# Why do they hate US?



## Everness

Bradley Butterfield, from the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, wrote a fantastic article entitled "The Baudrillardian Symbolic, 9/11, and the War     of Good and Evil." It reflects on the contributions of Jean Baudrillard, a notorious French sociologist, cultural critic, and theorist of postmodernity. http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/pmc/text-only/issue.902/13.1butterfield.txt

In this article, Butterfield makes an interesting point: "So far the U.S. has ignored it by refusing to answer the implicit question: Why do they hate us? By what right do we exploit their resources, overthrow their elected leaders, and drop bombs on their people?"

Do you think this is a good time for the US to answer these implicit questions, especially the first one: *Why do they hate us? *Would this be a relevant or futile intellectual exercise? At least the timing is pretty good: Britain has just thwarted an alleged major plot to attack America-bound airliners and in exactly one month, it's the 5th anniversary of 9/11.


----------



## GenJen54

everness said:
			
		

> Do you think this is a good time for the US to answer these implicit questions, especially the first one: *Why do they hate us? *Would this be a relevant or futile intellectual exercise? At least the timing is pretty good: Britain has just thwarted an alleged major plot to attack America-bound airliners and in exactly one month, it's the 5th anniversary of 9/11.



For those who possess neither the time nor interest to read this article (it is a bit long and rambling), I strongly suggest you paraphrase, giving the following as points of understanding:

1) Brief recap of Monsieur Baudrillard, who he is and from what his philosophy arises;
2) Brief recap of the article in question and what it asks us to question. 

Only the can I believe we can offer a fair thread up for discussion.  Thank you.


----------



## Everness

The best and shortest introduction to Monsieur Baudrillard you'll find it in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/baudrillard/   However, I believe that Baudrillard merits a separate thread.

This article isn't easy to read. However, this shouldn't get in our way. Reading and understanding the article isn't a prerequisite to answering the question the author raises. I pose it again:

*Why do they hate the US?* 

Why would people plan to use an explosive to attack up to 10 airplanes bound for destinations in the United States and kill hundreds of people on board, mostly Americans? Do they harbor deep-seated hatred toward all Americans and not just toward the Bush administration or something else motivates their murderous behavior? 

Baudrillard's explanation is a good one. In "L'Esprit du Terrorisme," he argues that the US' agenda of dominating the world creates global resistance.  

_It goes well beyond the hatred that the desolate and the exploited--those who ended up on the wrong side of the new world order--feel toward the dominant global power. This malicious desire resides in the hearts of even those who have shared in the spoils. The allergy to absolute order, to absolute power, is universal, and the two towers of the World Trade Center were, precisely because of their identicality, the perfect incarnation of this absolute order. ("L'Esprit" 13)_
http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/pmc/text-only/issue.902/13.1butterfield.txt


----------



## .   1

This is a fascinating question on a number of levels and I am very interested in possible replies but I must foirst ask one small clarifying question of my own.

Why did you ask this question clothed in hatred?

I did not see the day that the Trade Centre fell down as acts of hatred but rather the ultimate act of desperation by an ideologically barren group of life's unfortunates totally void of alternative thinking not very dissimilar to many other religiously motivated acts of group suicide.

.,,


----------



## foxfirebrand

. said:
			
		

> Why did you ask this question clothed in hatred?


 I agree!  The formal structure of this ostensible question is a logical fallacy called _begging the question_ (a much-misused expression) or _petitio principii__._

First ask "do they," and then I wish you lots of luck even approaching a consensus, much less delving into the _why_ of it.  

Why do you deny you persist in beating your wife?
.


----------



## maxiogee

*If* someone hates you - then it can only be a good and useful thing to find out why.
*If* someone hates you, and you find out why - what are you going to do about it?

Understanding other peoples has never been a long suit of hawkish people. 
And in recent years hawkish - it appears to me -  has been in the ascendant in the foreign relationships of the United States of America.


----------



## .   1

I had a bit of a ferret around about this Baudrillard bloke.
I am having a difficult time swallowing his attachment to 'cultural metaphysics' or 'hyperreality' or 'pataphysics'.

It appears that he was slapped across the face with a mop full of bleak.

Some of his quotes would gag a stote.
http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/jean_baudrillard/2.html

.,,


----------



## jazyk

When I first saw this thread, I thought it said Why do they hate us? What have we done that is so bad?


----------



## Everness

First, it's not that I don't welcome what Aussies, Irish and fellow Americans have to say, but I'm definitely more intrigued about what people from other countries have to say. If this isn't the right question to ask, which is it? Help us. For instance, here's another paragraph of an article Baudrillard wrote in November 2, 2001. It was published by Le Monde. 

_All the speeches and commentaries betray a gigantic abreaction to the event itself and to the fascination that it exerts. Moral condemnation and the sacred union against terrorism are equal to the prodigious jubilation engendered by witnessing this global superpower being destroyed; better, by seeing it more or less self-destroying, even suiciding spectacularly. Though it is (this superpower) that has, through its unbearable power, engendered all that violence brewing around the world, and therefore this terrorist imagination which — unknowingly — inhabits us all. _

http://www.egs.edu/faculty/baudrillard/baudrillard-the-spirit-of-terrorism.html

Did you react to the collapse of the Twin Towers the way Baudrillard describes it? Did you experience this "prodigious jubilation" Baudrillard talks about? Or is it just this crazy old French who thinks like a terrorist? 

His next paragraph is even more telling and subversive.

_That we have dreamed of this event, that everybody without exception has dreamt of it, because everybody must dream of the destruction of any power hegemonic to that degree,  — this is unacceptable for Western moral conscience, but it is still a fact, and one which is justly measured by the pathetic violence of all those discourses which attempt to erase it. _

http://www.egs.edu/faculty/baudrillard/baudrillard-the-spirit-of-terrorism.html

Do you also agree that this terrorist imagination inhabits us all? Did you dream of this event? It's interesting that Baudrillard argues that dreaming of the destruction of any power hgemonic is unacceptable for Western moral conscience and therefore we try to erase it with words. (See above replies.) 

Second, Mark LeVine wrote an interesting book  "Why They Don't Hate Us." LeVine writes that "Why do they hate us?" is the wrong post-9/11 question for the West to ask. Is this also the wrong question to ask? Are there right questions or the whole thing is completely irrational and there's no way we can figure it out and do something about it? Here's an interview with Mr. LeVine. 
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/179/story_17909_1.html

Third, I think that the Butterfield's questions are good questions: "So far the U.S. has ignored it by refusing to answer the implicit question: Why do they hate us? By what right do we exploit their resources, overthrow their elected leaders, and drop bombs on their people?" Instead of becoming defensive, Americans should deal with these questions and, at least, try to answer them or rule them out as valid questions.


----------



## bernik

_"All the speeches and commentaries betray a gigantic abreaction to the event itself "_

This is exactly my thought. Comparing these examples with their parasitic gap counterparts, we see that the appearance of parasitic gaps in domains relatively inaccessible to ordinary extraction is not to be considered in determining the requirement that branching is not tolerated within the dominance scope of a complex symbol. For one thing, a descriptively adequate grammar raises serious doubts about an abstract underlying order. Thus the theory of syntactic features developed earlier delimits the levels of acceptability from fairly high to virtual gibberish. Nevertheless, the earlier discussion of deviance is rather different from a general convention regarding the forms of the grammar. On the other hand, any associated supporting element suffices to account for the extended c-command discussed in connection with.

_(from the chomskybot)_


----------



## ireney

Some random thoughts.

Ignoring the fact that some people do hate the US (and the West in general) is ridiculous. I think however that very few people ascribe this 'hatred' only to pure jealousy (you have power and money and we don't). Most people realise that it is more than that.

Can we actually find logical reasons for such a hatred as some actually feel? (the "all things from the US are evil; all Americans are evil; All American people and things must perish" kind). There are some reasons behind it, logical reasons I mean, but hatred of this kind is irrational and these people need to see a psychiatrist or a psychologist. I mean it. I don't care if part of it is mob mentality or not; It's pure racism and should be dealt as such.

Did people in Greece (I can't talk about any other country you see) felt that "prodigious jubilation"? No. Quite a few were happy that the US were attacked in their own soil in a 'taste your own medicine' way. The vast majority of them, I'm ashamed to admit, didn't think it through at first. They didn't think of the innocent victims (on or off the air planes), they didn't think that a civilian target is not an acceptable one for "freedom fighters" etc. When they did you could see the utter shame (in most of them, not all, I'm afraid) for cheering for the hit.

I bet those who never felt any sympathy for the victims may indeed have felt "prodigious jubilation". The rest of the population no. Not even those who didn't think things through at first. I doubt however that anyone thought that they witnessed "this global superpower being destroyed" and no one in the world could possibly consider the hit as an act of suicide by the US. That doesn't make any sense!

I am happy to say that I have yet to speak with a person that has dreamt of killing innocent civilians.

I have discussed with a few what will happen if the US is not a super-power anymore; this is a purely theoretical discussion based on the fact that, historically speaking, the trend seems to be that superpowers fall. History is not a Holy Book and you cannot predict the future by knowing the past, yet you can talk about the future based on the surmise that history often repeats itself (broadly speaking). 
In none of these discussions have we referred to how the US will fall from its place as the world's only superpower. 

Rational people with a healthy degree of cynicism know that, while we must all strive for a better future and there's always the hope that in some distant day the humankind will change enough for true global equality, peace and happiness, the reality is that, when and if the US is not a super-power anymore, another, similar to the US will come forth.


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:
			
		

> If this isn't the right question to ask, which is it?



How about starting out with an open mind - *do* they hate us?
But first you need to define a few things, us and them for starters.
Do you speak of terrorists in this "they" or of a wider range of people?
Who is "us"? Your first post speaks of the U.S. and also speaks of Britain, do your "they" see a difference, or is their animus coming from some non-national angle?


----------



## southerngal

maxiogee said:
			
		

> How about starting out with an open mind - *do* they hate us?
> But first you need to define a few things, us and them for starters.
> Do you speak of terrorists in this "they" or of a wider range of people?
> Who is "us"? Your first post speaks of the U.S. and also speaks of Britain, do your "they" see a difference, or is their animus coming from some non-national angle?


 
I agree completely.  Also, anyone who says that the entire world hates the USA is simply being small and close-minded or hasn't traveled very much, because that isn't true at all.  I think threads like this are pessimistic and harmful to us all.  Discussions of politics are good, but when they come cloaked with such hatred, as others have mentioned, it shows that minds are already closed and discussion is rather futile.


