.

We could, we just choose not to.

Then, of course my country does things with my money I do not agree with, murder on a large scale, kidnapping and torturing people just are not among those things.

I am old enough to know the difference between seat belt laws and waterboarding.

289

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
johnnybravo30 wrote:

Secondly, maybe I don’t want to start a thread about other countries, but it is not fair to make the US out as the worst country in the world time and time again when there were other countries which were way worse. If someone insults my country I have a right to bring up anything I want in order to defend it.

[/quote]
People don’t mean to insult America, they criticize government policy. What is America anyway? The people or the government? You need to read The Foreign Policy Disconnect. See how much government policy reflects the will of the people. Maybe then you won’t take criticism of the government so personally.

290

I’m just not worried about what the Europeans think. And they don’t have to be worried about what I think, for that matter. But, I believe we’re fighting a war (not just Iraq) that would have been fought on a much grander scale by the next generation or two. If I feel that it HAS to be fought in order to secure this nation, than the opinion of Europe matters little. If I believe it is vital, than I’m not going to change my mind because Europeans disagree.

And frankly, in the future, I’m not really counting on Europe to be much of an ally. Unless, of course, they find themselves as a target. Then non-interventionism and isolationism won’t be regarded so highly.

291

[quote]johnnybravo30 wrote:
People don’t mean to insult America, they criticize government policy. What is America anyway? The people or the government? You need to read The Foreign Policy Disconnect. See how much government policy reflects the will of the people. Maybe then you won’t take criticism of the government so personally.
[/quote]

I do not take it personally, I have a right to defend policy which I agree with. I am against the war on Iraq. I feel we should have handled things differently and used every ally we could have had in the war against al-qaeda.

By this I mean Cuba, Hezbollah, and also possibly Iran, all who expressed grief over the attacks on 9-11. We could have buried the hatchet with old cold war enemies and wiped al-qaeda out.

Now that we are in Iraq, I see the importance of us defeating the insurgency there (regardless of how or why it is there) and stabilizing the ME. I believe it is in Iran’s interest to also aid us in doing this, though they are doing quite the opposite I’m afraid.

292

[quote]Gkhan wrote:
johnnybravo30 wrote:
People don’t mean to insult America, they criticize government policy. What is America anyway? The people or the government? You need to read The Foreign Policy Disconnect. See how much government policy reflects the will of the people. Maybe then you won’t take criticism of the government so personally.

I do not take it personally, I have a right to defend policy which I agree with. I am against the war on Iraq. I feel we should have handled things differently and used every ally we could have had in the war against al-qaeda.

By this I mean Cuba, Hezbollah, and also possibly Iran, all who expressed grief over the attacks on 9-11. We could have buried the hatchet with old cold war enemies and wiped al-qaeda out.

Now that we are in Iraq, I see the importance of us defeating the insurgency there (regardless of how or why it is there) and stabilizing the ME. I believe it is in Iran’s interest to also aid us in doing this, though they are doing quite the opposite I’m afraid.[/quote]

Hezbollah? Iran? Two supporters of islamic terrorism?

293

Sure, why not? My theory about it is this:
(if you don’t agree, that’s ok)

But right after 9-11, the leader of Hezbollah came out and blasted al-qaeda and Bin Laden for their attack on the US.

Right after that, we announced our global war on terror. Israel said, “we will not join but will fight terror our own way.”

Hezbollah is mainly a foe of Israel. When Israel declined to join our war on terror, why not take Hezbollah up on the deal? I guess it wouldn’t have hurt to ask. Who better to attack Wahabbi terrorists than their ideological enemies the Shia? Who better to know about terrorists than other terrorists?

Remember what Ottoman Sultan Selim said to rally his troops in an attack on Persia:

“The head of a Shia is worth 10 Christian heads.”

That’s how much these bastards hate each other. And if Hezbollah gets whipped in a war against al-qaeda, so what? We win either way.

That’s my theory for what it’s worth.

294

This is similar to what the Soviets did on their advance on Warsaw during WWII. As the Reds approached, the city rose up against the Nazis. The Soviets remained on the other side of a river while the fight went on. They did nothing to help the Polish rebels.

After the Nazi’s exhausted themselves suppressing the rebels, the Soviets crossed the river, easily drove the Nazi’s out and crushed any remaining (British backed) Polish rebels. They then put Moscow backed Poles in charge.

I always thought this was a brilliant tho brutal move on Stalin’s part.

295

[quote]lixy wrote:
Let me recapitulate: Muslims hate you because they are jealous of your freedoms; Latin Americans hate you because you have a lot of money; The Chinese hate they are a bunch of mindless communists; Europeans hate you for all the reasons cited HH’s post.

The mind boggles.[/quote]

So so true…

296

[quote]sawadeekrob wrote:
lixy wrote:
Let me recapitulate: Muslims hate you because they are jealous of your freedoms; Latin Americans hate you because you have a lot of money; The Chinese hate they are a bunch of mindless communists; Europeans hate you for all the reasons cited HH’s post.

The mind boggles.

So so true…[/quote]

Lixy’s first paragraph is probably pretty close to the truth. Shithole nations that keep their people in bondage usually hate countries where freedom is the norm, where you are only limited by your ambition and your vision, and where the people look forward to the future instead of trying to avoid their own future.

They invent bullshit philosophies with which they try to infect us with the worship of ‘Need’. It worked for while; Ron Paul is evidence that we’re recoving from the illness of Unselfishness.

297

[quote]Chushin wrote:

So, clearly, Austrians are morally superior to Americans, right? And all this time I thought that people pretty much had the same weaknesses everywhere, and pretty much did whatever they could get away with… How foolish of me. [/quote]

Do not despair I`ll repeat it as often as possible-

Small government, good-

Big government, bad to very, very bad…

Austria, small country, therefore relatively little (in absolute terms) government.

USA, big country + Americans that are easily manipulated and do not give a shit+ plus MIC = murdering, torturing Leviathan.

300

[quote]orion wrote:
Chushin wrote:

So, clearly, Austrians are morally superior to Americans, right? And all this time I thought that people pretty much had the same weaknesses everywhere, and pretty much did whatever they could get away with… How foolish of me.

Do not despair I`ll repeat it as often as possible-

Small government, good-

Big government, bad to very, very bad…

Austria, small country, therefore relatively little (in absolute terms) government.

USA, big country + Americans that are easily manipulated and do not give a shit+ plus MIC = murdering, torturing Leviathan.

[/quote]

bota,

Then how do you explain the unimaginable horrors carried out by your ancestors?

If a small, weak, inconsequential country like austria kills, murders, and maims on such a grand scale, extrapolating to the “Leviathan” U.S. would leave no one alive.

Since you still breathe, it sounds like your theory is flawed.

Thank Goodness.

JeffR

301

[quote]Chushin wrote:
orion wrote:
Americans that are easily manipulated and do not give a shit

Oh my! Are you denigrating the American people?
[/quote]

No, sheeple in general