----------



## Everness

ireney said:
			
		

> Did people in Greece (I can't talk about any other country you see) felt that "prodigious jubilation"? No. Quite a few were happy that the US were attacked in their own soil in a 'taste your own medicine' way.



This makes sense. It's not that people were happy with the fact that almost 3,000 individuals died on 9/11 but that a battle on this ongoing war on terror took place on our soil, actually in the heart of the Big Apple. But I don't think this had any effect on the way we conducted the war against international terrorism. Actually it backfired because the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq immediately followed 9/11. The never-ending circle of violence continues... http://www.capmag.com/terrorism/faq.htm

_"The ideals that have inspired our history - freedom, democracy, and human dignity - are increasingly inspiring individuals and nations throughout the world. ... We choose leadership over isolationism, and the pursuit of free trade and open markets over protectionism. We choose to deal with challenges now rather than leaving them for future generations. *We fight our enemies abroad instead of waiting for them to arrive in our country. We seek to shape the world, not merely be shaped by it; to influence events for the better instead of being at their mercy."*_

President George W. Bush
Letter Introducing The National Security Strategy
March 16, 2006
http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/nationalsecurity/index.html

Wouldn't it be a good idea to start working on trying to shape ourselves and not the world? Just a thought...


----------



## maxiogee

southerngal said:
			
		

> I agree completely.  Also, anyone who says that the entire world hates the USA is simply being small and close-minded or hasn't traveled very much, because that isn't true at all.


Truth in this matter doesn't count for much. Perception, for many people, *is* reality when it comes to 'opponents'.
And in all honesty, in the age of the sound-bite and with television programming geared towards reinforcing beliefs rather than exploring issues, can we expect much understanding of hugely complex issues to come from people who, in many countries, couldn't locate the areas under discussion on a map of the world?


----------



## Outsider

Why look at Western philosophers for an answer, though? It's not that Westerners can't be well informed, sometimes, but bin Laden himself explained why he attacked the US, didn't he? I believe Al Qaeda issued statements about at least some of the other bombings, too.


----------



## southerngal

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Truth in this matter doesn't count for much. Perception, for many people, *is* reality when it comes to 'opponents'.
> And in all honesty, in the age of the sound-bite and with television programming geared towards reinforcing beliefs rather than exploring issues, can we expect much understanding of hugely complex issues to come from people who, in many countries, couldn't locate the areas under discussion on a map of the world?


 
Very true.  Most issues are much more complex than they appear on the surface.  What is frightening is when people make judgments on others based on nothing more than a few quotes or surface information only.


----------



## maxiogee

But the question is not "why did they attack us?" 
It is a different thing to ask "Why do they hate us" — particularly as the "they" in each case might well be different.


----------



## maxiogee

southerngal said:
			
		

> Very true.  Most issues are much more complex than they appear on the surface.  What is frightening is when people make judgments on others based on nothing more than a few quotes or surface information only.


Touché


----------



## Outsider

maxiogee said:
			
		

> But the question is not "why did they attack us?"


I'm assuming Everness' answer to that question is "Because they hate us".


----------



## claudine2006

Everness said:
			
		

> Bradley Butterfield, from the University of Wisconsin, La Crosse, wrote a fantastic article entitled "The Baudrillardian Symbolic, 9/11, and the War of Good and Evil." It reflects on the contributions of Jean Baudrillard, a notorious French sociologist, cultural critic, and theorist of postmodernity. http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/pmc/text-only/issue.902/13.1butterfield.txt
> 
> In this article, Butterfield makes an interesting point: "So far the U.S. has ignored it by refusing to answer the implicit question: Why do they hate us? By what right do we exploit their resources, overthrow their elected leaders, and drop bombs on their people?"
> 
> Do you think this is a good time for the US to answer these implicit questions, especially the first one: *Why do they hate us? *Would this be a relevant or futile intellectual exercise? At least the timing is pretty good: Britain has just thwarted an alleged major plot to attack America-bound airliners and in exactly one month, it's the 5th anniversary of 9/11.


 
Let's start: who are *they*? If we speak about *us* and *them* it means that we put us and them in conflicting.
What I think is that there are a lot of people around the world who don't like USA policy. Of course, not all Americans agrees with Bush's foreign policy, but what it's what we see. 
Our idea of USA is what USA government does. 

It's not always easy to understand why West had to stop Saddam massacres but not Israel massacres. 
It's not easy to understand why to kill children in Irak is not terrorism (only because it's made by soldiers??). 
It's not easy to understand why USA can have atomic bomb and Iran or Korea cannot.

Probably American way to see the situation is different: if an American asks himself why there is an anti-American feeling all around the word, that means he thinks USA is doing it well (fighting for democracy, to help other countries to have his own government).


----------



## .   1

Everness said:
			
		

> First, it's not that I don't welcome what Aussies, Irish and fellow Americans have to say, but I'm definitely more intrigued about what people from other countries have to say.


I am sorry to have become involved in a thread where my opinion is considered to be of less value because of my nationality despite a stupifying lack of clarity in the original question.
Just in case anyone is confused may I state that Australia has not yet become a part of the munificent U.S. of A. and I suspect that Ireland may well consider themselves to to hold independent views of their own.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

Outsider said:
			
		

> I'm assuming Everness' answer to that question is "Because they hate us".



Assumptions are at the heart of all this, aren't they?
Everness didn't ask why did they attack us, so pointing towards announcements by Bin Laden, or other Al Qaida spokespersons (okay, spokesmen — that's a job no woman is ever going to get!) doesn't tell us anything about the general question of "hate" - bear in mind that people on the other side of the world probably think every X-lander thinks the way the head of state, or foreign minister of X-land thinks. 
None of us get very close to the real thoughts of the ordinary citizen of most other countries. 
Heck if the different sides of politics in any country can claim that their diametrically opposed opinions represent the grass roots voter, what chance do foreigners have?


----------



## Outsider

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Assumptions are at the heart of all this, aren't they?
> Everness didn't ask why did they attack us, so pointing towards announcements by Bin Laden, or other Al Qaida spokespersons (okay, spokesmen — that's a job no woman is ever going to get!) doesn't tell us anything about the general question of "hate" [...]


I absolutely disagree. Ask a random American whether he thinks "they" hate the USA, and I think that many will answer "Yes". Ask the same American how he knows that the USA are hated, and you are likely to be given 9/11 as evidence.



			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> [...] bear in mind that people on the other side of the world probably think every X-lander thinks the way the head of state, or foreign minister of X-land thinks.


And not just on the other side of the world. It's a pretty common attitude on this side, too. E.g. just mention the word "Iran", and I bet you'll conjure up memories of president Ahmadinejad's antisemitic statements in the average Western mind.


----------



## maxiogee

Outsider said:
			
		

> I absolutely disagree. Ask a random American whether he thinks "they" hate the USA, and I think that many will answer "Yes". Ask the same American how he knows that the USA are hated, and you are likely to be given 9/11 as evidence.


This is just evidence of my pet peeve - sloppy thinking on the part of that average citizen. The pat answers come because that average person has been told that this they hate the US, and that that hatred was the only reason for 9/11.



> And not just on the other side of the world. It's a pretty common attitude on this side, too. E.g. just mention the word "Iran", and I bet you'll conjure up memories of president Ahmadinejad's antisemitic statements in the average Western mind.


I didn't use "other side" loosely — I was referring to _any_ country not knowing about those far away from it.


----------



## ireney

Everness said:
			
		

> This makes sense. It's not that people were happy with the fact that almost 3,000 individuals died on 9/11 but that a battle on this ongoing war on terror took place on our soil, actually in the heart of the Big Apple. But I don't think this had any effect on the way we conducted the war against international terrorism. Actually it backfired because the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq immediately followed 9/11. The never-ending circle of violence continues... http://www.capmag.com/terrorism/faq.htm



It does? I don't quite see how. This attack was focused on the moral of the Americans and not their resources. As such it only makes sense to be happy if you are of the malicious, vindictive kind. That is why I said that when they thought through it, when they actually realised what it was all about you could see the utter shame in their faces. I don't use words as 'utter' lightly.

Notice that I didn't discuss the ramifications of the action. I would also like to note that, with the exception of a few, people in Greece don't hate the Americans. More than a few hate the way the American foreign policy is... conducted, but then the majority of them also hates the way the Greek foreign [and internal policy] is conducted.
Most are adamantly opposed to that policy.

As a final side-note I fail to see why the opinions of a citizen of a member of both NATO and the EU is somehow more valid ?, interesting ?, than anyone else's


----------



## Everness

Man! This is getting too complicated. I thought it was an easy question! 

First we need clarify what do we mean with "us" and "them." I must confess that I had the same problem when W. back in November of 2001 said: "You are either with us or against us."  "You, Mr. President?" Who is "you"? However, W. was smart enough not to identify who he meant with "you." 

_Bush said he would not point out any specific countries in his speech.

"Over time it's going to be important for nations to know they will be held accountable for inactivity," he said. "You're either with us or against us in the fight against terror."_
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/

Maybe the question "Why do they hate the US?" can only be answered at an individual level and it's impossible to answer it at a group or country level. (I wonder if people have been polled abroad on the question: "Do you hate the US?") So only you, my dear reader, know if you hate or love --or something in between-- the US. But maybe we should be using other less-charged words that could capture our feelings toward the US more appropriately. After all, some of us don't have the capacity to hate. Or maybe we shouldn't be talking about feelings altogether!


----------



## Everness

southerngal said:
			
		

> I agree completely.  Also, anyone who says that the entire world hates the USA is simply being small and close-minded or hasn't traveled very much, because that isn't true at all.



southerngal,

Saying that the entire world hates the USA isn't an example of close-mindness or lack of travelling time abroad. Saying the opposite, namely that the entire world loves the USA doesn't indicate that you are an open-minded individual or that you are using all your frequent miles. 

So what's the problem with this type of statements? They are incapable of being falsified. That's why they are useless and pointless. Sir Karl Popper once said, "Irrefutability is not a virtue of a theory (as people often think) but a vice."


----------



## Everness

Outsider said:
			
		

> I'm assuming Everness' answer to that question is "Because they hate us".



I strongly believe in internal psychological coherence. THOUGHTS -> FEELINGS -> BEHAVIOR. For instance, if I see you as a lovable person (thought or values), I'll have loving feelings toward you (feelings) and I'll act lovingly toward you (behavior). The opposite would also be true. If I see you as a despicable individual (thought or values), I'll despise you (feelings) and I will make sure that you know that I dislike you intensely and regard you with contempt. 

However, .,, said something interesting: 



			
				. said:
			
		

> I did not see the day that the Trade Centre fell down as acts of hatred but rather the ultimate act of desperation by an ideologically barren group of life's unfortunates totally void of alternative thinking not very dissimilar to many other religiously motivated acts of group suicide. .,,



So maybe a murderous behavior isn't informed by hatred but desperation. I would take it a step further. Maybe this type of planning and execution of terrostist acts is carried out by people who are thinking clearly and not acting out of raw bitterness, vindictiveness and rage. They have a clear political agenda and clear objectives and tactics. We might see them as monsters but they might see themselves as political/military operators.


----------



## Kräuter_Fee

The question for me is... "who did it?"... 

You've probably heard before no plane hit the Pentagon and that it was a missile.    

That's all I wanted to add, I don't really like to get involved in such discussions, they don't bring any good.

Greetings!


----------



## Everness

claudine2006 said:
			
		

> Let's start: who are *they*? If we speak about *us* and *them* it means that we put us and them in conflicting.
> What I think is that there are a lot of people around the world who don't like USA policy. Of course, not all Americans agrees with Bush's foreign policy, but what it's what we see.
> Our idea of USA is what USA government does.



I agree with you Claudine. Some naive Americans want people abroad to separate who we are as a people from what our government does. Such request might be somewhat fair but impossible to honor. But let's not forget a very important fact. Americans had a chance to get rid of Bush in November of 2004 but we didn't. We reelected him. He got 50.7% of the popular vote, the first presidential candidate since his father George H.W. Bush in 1988 to recieve a majority of votes. This election was a referendum on Bush's job perfomance to date, in particular his leadership in the prosecution of the "War on Terror". Kerry contended that the war had been incompetently executed, and that the Iraq War was a distraction from the "War on Terror", not a part of it. But he is still a Senator...



			
				claudine2006 said:
			
		

> It's not always easy to understand why West had to stop Saddam massacres but not Israel massacres.
> It's not easy to understand why to kill children in Irak is not terrorism (only because it's made by soldiers??).
> It's not easy to understand why USA can have atomic bomb and Iran or Korea cannot.



Great but difficult questions. You'll just have to learn to trust us...



			
				claudine2006 said:
			
		

> Probably American way to see the situation is different: if an American asks himself why there is an anti-American feeling all around the word, that means he thinks USA is doing it well (fighting for democracy, to help other countries to have his own government).



I think you came up with a better way of describing feelings toward the US: the old "anti-American sentiment." "People in our country don't hate Americans. Some of us just hold anti-American feelings." Ah, the power of words!


----------



## Everness

. said:
			
		

> I am sorry to have become involved in a thread where my opinion is considered to be of less value because of my nationality despite a stupifying lack of clarity in the original question.
> Just in case anyone is confused may I state that Australia has not yet become a part of the munificent U.S. of A. and I suspect that Ireland may well consider themselves to to hold independent views of their own.
> 
> .,,



Oh, c'mon mate! Australia might not be part of the US but was and is part of the  "Coalition of the Willing," the Multinational force in Iraq that includes those nations whose governments have military personnel in Iraq. I was just trying to get some feedback from people from other countries who didn't support the US in this military adventure.


----------



## .   1

Everness said:
			
		

> Oh, c'mon mate! Australia might not be part of the US but was and is part of the "Coalition of the Willing," the Multinational force in Iraq that includes those nations whose governments have military personnel in Iraq. I was just trying to get some feedback from people from other countries who didn't support the US in this military adventure.


My Prime Minister is a flat out liar and this has been demonstrated repeatedly and in graphic detail.  He will do and say anything that will get him re-elected.  It is an embarrassment to this country that he is the leader.
He did not give the Australian people an opportunity to have a say in what was done in Iraq and when hard questions were put to him he just told us the greatest load of lies he could think of.  It was the classic Goebels strategy - If you want to tell a lie tell a huge lie the bigger the better because then no one will think you made it up.
We were told that Saddam was capable of launching Weapons of Mass Distruction on less than 24 hours notice.
We were told that graves of thousands of babies had been discovered.
We were told that Saddam possessed chemical and biological weapons (some said that the U.S.A. had the receipts and this may have been the only true part).
There were so many other demonstrably false claims made.
Some nitwit U.S. American politician actually displayed a vial of talcum powder to make some outrageous claim about biological weapons capability.
Much of what you know comes from what you have been told and it is just possible that your politicians have been no more truthful to you as mine have been to me.

.,,


----------



## .   1

Everness said:
			
		

> Great but difficult questions. You'll just have to learn to trust us...


When will we ever be able to trust the only weapon holder who has ever detonated a thermonuclear device in another country with the express intention of killing vast numbers of civilians and so many more of their decendants contrary to every tennet of morality?

.,,


----------



## Everness

. said:
			
		

> My Prime Minister is a flat out liar and this has been demonstrated repeatedly and in graphic detail.  He will do and say anything that will get him re-elected.  It is an embarrassment to this country that he is the leader....
> Much of what you know comes from what you have been told and it is just possible that your politicians have been no more truthful to you as mine have been to me.
> 
> .,,



Let's keep focused and avoid wandering from our main topic. You might have realized that political threads die kinda young... 

For all practical purposes, Australia is with us and not against us in this war on terror and Aussies love us and don't hate us... Now, if Aussies' feelings toward the US have changed, please open another thread. Here we only deal with negative emotions: Why do they hate the US?


----------



## .   1

Everness said:
			
		

> Let's keep focused and avoid wandering from our main topic. You might have realized that political threads die kinda young...
> 
> For all practical purposes, Australia is with us and not against us in this war on terror and Aussies love us and don't hate us... Now, if Aussies' feelings toward the US have changed, please open another thread. Here we only deal with negative emotions: Why do they hate the US?


Are you trying to say that yours is not a political question?

.,,


----------



## Outsider

Everness, I think the world in general has become more critical of American foreign policy in recent years, including, or perhaps especially, in the US's Western allies.

But I see where you're coming from: all in all, Westerners in general, especially Westerners of English language countries (that naughty word "Anglo-Saxon"), have experiences and points of view which are closer to those of Americans. You would rather hear from people who have different perspectives.


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:
			
		

> Oh, c'mon mate! Australia might not be part of the US but was and is part of the  "Coalition of the Willing," the Multinational force in Iraq that includes those nations whose governments have military personnel in Iraq. I was just trying to get some feedback from people from other countries who didn't support the US in this military adventure.



So why is Irish opinion less desirable?


----------



## Everness

. said:
			
		

> Are you trying to say that yours is not a political question?
> 
> .,,



Yes, mine is a political question. But we are expected to address one cultural question per thread. If you want to discuss how the Australian government, a staunch American ally, lied to you and led you to participate in the invasion of Iraq, that's a topic for another thread. Capisce?


----------



## ireney

Everness, perhaps you should ask a moderator to change the thread title to "why do _you_ hate us?"

This way people who come from countries in which the majority of the population loves you, feels indifferent or just doesn't like (or even hate) your governments' foreign policy would know not to respond.

As to the "Bush got re-elected" argument; do you think that people who hate 'you' hate only the 50.7% percent of the voters who voted for him?

True, in a democratic country the minority has to bow to the will of the majority (in such issues at least) and one of the 'burdens' of democracy is that all share the good and the bad of the majority's government of choice.

Hatred however is a sentiment. It is a very intense sentiment. A person can  say that i.e. the US is to blame for the state Iraq is in (just an example!) and that all Americans must pay for it to rebuild its infrastructure (same as above) because of democracy; that would be an argument based on reason and the non-sentimental 'rules' of democracy. 

How can one hate someone though who has done all in his/her power for the war to stop?


----------



## Everness

maxiogee said:
			
		

> So why is Irish opinion less desirable?



Well, it's true. Ireland isn't part of the Coalition of the Willing. Maybe this gives Irish more objectivity. So Tony, do Irish mostly love or hate the US?


----------



## lsp

> It's not always easy to understand why West had to stop Saddam massacres but not Israel massacres. or massacres _of_ Israelis. Or in Darfur. Or anywhere else Bush chooses not to get involved.
> It's not easy to understand why to kill children in Irak is not terrorism (only because it's made by soldiers??).
> It's not easy to understand why USA can have atomic bomb and Iran or Korea cannot.





> This election was a referendum on Bush's job perfomance to date, in particular his leadership in the prosecution of the "War on Terror"


49.3% of us are still appalled.


----------



## .   1

Is there any middle ground here?
If I do not love you do I therefore hate you?
If I do not hate you do I therefore love you?
Is it possible that I do not care about you?
Is it even possible that I pity you and your hatred?

The 'you' I refer to is the US of your question.

.,,


----------



## Everness

ireney said:
			
		

> Everness, perhaps you should ask a moderator to change the thread title to "why do _you_ hate us?"



ireney, with all due respect, there's no problem with my question. On the other hand, I must say that I wasn't the first one to ask it or refer to it. Please read the following paragraph.

_Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there.  It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated.

Americans are asking, why do they hate us?  They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government.  Their leaders are self-appointed.  They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other._

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

Yes, my president suggested that Americans were asking this question on September 20, 2001. If it's good enough for my president, it's good enough for me. Would you tell him that it's the wrong question to ask or that Americans weren't asking that question? 

What W. did was strategically brilliant. 

First, he clearly identified those who hate us: Al Qaeda. But Al Qaeda didn't exhaust the list: he left the door open to future targets. It's also interesting that the way he characterized the leadership of Al Qaeda, also described the leadership of most Arab nations. 

Second, he suggested that Americans were asking, why do they hate us? He cleverly ascribes to the terrorists a particular emotion that was allegedly driving their acts: hatred. Of course that is a valid emotion that could have informed their murderous behavior. But as .., argued, there could be other motivations, e.g.: desperation. I also suggested that the motivation could be more positive than negative, that is, that they wanted to promote political change at a global level. In this case, hatred wouldn't necessarily be the main emotion behind their behavior but a commitment to certain political values. Al Qaeda isn't the first political or ideological or religious group in the history of humanity to resort to violence in order to advance its agenda. 

Third, W. set up the stage for the new policy of regime change in the Middle East. He hinted that it would start with the invasion of Afghanistan and the overthrowing of the Taliban regime. If these guys hated us, the American people,who at that point --9 days after 9/11-- were confused and scared, would basically accept any strategy and tactics that would ensure their safety. And that is what exactly happened.


----------



## .   1

Everness said:
			
		

> ireney, with all due respect, there's no problem with my question. On the other hand, I must say that I wasn't the first one to ask it or refer to it. Please read the following paragraph.
> 
> _Our war on terror begins with al Qaeda, but it does not end there. It will not end until every terrorist group of global reach has been found, stopped and defeated._
> 
> _Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other._
> 
> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
> 
> Yes, my president suggested that Americans were asking this question on September 20, 2001. If it's good enough for my president, it's good enough for me. Would you tell him that it's the wrong question to ask or that Americans weren't asking that question?
> 
> What W. did was strategically brilliant.
> 
> First, he clearly identified those who hate us: Al Qaeda. But Al Qaeda didn't exhaust the list: he left the door open to future targets. It's also interesting that the way he characterized the leadership of Al Qaeda, also described the leadership of most Arab nations.
> 
> Second, he suggested that Americans were asking, why do they hate us? He cleverly ascribes to the terrorists a particular emotion that was allegedly driving their acts: hatred. Of course that is a valid emotion that could have informed their murderous behavior. But as .., argued, there could be other motivations, e.g.: desperation. I also suggested that the motivation could be more positive than negative, that is, that they wanted to promote political change at a global level. In this case, hatred wouldn't necessarily be the main emotion behind their behavior but a commitment to certain political values. Al Qaeda isn't the first political or ideological or religious group in the history of humanity to resort to violence in order to advance its agenda.
> 
> Third, W. set up the stage for the new policy of regime change in the Middle East. He hinted that it would start with the invasion of Afghanistan and the overthrowing of the Taliban regime. If these guys hated us, the American people,who at that point --9 days after 9/11-- were confused and scared, would basically accept any strategy and tactics that would ensure their safety. And that is what exactly happened.


Which part of this response is not political?

.,,


----------



## timebomb

Everness,

Let me try and answer your question.

I live in Singapore.  I don't think the USA has ever exploited our resources as we have hardly any resources to speak of.  Never in our history, were any of our leaders overthrown by the US government but there was one instance, where your ambassador was accused of meddling in our political affairs.  We have never been bombed by the USA.

It would appear that there's hardly any reason for Singaporeans to hate your country but the fact is, quite a few of us do.  

When 9/11 happened, I was astonished to find that many of my friends took delight over this terrorist act.  Please don't get me wrong.  They will never openly admit to support terrorism or take joy in the deaths of innocent citizens but privately, many have admitted to me they think America deserved 9/11.  Why is this so, you ask?  I was eager to find out too so I asked them for their reasons.

Generally, you can't pinpoint to any particular reason but it seems like many people resent your country.  They see Americans as being arrogant and bossy.  It's highly likely this resentment came about through interaction with Americans.  There are quite a few American companies here and many Singaporeans work in such companies.  

If you ask the average Singaporean who has worked or is still working in an American firm, he would tell you the Americans are a bossy people.  They (Americans) pay little attention to local sensitivities and think their system is superior to anyone's else.  Americans believe that freedom of speech is a god-given right so they speak their minds freely on any issue, ignoring the fact that such open-mindedness can cause a lot of hurt to the listener.  Americans also tend to see the lighter side of things so nothing is sacred to them.  They laugh and think what others worship to be stupid.  That can cause great resentment, especially when the one who is being laughed at can't do anything about it.  You're the number one superpower after all.  What can a citizen of a much smaller country do to teach you a lesson?

We don't hate you enough to carry out a suicidal terrorist act but when something like 9/11 happens, many of us would privately cheer because we think you "got it coming."  We were happy that for once, Americans would finally understand how it feels like to be "trodden".  

I write from my own personal perspective, of course.  What I have said shouldn't be taken as the general view of Singaporeans.  Personally, my wife and I felt shock and sorrow when we saw the images on TV of the twin towers imploding upon themselves.  My older daughter was so saddened by what happened on 9/11, she took it upon herself to build a website dedicated to the events of that day.  She was only 15 then, I think. If you like to see it, go to:

http://www.geocities.com/a_prayer_for_america/

Loh K L


----------



## Victoria32

Everness said:
			
		

> ...
> *Why do they hate the US?*
> 
> Why would people plan to use an explosive to attack up to 10 airplanes bound for destinations in the United States and kill hundreds of people on board, mostly Americans? Do they harbor deep-seated hatred toward all Americans and not just toward the Bush administration or something else motivates their murderous behavior?
> 
> Baudrillard's explanation is a good one. In "L'Esprit du Terrorisme," he argues that the US' agenda of dominating the world creates global resistance.
> 
> _It goes well beyond the hatred that the desolate and the exploited--those who ended up on the wrong side of the new world order--feel toward the dominant global power. This malicious desire resides in the hearts of even those who have shared in the spoils. The allergy to absolute order, to absolute power, is universal, and the two towers of the World Trade Center were, precisely because of their identicality, the perfect incarnation of this absolute order. ("L'Esprit" 13)_
> http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/pmc/text-only/issue.902/13.1butterfield.txt


" he argues that the US' agenda of dominating the world creates global resistance"

As an observer (outside the USA) I'd agree with that statement.


----------



## foxfirebrand

If I were clueless and superficial enough to hate a nation or a group of people, I'd be faulted for bigotry-- with fearless rigor. And I'd deserve any criticism I got for it.

I apply the same standard to people who think hating the U.S. and its people is a "valid issue" worthy of serious and respectful consideration.

People who hate a faraway nation, no matter what their commercial Corporate-funded "news" outlets say about it-- hate it because they have been misled into doing what is wrong.

Buying Febreze to "freshen" a rug soaked in cat urine is wrong too, but people who maintain an umbilicus to their TV outlets are led into that kind of error as well. These economic giants spend billions on advertising designed to dumb people down, vitiate their attention spans, destroy their sense of history, cripple their objectivity and ability to compare one thing to another with an independent mind, make them passive to suggestion, and create barriers to communication, mutual understanding, and (god forbid) cooperation among themselves.  "Why do they hate _us_" is a cluelessly us-centric question, in view of the broader forces at work.

Save your hatred for those that promote hatred, and be warned that they don't do so overtly.  Lets you and him fight.
.


----------



## moodywop

As an Italian I would say that none of my countrymen "hate" the US. The only ones who did have an ideological hatred towards the US were tiny extremist left-wing groups like the Red Brigades which have luckily disappeared (though there may still be a tiny few clinging to their merciless ideology).

There is a large minority (or more likely a majority) of people who, while horrified by terrorist attacks, dislike what they call "the policeman of the world" role of the US which they see exemplified in the invasion of Iraq. 

I think that "hate" should be distinguished from "resenting" this "policeman of the world" role.

I believe that the only people who harbour hatred are those who are blinded by fundamentalist religious views (whether these are legitimately based on their sacred texts or not is a different matter) and see the US as "the Great Satan".

In addition there may well be non-religious Palestinians, for example, whose resentment of the US government's uncritical support of Israel borders on hatred.


----------



## maxiogee

Everness said:
			
		

> Well, it's true. Ireland isn't part of the Coalition of the Willing. Maybe this gives Irish more objectivity. So Tony, do Irish mostly love or hate the US?



Have I failed so utterly to get my point across?
How could I possibly presume to sum up in a post the opinion of the Irish on any subject?

How could anyone possibly know what people mostly think of a whole nation?
When you ask "hate the US" are you talking of the people, the voters who re-elected President Bush, the administration, perceived American on-going foreign policy or just the arms/security 'industry'?

How could what one person opines in reaction to any of those be of any validity?

Generally we neither love nor hate the US. In my childhood it was universally loved, I dare say. So the change is hugely noteworthy.

Some see it as too big to argue with.
Some marvel at its arrogance.
Some wonder at its dominance of many areas of global concern.

We often wonder what clout it holds over our government which stops our politicians from protesting at the illegal trasnports of prisoners through one of our airports, and at similar areas where public objection to some aspect of American behaviour has not been matched by politicians.


----------



## mayale

I am not familiar with Baudrillard's approach but I strongly recommend Stephen Kinzer's book "All the Shah's Men" for some historical answers to the question. In a nut shell, he narrates the events that shook Iran mainly during the 50's until the Shah's abdication. It is mainly the story of foreign intervention resulting in the current rise of Islamic fundementalism.


----------



## Everness

"They like us, they like us not; they like us, they like us not..." Who said we needed a flower with petals to play this game and figure out how the rest of the world perceives us? Here's are some interesting polls.

Ain't look pretty but it could be worse

_America's global image has again slipped and support for the war on terrorism has declined even among close U.S. allies like Japan. The war in Iraq is a continuing drag on opinions of the United States, not only in predominantly Muslim countries but in Europe and Asia as well._

Key to improving America's image: make love, not war 

_A year ago, anti-Americanism had shown some signs of abating, in part because of the positive feelings generated by U.S. aid for tsunami victims in Indonesia and elsewhere. But favorable opinions of the United States have fallen in most of the 15 countries surveyed. Only about a quarter of the Spanish public (23%) expresses positive views of the U.S., down from 41% last year; America's image also has declined significantly in India (from 71% to 56%) and Indonesia (from 38% to 30%)._

Ladies and gentlemen, let me introduce you the culprit

_The survey shows that the Iraq war continues to exact a toll on America's overall image and on support for the struggle against terrorism. Majorities in 10 of 14 foreign countries surveyed say that the war in Iraq has made the world a more dangerous place. In Great Britain, America's most important ally in Iraq, 60% say the war has made the world more dangerous, while just half that number (30%) feel it has made the world safer._

http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252

So after all, polls can speak for whole countries and if they shouldn't, they do it anyways. (Tony, please don't ask me why pollsters don't poll Irish)


----------



## Everness

timebomb said:
			
		

> Everness,
> 
> It would appear that there's hardly any reason for Singaporeans to hate your country but the fact is, quite a few of us do.
> 
> When 9/11 happened, I was astonished to find that many of my friends took delight over this terrorist act.  Please don't get me wrong.  They will never openly admit to support terrorism or take joy in the deaths of innocent citizens but privately, many have admitted to me they think America deserved 9/11.  Why is this so, you ask?  I was eager to find out too so I asked them for their reasons.



Thank you for sharing. I visited your daughter's website. Very touching indeed. 

Although what your friends experienced can't be generalized to an entire population, it proves Baudrillard's point. 

_That we have dreamed of this event, that everybody without exception has dreamt of it, because everybody must dream of the destruction of any power hegemonic to that degree,  — this is unacceptable for Western moral conscience, but it is still a fact, and one which is justly measured by the pathetic violence of all those discourses which attempt to erase it.
_http://www.egs.edu/faculty/baudrillard/baudrillard-the-spirit-of-terrorism.html

Three points. First, everybody dreams of the destruction of any hegemonic power. Second, this allegry to all definite power is universal. Third, it's a malignant desire.  

_This goes much further than hatred for the dominant global power from the disinherited and the exploited, those who fell on the wrong side of global order. That malignant desire is in the very heart of those who share (this order's) benefits. An allergy to all definitive order, to all definitive power is happily universal, and the two towers of the World Trade Center embodied perfectly, in their very double-ness (literally twin-ness), this definitive order._

I like how Butterfield puts it, 

_We all have a soft spot for the underdog and a sore spot for the overdog, especially when the latter is on the brink of dominating the global playpen._

http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/pmc/text-only/issue.902/13.1butterfield.txt

We, Americans, shouldn't be taking this too personally. This has been happening for thousands of years. There will always be underdogs and overdogs and this type of dynamics between them.


----------



## Everness

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> Buying Febreze to "freshen" a rug soaked in cat urine is wrong too, but people who maintain an umbilicus to their TV outlets are led into that kind of error as well. These economic giants spend billions on advertising designed to dumb people down, vitiate their attention spans, destroy their sense of history, cripple their objectivity and ability to compare one thing to another with an independent mind, make them passive to suggestion, and create barriers to communication, mutual understanding, and (god forbid) cooperation among themselves.  .



I think you're being too tough on Fox News and its viewers... Just a thought...


----------



## Tsoman

I think that the stereotype of Americans being rude and bossy is undeserved, or at least a stereotype that should be shared with many other countries.

I work in tourism (in a location that recieves many many foreign tourists) and I have seen that people coming from other countries do many things that we consider rude -- cutting in line, grunting when they want something done faster, pushing, knocking children over to get a better seat at a show etc etc. I must admit that after constantly seeing behavior like this, I have formed some stereotypes about the people from other countries. However, I realize that they are simply stereotypes.

In comparison, our domestic american tourists seem very docile. But how do I know how they act when they go to another country?

I think that in general, there is a tendency of tourists to percieve the country they are visiting as a 'people museum' or 'people zoo'


----------



## bernik

_"I think that the stereotype of Americans being rude and bossy is undeserved"_

Maybe, but it is natural to resent your boss and find him bossy !
So, if you work for an American company...

_"I have seen that people coming from other countries do many things that we consider rude -- cutting in line,..."  .../... "...However, I realize that they are simply stereotypes."_

It is not stereotypes.
When you go to London, you can see that they love to stand in lines.
When you go to Paris, you can see that people tend to cut the lines.


----------



## .   1

Everness said:
			
		

> Three points. First, everybody dreams of the destruction of any hegemonic power. Second, this allegry to all definite power is universal. Third, it's a malignant desire.


This is possibly the most obviously self contradictory statement I have ever read.
In the first event it is not possible for everybody to hold this malignant desire as some of the everybodies being discussed are in positions of vast power within the hegemony. Your statement is that even Dubya and his cronies dream of destroying their own administration.

I know that I do not and never have had a dream of destroying any hegemonic power. What a bizzare concept. I am more interested in mowing the lawn and keeping the wife happy and spending time with the tin lid and discussing the whichness of why with some fascinating people who do not think at all like me.

.,,


----------



## Victoria32

moodywop said:
			
		

> There is a large minority (or more likely a majority) of people who, while horrified by terrorist attacks, dislike what they call "the policeman of the world" role of the US which they see exemplified in the invasion of Iraq.
> 
> I think that "hate" should be distinguished from "resenting" this "policeman of the world" role...
> 
> 
> ...In addition there may well be non-religious Palestinians, for example, whose resentment of the US government's uncritical support of Israel borders on hatred.


 
Absoultely correct, especially the last paragraph. Up to 70% of Palestinians are not Muslim but Christian, and I know many Palestinians here in NZ who feel exactly that way, because of having to leave the country where their grandparents had farms, orchards and lives.


----------



## ireney

Why don't we open a thread concentrating on the Middle East problem?

You might think it's futile and it's going to end up been locked but at least this way, for as long as it lasts, all the other threads can stop veering towards the same old discussion all the time!!!


----------



## foxfirebrand

ireney said:
			
		

> Why don't we open a thread concentrating on the Middle East problem?
> 
> You might think it's futile and it's going to end up been locked but at least this way, for as long as it lasts, all the other threads can stop veering towards the same old discussion all the time!!!


I just looked at the title of this thread-- the Middle East situation seems like an eminently on-topic area of inquiry to me.
.


----------



## danielfranco

Why do they hate the USA?
I understood the question to mean why does _*anyone*_ hate the USA, if they do?
I think there are many different answers, depending on the hater.
But if you wish, I think I can generalize without offending too much.
A couple of years ago somebody sent me an interesting PowerPoint presentation. It asks you to think about the whole human population represented as a village of ONE HUNDRED people. It goes on to make some statements that I haven't checked, but sounded good enough to at least consider briefly.
Anyway, it says that if the world was a village of one hundred people, *eighty* of them would be living in extreme poverty.
However, if the world was a village of a hundred people, *59% of the wealth would be in the possession of six people, and all of those six people would be Northamericans.*
Maybe this is one of the reasons why someone would hate the USA.


----------



## maxiogee

danielfranco said:
			
		

> However, if the world was a village of a hundred people, *59% of the wealth would be in the possession of six people, and all of those six people would be Northamericans.*


Is it not often the case that that proportionate split is common in all villages, everywhere - and that the six with the wealth are usually somehow related? I fail to see the point you are trying to make here.



> Anyway, it says that if the world was a village of one hundred people, eighty of them would be living in extreme poverty.


Reversing the order in which you made the points, I wonder about a village of one hundred people - six would be a single home probably, but no more than two. In such a village the two homes would live extremely well and the rest would, by comparison, be extremely poor. This is how humanity is. Refer to the thread on "attitudes of saving money and supporting your family" for further examples.


----------



## danielfranco

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Is it not often the case that that proportionate split is common in all villages, everywhere - and that the six with the wealth are usually somehow related? I fail to see the point you are trying to make here.
> No point, really. The question is an oversimplification of a complex issue. My answer is an oversimplified answer. The village is an oversimplified village. There's no point in comparing it to other villages.
> But maybe I shouldn't have tried to be elliptical...
> What I think is that poor people are always resentful of the rich people. And in this NOT-village, the rich people are Northamerican.
> 
> Reversing the order in which you made the points, I wonder about a village of one hundred people - six would be a single home probably, but no more than two. In such a village the two homes would live extremely well and the rest would, by comparison, be extremely poor. This is how humanity is. Refer to the thread on "attitudes of saving money and supporting your family" for further examples.
> Fine, but how do those two households hoard and retain such wealth? Maybe with honest, hard work. Maybe not. Doesn't matter in the end: the rest of us that live in the hovels, grubbing in the dirt, are still resentful that we are not one of those two households.


----------



## Fernando

My two cents:

- Nego maiorem: I do not think the world "hates" US. Quite on the contrary, I think the world "loves" US (from Hollywood films to Coca-Cola).

- Why do Bin Laden and his mariachi hate US? As Outsider has pointed out, you do not have to question yourself. He has said it one hundred times. Read their statements. 

- I would be PROUD if some people would hate me. As a a matter of fact, Western countries which are not hated by Al Qaeda&friends should be worried. As said in the Quixote "Ladran, luego cabalgamos" (dogs bark, so we are moving).

- Said this, it is right US people should worry about SOME of their international foreign policies.

- I would like to see some articles in the Islamic World such as "Why do they hate us?"


----------



## maxiogee

I like this concept of the mythical village, as it brings many relationships into perspective.



			
				danielfranco said:
			
		

> What I think is that poor people are always resentful of the rich people. And in this NOT-village, the rich people are Northamerican.


Maybe, but the ones who will bear the brunt when the grindingly-poor rise up will be the middle-wealthy - the Europeans and the Asians who are nearest to the poor countries.
I would not feel it unjustified if millions of Africans came across the Mediterranean seeking a redistribution of the world's wealth and a return of what Europe stole from them.




> Fine, but how do those two households hoard and retain such wealth? Maybe with honest, hard work. Maybe not. Doesn't matter in the end: the rest of us that live in the hovels, grubbing in the dirt, are still resentful that we are not one of those two households.


And so, some of the poor turn to crime and mug the residents of those houses, or burgle the houses. This doesn't really alleviate the poverty, and it only serves to make the wealthy more 'defense' oriented. The question for the residents of the village is "How do we achieve a more balanced distribution of the wealth of the village?" 
— (note I don't say "fairer")
And the other question which rises from the dust of the first is, "Would a more balanced distribution affect the ability of the wealthy to continue to create wealth?"
— (this is something to which I don't have an answer)

There will be those in the village who are employed by the wealthy. They will be less poor than the poverty-stricken, but they won't be anywhere near as rich as the wealthy.
How will they react to questions of redistributing the wealth - will they side with the rich, eager to protect the (minimal) share they are already getting, or will they bite the hand which appears to be feeding them?

One thing is certain, the village will be a seething cauldron of resentment and bitterness, and fear will go hand in hand with hatred.


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:
			
		

> ... fear will go hand in hand with hatred.


Fear and hatred always hold each other's hands that is why they achieve nothing.

.,,


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

> Why do they hate us? By what right do we exploit their resources, overthrow their elected leaders, and drop bombs on their people?"



Foreras and foreros, allow me to present, in all its glory, the original topic!!!

We have already climbed, walked, crawled, and fought our way all around a modern history of the middle east in several previous (and now closed) threads.  The displacement of thousands of people of various ethnicities following Partition, or atrocities on different sides, is not and can not be the main topic of this thread.

Now, speaking more as a forera than a mod.....

We can, however, discuss American involvement or intimidation in Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Mexico, Canada, Vietnam, Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq, Cambodia, Iran, Japan......


----------



## ireney

foxfirebrand said:
			
		

> I just looked at the title of this thread-- the Middle East situation seems like an eminently on-topic area of inquiry to me.
> .




As part of the discussion certainly. As the centre of discussion I am afraid I disagree. Another reason I wrote that post was the following. The topic is why they hate us right? The way I see it first we have to 'agree' on the reasons and then see if they stand to reason. This is a sentiment we are talking about and in addition to that in issues like these both sides seem unwilling to see that maybe, just maybe they are not 100% right and the 'others' are not 100% wrong. While I know such discussion usually end up nowhere I still take part in them; that doesn't mean I don't find it tiring to see so many discussions ending up orbiting around them. (sorry for the -probably- bad English but I still haven't managed to sleep)


----------



## .   1

Chaska Ñawi said:
			
		

> Foreras and foreros, allow me to present, in all its glory, the original topic!!!
> 
> We have already climbed, walked, crawled, and fought our way all around a modern history of the middle east in several previous (and now closed) threads. The displacement of thousands of people of various ethnicities following Partition, or atrocities on different sides, is not and can not be the main topic of this thread.
> 
> Now, speaking more as a forera than a mod.....
> 
> We can, however, discuss American involvement or intimidation in Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Mexico, Canada, Vietnam, Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq, Cambodia, Iran, Japan......


Might we add Australia to the list of countries subjected to intimaditory U.S. American involvement.

.,,


----------



## Fernando

I think you are thinking about the 2nd WW, I guess. Maybe they should have not intervened at all.


----------



## foxfirebrand

Fernando said:
			
		

> I think you are thinking about the 2nd WW, I guess. Maybe they should have not intervened at all.


Thanks for that-- it is also very much on topic.

The underlying principles of life are anything but straightforward-- if I have learned anything in 60 years it is that they are ironic.

I've also learned that there's no one who will resent you more than someone you've done a great service for which they can never repay you.  Nobody likes to be in another man's debt.

All of you yowl all you like about how long ago WWII was.  It wasn't more than a single lifetime, an eyeblink.

It'd be a real chuckle if all the "disaffected youth" of Europe could suddenly be teleported to the Spring of 1940, and left there to fend for themselves.

Hey Fernando-- I also have you to thank for "Bin Laden and his Mariachis."  Very wry fare with morning coffee.
.


----------



## bernik

My previous post has been deleted. Here's my new try:

We have to make a distinction between islamic terrorism and anti-americanism coming from countries like Singapore or France. It is two different things.

1) In France and Singapore, anti-americanism has nothing to do with religion, and it does not lead to terrorism.

2) On the other hand, Islamic terrorism has much to do with Islam, and it is not directed only at the United States. For example, in 1994, they tried to crash an airliner on Paris. I think that the violence between the Sunnis and the Shiites in Iraq has a similar religious explanation. Bin Laden is very much involved in religion.

When we are talking about 9/11 and start deviating on the subject of anti-americanism, I think we are mixing up the issues. Most of the time, an anti-american Westerner who says he can understand why Bin Laden would hate the USA has no idea what he is talking about.


----------



## caravaggio

§	I am peruvian, 2 month ago i traveled to USA and entered for Atlanta. I am a regular guy, from Lima, with education, professional, have a good job, family...and went there to stay 3 weeks to be with my friends on holiday... my firts time in USA.
§	When i was in the airport and enter to the migration area. i was treatment like a criminal, they told me i told lie,all my life was question..and all my luggage was open whit no discretion. When i return to my country i comment what happend me whit my friends and i saw almost all of them had a similar stories. 
§	Most furious turn me when i saw in the migration area of the airport of Lima in Peru , the treatment of the personal was very polite and they always finish with the sentences to the american travel.."i hope you have a good travel in my country"
§	Well is that only one example , why  is easy hate the american, becouse we dont have a fair treatment…and always they are questioning our life, our way to see the life..and, think if we don’t think like they we are in a mistake.
§	I decided not return to this country and I will never will send my child or some of my family. I couldn’t imagine my mother or some of my child in the situation I was there ..very humilianting in all sences.


----------



## tafanari

I believe that it's perfectly reasonable to appreciate the fact that Europe is better off without the Nazis and at the same time understand the US participation in WW2 was not an act of selfless charity. And that US interests benefited from it greatly.

By the same token, I think it's fair to say that perhaps it's better that Afghani girls are allowed to go to school without having to believe that the US intervention in Afhanistan was about giving little girls a chance for a better life and not about 9/11. 

The US intervenes militarily when the US decides it's in its interest and this I think is also perfectly reasonable. It's not always about money or being attacked. Look at Bosnia and Somalia.

What I think is unreasonable is the assertion that when the US troops arrive it's always *bad *or always *good*. Does the fact the the US "liberated" Europe mean every single military intervention by the United States should be applauded? Does the fact that in Vietnam the US killed millions in an hopeless neocolonial war mean that the US is evil? That Bushian black and white view is what's troubling to me.

I think many people hate the United States because Americans don't know much geography until it's time to bomb somebody and that they are quite selective in their choices of countries to "liberate." I guess it's the same reason the police are almost universally hated in the housing project where I live: They never come when you need them and when you don't, they are all over the place. 

That doesn't mean people here don't call them or think they should be abolished. We just don't like them, trust them, and think they could do a much better job if they didn't scorn us as much and knew us a little better. And that's coming from a man who would be dead if he weren't rescued by the police. Gratitude is not tantamount to blindness.


----------



## maxiogee

Chaska Ñawi said:
			
		

> We can, however, discuss American involvement or intimidation in Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Mexico, Canada, Vietnam, Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq, Cambodia, Iran, Japan......



We _can_, but do we want to?


----------



## tafanari

caravaggio said:
			
		

> §    I am peruvian, 2 month ago i traveled to USA and entered for Atlanta. I am a regular guy, from Lima, with education, professional, have a good job, family...and went there to stay 3 weeks to be with my friends on holiday... my firts time in USA.
> §    When i was in the airport and enter to the migration area. i was treatment like a criminal, they told me i told lie,all my life was question..and all my luggage was open whit no discretion. When i return to my country i comment what happend me whit my friends and i saw almost all of them had a similar stories.
> §    Most furious turn me when i saw in the migration area of the airport of Lima in Peru , the treatment of the personal was very polite and they always finish with the sentences to the american travel.."i hope you have a good travel in my country"
> §    Well is that only one example , why  is easy hate the american, becouse we dont have a fair treatment…and always they are questioning our life, our way to see the life..and, think if we don’t think like they we are in a mistake.
> §    I decided not return to this country and I will never will send my child or some of my family. I couldn’t imagine my mother or some of my child in the situation I was there ..very humilianting in all sences.


Caravaggio, creo que es injusto juzgar un país entero por el comportamiento de unas personas en un aeropuerto. No te puedes dejar llevar por eso. Yo siento cada vez que voy a Republica Dominicana que el aeropuerto es un horror. Pero la gente del país es muy simpática en generalmente trata muy bien a las personas que visitan el país. Creo que los aeropuertos hoy en día son lugares de mucho estrés y en los países donde no se depende tanto del turísmo no hace muy buen trabajo en el aspecto humano.

Pero tu queja no es la primera que he escuchado. Tengo un amigo francés que vino mucho antes del 11S y se quejó de lo mismo. Él dice que al turista americano que va a su país no se le hace tantas preguntas como se le hicieron a él. Estoy de acuerdo con él pero cuando fui a Francia...no te puedo decir que la policía francesa haya sido tan acogedora que digamos. Y en Londres mi hicieron mil preguntas...tenía ganas de entrale a patadas a la mujer policía que me entrevistó.


----------



## Outsider

maxiogee said:
			
		

> We _can_, but do we want to?


That's a problem I've had with this thread from the beginning. It's impossible to discuss "Why do they hate US?" without getting one's hands dirty with politics.
Unless we take the ostrich route, and pretend it's all just a matter of "envy", or "incomprehensibly absurd foreign cultures".


----------



## caravaggio

tafanari, ya te explique...no fue un hecho aislado..de lo que comente y del trato que recibi...cuando estuve alli vi a varios sufrir lo mismo..y peor vi como una señorita nueva de migraciones, en el lugar era adiestrada para dar ese trato a todos los que ingresaban, ...eso no se llama caso aislado..eso se llama politica de estado..y comentalo en tu pais y veras que alguno tiene alguna historia similar.


Y yo no soy de los que se quedan callado...y me queje y llamé por telefono e hice mi queja oficial y formal y me respondieron que habian revisado el video y habian visto que no habia habido ningún hecho fuera de lo común, para ellos fue normal llamrme mentiroso, rebuscar mis maletas, cuestonar cada palabra que decia y regar toda mi ropa interior por toda la oficina, ademas de ser ordinariamente brusco y groseros (claro ahora me da risa)

Si no puede existir ni siquiera reciprocidad en un "bienvenidos" que puedes esperar del resto.  

Yo no  juzgo a todo un pueblo por eso...pero ese pueblo tampoco hace nada para que no suceda eso ...es muy facil tratarte bien claro despues de haber dejado el trato sucio a los buldogs que te olfateen hasta el alma antes de entrar a tu casa...total fueron los perros y no tu.  en todo caso esa solo fue una ralla mas al tigre.

Y eso nunca me ha pasado ni en Paris, ni en Roma ni siquiera en Madrid. si me interrogaron pero nunca me maltrataron.

Además solo di un ejemplo del porque...


----------



## bernik

tafanari: _"the fact that in Vietnam the US killed millions in an hopeless neocolonial war"_

I don't think the US have killed millions in Vietnam, but the communists did. If the US had not let the communists win the war, South Vietnam would now be a thriving country like South Korea instead of a pathetic impoverished dictature.


----------



## Bran Muffin

danielfranco said:
			
		

> Anyway, it says that if the world was a village of one hundred people, *eighty* of them would be living in extreme poverty.
> However, if the world was a village of a hundred people, *59% of the wealth would be in the possession of six people, and all of those six people would be Northamericans.*


 
What about the other 14 people?

As far as why other countries hate us is concerned, I firmly believe that a good portion of it has to do with the fact that the United States basically dubbed itself as the big brother of all the other countries (very arrogant) and sticks its nose into things it has no business in (for example, Vietnam).  Why can't the country who is one of the youngest countries in existence learn to let the big boys play with the big boys?


----------



## maxiogee

Bran Muffin said:
			
		

> What about the other 14 people?


What do you think? 
What could possibly be between extreme poverty and immense wealth? 

It is a general rule of thumb that in most countries 20% of the people hold 80% of the wealth.


----------



## Tsoman

caravaggio said:
			
		

> tafanari, ya te explique...no fue un hecho aislado..de lo que comente y del trato que recibi...cuando estuve alli vi a varios sufrir lo mismo..y peor vi como una señorita nueva de migraciones, en el lugar era adiestrada para dar ese trato a todos los que ingresaban, ...eso no se llama caso aislado..eso se llama politica de estado..y comentalo en tu pais y veras que alguno tiene alguna historia similar.
> 
> 
> Y yo no soy de los que se quedan callado...y me queje y llamé por telefono e hice mi queja oficial y formal y me respondieron que habian revisado el video y habian visto que no habia habido ningún hecho fuera de lo común, para ellos fue normal llamrme mentiroso, rebuscar mis maletas, cuestonar cada palabra que decia y regar toda mi ropa interior por toda la oficina, ademas de ser ordinariamente brusco y groseros (claro ahora me da risa)
> 
> Si no puede existir ni siquiera reciprocidad en un "bienvenidos" que puedes esperar del resto.
> 
> Yo no juzgo a todo un pueblo por eso...pero ese pueblo tampoco hace nada para que no suceda eso ...es muy facil tratarte bien claro despues de haber dejado el trato sucio a los buldogs que te olfateen hasta el alma antes de entrar a tu casa...total fueron los perros y no tu. en todo caso esa solo fue una ralla mas al tigre.
> 
> Y eso nunca me ha pasado ni en Paris, ni en Roma ni siquiera en Madrid. si me interrogaron pero nunca me maltrataron.
> 
> Además solo di un ejemplo del porque...


 
Como de pronto ya sabe, el  aeropuerto es un lugar muy serioso y no representa el caracter nacional de mi pais. Le cuento que hay muchos estadounidenses que se quejan del trato en el aeropuerto tambien. le suplico que nos perdone, pero no es nuestra culpa que los empleados del aeropuerto no sepan como tratar a un visitante


----------



## caravaggio

Talvez eso sea porque un norteamericano no pueda entender lo que sucede ..porque hay un diferente discurso entre lo que se hace realmente con lo que piensa  la gran mayoria. Y por supuesto como lei por alli  tiene que ver mucho con la Politica Oficial.
El doble discurso que siempre nos dan: derechos humanos y miren Guantanamo, bombas atomicas y recuerden Hiroshima y Nagasaky; proliferación de armas y vean sus arsenales, no a los exterminios de la población civil.. y miren lo que sucede en Irak y ahora en el Libano...


----------



## Everness

Tsoman said:
			
		

> Como de pronto ya sabe, el  aeropuerto es un lugar muy serioso y no representa el caracter nacional de mi pais. Le cuento que hay muchos estadounidenses que se quejan del trato en el aeropuerto tambien. *le suplico que nos perdone, *pero no es nuestra culpa que los empleados del aeropuerto no sepan como tratar a un visitante



Sin caer en el sermon facil, creo que esta ultima respuesta tuya a lo que caravaggio compartio debiera haber sido la unica. Insinuar que no tiene el derecho a sentirse violado o que no es una buena idea jugzar a todo un pais por lo que un par de imbeciles hizo equivale a profundizar una herida que todavia sangra. Es una situacion absolutamente horrible. No es un buen momento para recetar respuestas politicamente correctas. 

Seamos claros. En varios aeropuertos internacionales estadounidenses la gente de inmigracion (no todos, por supuesto) trata al visitante para la reverendisima mi*rda. El problema es totalmente nuestro y no de personas como caravaggio. Tampoco justifiquemos ni intentemos justificar ese tipo de conductas excusandonos en 9/11. 

Me uno a tsoman en pedirte que nos perdones y espero que nunca mas te vuelva a ocurrir.


----------



## tafanari

caravaggio said:
			
		

> tafanari, ya te explique...no fue un hecho aislado..de lo que comente y del trato que recibi...cuando estuve alli vi a varios sufrir lo mismo...



Tienes razón, caravaggio. No eres el único que se ha quejado y no todo el problema viene de las nuevas medidas de seguridad. Es un defecto cultural que tenemos (no es solo una política) y es algo que deberíamos cambiar. 

De parte de mis conciudadanos te pido disculpas y comprendo muy bien porque estás enojado.


----------



## tafanari

bernik said:
			
		

> tafanari: _"the fact that in Vietnam the US killed millions in an hopeless neocolonial war"_
> 
> I don't think the US have killed millions in Vietnam, but the communists did. If the US had not let the communists win the war, South Vietnam would now be a thriving country like South Korea instead of a pathetic impoverished dictature.


Your interpretation of the Vietnam War is interesting. Do you think the French also "let" the Communists win? What would Vietnam be today if the French had not let Ho win in the North? Maybe it was the Japanese who let Ho win.

But getting back to the original topic: The US has interventions that not many people complain about. For example, American troops landing in Normandy is generally seen as a good thing. American troops in Panama, not as good (even if you can argue that in fact it was very good for Panama) and American troops in Iraq have not been welcome with open arms as we can see from news reports every day. You can say the same thing about Vietnam. Not everybody there (in South Vietnam) was thrilled Americans were there and our soldiers wondered why they had to die to defend a country that didn't even like them (or appreciated the fact that they were there).

It's not as simple as "the US intervenes everywhere." If I'm gettick my butt kicked in a fight, I wan't the police to intervene. If I'm beating someone senseless, I would rather they stay away. So my love or hate for police is selective. I think that's what the main issue is here. If the US had sent troops to Sudan, there would n't be protests against it all around the world...except perhaps in Sudan and other Muslim countries but I doubt people in Madrid or Paris would codemn that US action.


----------



## tafanari

caravaggio said:
			
		

> Talvez eso sea porque un norteamericano no pueda entender lo que sucede ..porque hay un diferente discurso entre lo que se hace realmente con lo que piensa  la gran mayoria. Y por supuesto como lei por alli  tiene que ver mucho con la Politica Oficial.
> El doble discurso que siempre nos dan: derechos humanos y miren Guantanamo, bombas atomicas y recuerden Hiroshima y Nagasaky; proliferación de armas y vean sus arsenales, no a los exterminios de la población civil.. y miren lo que sucede en Irak y ahora en el Libano...



Tienes razón: Embargo contra Cuba porque son comunistas y trato especial para China (el país comunista más grande de la historia del mundo). Y la lista de política hipócrita es larga.


----------



## Fernando

I can agree with you in many unfortunate US intervention, but I dislike your opinion on China policy. The only country which has oppossed Communist China is US: 

- Help to Chiang Kai Chek in the civil war.

- Korea War (mostly a US-China war).

- Help to Taiwan. Nowadays Taiwan exists because of the US umbrella.

- US reinstaured (?) political relations with China in 1973, far after other countries had done it.

- US has criticized China for their religious and political oppression and has made a weapons embargo. Bush and previous presidents have always said in public statements that China inside policy is not an acceptable one.

But simply China is too large and is shifting to capitalism and (?) democracy.

Meanwhile Europe has done nothing.

The treatment with Cuba is assymetrical, I notice, but everything happening in Cuba affects directly to US. Cuba has helped directly or indirectly to "Freedom fighters" in Congo, Angola, Mozambique, Grenada, Venezuela, Mexico, Bolivia... China has stopped any aggressive movement (help to Sendero Luminoso or Khmer Rouge).


----------



## tafanari

Fernando said:
			
		

> The treatment with Cuba is assymetrical, I notice, but everything happening in Cuba affects directly to US. Cuba has helped directly or indirectly to "Freedom fighters" in Congo, Angola, Mozambique, Grenada, Venezuela, Mexico, Bolivia... China has stopped any aggressive movement (help to Sendero Luminoso or Khmer Rouge).


The only mportant things to the US in Cuba is what happens in Guatanamo Bay. Angola, Grenada, Mozambique...all of that is Cold War stuff. Cuba is not important to the US and neither is the Caribbean. What is important is those electoral votes that come from Southern Florida.

But the way Cuba is treated by the US is seen as very hostile by many in Latin America. And since those people don't vote in US elections, US politicians don't care. So the resentment builds, and so does the mistrust. Result? They almost elected *another *lefty right next door.


----------



## bernik

tafanari:_"Do you think the French also "let" the Communists win?"_

I think that the US had had enough with Vietnam. That's why in the end, they let the communist North invade the South. As for the French in Vietnam, the army felt it had been betrayed by France.

_" Not everybody there (in South Vietnam) was thrilled Americans were there "_

I don't know, but I am sure they were even less thrilled with what the communists did to them after the US left. In Iraq, I suppose many people have mixed feelings. For example, they were glad that Saddam had been toppled, but it would have made them proud of their army if the Americans had taken more casualties. I think Iraqis who would like the US army to stay longer will not necessarily say so to Western journalists.

_" If the US had sent troops to Sudan, there wouldn't be protests against it all around the world...except perhaps in Sudan and other Muslim countries but I doubt people in Madrid or Paris would condemn that US action. "_

Of course the French journalists would condemn such an intervention. And islamic organizations would think it was a good pretext for more terrorist attacks. And the BBC would go on talking about Sudanese "insurgents".


----------



## tafanari

Just for the record, Tony, I'm just expressing my own opinions and if it seemed like I was trying to put words in your mouth, I apologize.

I think the opinion that the US sends troop to die in other places out of the goodness of our hearts is indeed common in the US. But many of realize that governments act in their interests just as business act in their interests and individuals do, in the end.

They make poor decisions and do things that they later regret (or should) but if people are rational they do things they think are good for them.


----------



## maxiogee

tafanari said:
			
		

> Just for the record, Tony, I'm just expressing my own opinions and if it seemed like I was trying to put words in your mouth, I apologize.



No tafanari, I didn't feel that. I felt that you had misinterpreted me — a much, much lesser crime.  
You will not need to serve a custodial sentence, a small fine will suffice. 
Write my name on a fifty-Euro note and email it to me.


----------



## tafanari

. said:
			
		

> I can swallow many things under duress but I will never believe that U.S. America just got lucky and derives so much benefit from utter abject misery.
> 
> .,,


I guess that in a zero-sum world, the US can only get if others lose but I don't think that wealth works that way. I don't think the United States "benefits" from misery. On the one hand, a poor Puerto Rico, for example, gives the US cheap labor and cheap raw materials but a wealthier Puerto Rico gives it a market of its more expensive goods. So the cofee shop people want a poor dependent pool of coffee producers to buy from (their clients are mostly US people because their stores are here) and the software people want a pool of countries rich enough to buy and often upgrade computers (they want clients abroad as well as in the US).

So I wouldn't agree with the idea the everyone in the US benefits from the misery (in economic terms) of others although _some _people in the US certainly do.


----------



## Outsider

bernik said:
			
		

> I think Iraqis who would like the US army to stay longer will not necessarily say so to Western journalists.


Why wouldn't they?


----------



## Victoria32

Chaska Ñawi said:
			
		

> ...Now, speaking more as a forera than a mod.....
> 
> We can, however, discuss American involvement or intimidation in Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Honduras, Venezuela, Bolivia, Cuba, Mexico, Canada, Vietnam, Grenada, Afghanistan, Iraq, Cambodia, Iran, Japan......


 
Exactly! I have read recently, a book by Noam Chomsky about exactly that, and also recent events in Venezuela are rather disturbing. I am on an American board for political discussion and some people's miscoceptions are Evo Morales and Chavez are very worrying.


----------



## Victoria32

maxiogee said:
			
		

> We _can_, but do we want to?


 
I think I do...

Re Australia, it's not so much WWII, as Pine Gap, and Gough Whitlam, in 1975...


----------



## Victoria32

bernik said:
			
		

> tafanari: _"the fact that in Vietnam the US killed millions in an hopeless neocolonial war"_
> 
> I don't think the US have killed millions in Vietnam, but the communists did. If the US had not let the communists win the war, South Vietnam would now be a thriving country like South Korea instead of a pathetic impoverished dictature.


 
You should read John Pilger on this subject Bernik. To begin with, the defoliants that were used are having consequences to this day. The Communists as you call them were native Vietnamese, and the Vietnam war was yet another example of Empire-building on the part of the USA.


----------



## djchak

Victoria32 said:
			
		

> You should read John Pilger on this subject Bernik. To begin with, the defoliants that were used are having consequences to this day. The Communists as you call them were native Vietnamese, and the Vietnam war was yet another example of Empire-building on the part of the USA.





The US went through all that war.... basically becuase they wanted to stop communism from spreading. Imperealist empire building was never on the list.
They should have learned from the French before them.... 

John Pilger is a polemic journalist. Citing him as a source is like citing Sean Hannity from FOX news.


----------



## Victoria32

djchak said:
			
		

> The US went through all that war.... basically becuase they wanted to stop communism from spreading. Imperealist empire building was never on the list.
> They should have learned from the French before them....
> 
> John Pilger is a polemic journalist. Citing him as a source is like citing Sean Hannity from FOX news.


 
No, it's nothing like! Pilger, Fisk, Chomsky all much more reliable in matters of fact than any Faux News presenter, and much more so than many Americans know. 

Pilger's film, "Year Zero" has never been shown in the USA, because "it's politically provocative and too critical of the USA" he was told by PBS... It is a film made in 1979! Freedom of speech is somewhat limited it would seem!


----------



## djchak

LOL.

I wonder if you will ever get to see

"Guests of the Ayatollah"  or "444 days"

 Pilger, Fisk, Chomsky are all polemics. It's no better a source than the "opinions" on Fox news.  For all thier faults, I would trust anything on CNN, MSNBC, BBC, and Asharq Alaswat over the loony bin commandos you have mentioned.


----------



## .   1

I do not wish to go off thread here too much but I must ask if there is a regional thing going on with the use of _polemic _and polemic seems to being thrown around with gay abandon in this thread.

It is my understanding that_ polemic_ indicates some form of closed mind.

Polemic
1. of or involving dispute or controversy
2. an argument or controversy, _esp_, over a doctrine, belief, etc

I do not understand what doctrine or belief Pilger et al stand accused of defending.

.,,


----------



## don maico

I can only think that it goes with the territory of being the most powerful nation on earth and as such able to impose its own agenda. When there was  pax Britanica maybe some hated the Uk in fact I am fairly sure they did.Even now there is still an animosity towards us from some quarters.
Guess you'll just have to get used to it, but never mind we'll still be your closest allies as I hope other English speaking nations are.


----------



## maxiogee

don maico said:
			
		

> I can only think that it goes with the territory of being the most powerful nation on earth and as such able to impose its own agenda. When there was  pax Britanica maybe some hated the Uk in fact I am fairly sure they did.Even now there is still an animosity towards us from some quarters.
> Guess you'll just have to get used to it, but never mind we'll still be your closest allies as I hope other English speaking nations are.



Is it only me, or does that last sentence carry an undertone of "Whatever you do" about it?

=====

I was asked on a different thread if I was expectinga different standard of behaviour of Israel than I was of terrorists. I was stunned by this question. Of course we expect different standards of behaviour of nations than we do of thugs and murderers.

These are the issues which Pilger, Fisk and Chomsky point to in their writings - and to see that they are derided and belittled as polemics (sic*) by some in America shows that they are doing a good job. It is just a pity that they are not getting read by those who would most benefit from reading them.

* *polemic* is the writing
* *polemical* is the style of writing
* *polemicist* is the writer

Check out the root of the word!
N.B. NONE of these words are negative.


----------



## djchak

Dictionary definitions and academia aside.......

Polemics are out to evangelize with extreme bias. They don't care about the truth, they just want to blame one side of the problem, and frequently exxagerate the facts. 

We should "expectinga" mucho mas of sources than we do of carnival tricksters.


----------



## don maico

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Is it only me, or does that last sentence carry an undertone of "Whatever you do" about it?
> 
> =====
> 
> I was asked on a different thread if I was expectinga different standard of behaviour of Israel than I was of terrorists. I was stunned by this question. Of course we expect different standards of behaviour of nations than we do of thugs and murderers.
> 
> These are the issues which Pilger, Fisk and Chomsky point to in their writings - and to see that they are derided and belittled as polemics (sic*) by some in America shows that they are doing a good job. It is just a pity that they are not getting read by those who would most benefit from reading them.
> 
> * *polemic* is the writing
> * *polemical* is the style of writing
> * *polemicist* is the writer
> 
> Check out the root of the word!
> N.B. NONE of these words are negative.



It would appear that way. Whatever the US does or has done we are bound to follow (other then Viet Nam of course)


----------



## maxiogee

djchak said:
			
		

> Dictionary definitions and academia aside.......
> 
> Polemics are out to evangelize with extreme bias. They don't care about the truth, they just want to blame one side of the problem, and frequently exxagerate the facts.
> 
> We should "expectinga" mucho mas of sources than we do of carnival tricksters.



But how then do you know that these authors are biased? Just because they disagree with your preconceived notions, and because they treat all "official" sources sceptically?

Produce evidence that any of the three names authors are "out to evangelize with extreme bias" — evidence which doesn't rely for its foundation on their rejection of state (any state) propaganda — and we might begin to believe you. Otherwise you are just sounding like a blinkered and ear-stopped partisan.


----------



## cuchuflete

Has this thread run its course, or does anyone have something further to offer about the thread topic?


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Has this thread run its course, or does anyone have something further to offer about the thread topic?



Well the recent surfacing of the writings of Robert Fisk _et al_ is apparently, from djchak's viewpoint, on topic. It seems that they, unreasonably, hate the US. 
Of course, I wouldn't presume to speak for another forer@, and must await confirmation of this.
Whether suitable confirmation arrives is, of course, another question.


----------



## cuchuflete

Do Chomsky, Fist, _et alia_, hate the US, or wish to improve it by pointing out correctable flaws?

[He said, staying as far off-topic as possible.]


----------



## djchak

For the record: I never said they HATE the US.

Just that those three people mentioned were polemicists.

"But how then do you know that these authors are biased? Just because they disagree with your preconceived notions, and because they treat all "official" sources sceptically?"

You could ask the same thing anytime someone critizizes Bill O Reily, Sean Hannity, or John Gibson from FOX news. That's the whole point.


----------



## maxiogee

djchak said:
			
		

> For the record: I never said they HATE the US.



No, what you said was …

> Pilger, Fisk, Chomsky are all polemics. 
> It's no better a source than the "opinions"
> on Fox news. For all thier faults, I would
> trust anything on CNN, MSNBC, BBC, and
> Asharq Alaswat over the loony bin
> commandos you have mentioned.

You then said…

> Polemics are out to evangelize with
> extreme bias. They don't care about
> the truth, they just want to blame one
> side of the problem, and frequently
> exxagerate the facts. 

> We should "expectinga" mucho mas of
> sources than we do of carnival tricksters.

(I don't understand your Spanish and cannot decipher it, suffice to say that it appears negative.)

> Pilger, Fisk, Chomsky are all polemics. 
> the loony bin commandos 
> Polemics are out to evangelize with extreme bias. 
> They don't care about the truth,
and
> they just want to blame one side

Now if that doesn't sum up to saying that they hate the US, then I don't know how to interpret it.


----------



## Bran Muffin

Let me make a comment on the Vietnam discussion. Does anyone know how many people we killed there (not to mention who)? In the span of time that the United States was there about 4,000 (at least) United States troops died. That is not including the people that we killed. We killed not only soldiers, but also innocent women and children.Here is a section from Wikipedia.com 

*My Lai massacre*

U.S. soldiers' massacre of Vietnamese villagers at My Lai.


The morality of U.S. conduct of the war was major political issue both in the United States and abroad. First, there was the question whether a proxy war like Vietnam without a clear and decisive path to victory was worth fighting and worth the casualties sustained both by the combatants and by civilians. Second, there was the question whether a guerrilla war in which the enemy was often indistinguishable from civilians could be fought at all without unacceptable casualties among innocent civilians. Last, there was the question whether young, inexperienced U.S. soldiers -- many of them involuntary conscripts -- could reasonably be expected to engage in such guerrilla warfare without succumbing to stress and resorting to acts of wanton brutality. Fighting a mostly invisible enemy mixed in the civilian population -- an enemy that did not obey the conventional rules of warfare -- and suffering injuries and deaths from booby traps and attacks by soldiers who pretended to be civilians could not help but lead to the kind of fear and hatred that would compromise morals.
In 1969, U.S. investigative journalist Seymour Hersh exposed the My Lai massacre and its cover-up, for which he received the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. It came to light that Lt. William Calley, a platoon leader in Vietnam, had been ordered to investigate and, by whatever means necessary, dissolve Viet Cong control in a village that was believed to be harboring the Viet Cong as well as a large stash of weapons and ammunition. Upon arriving at the village, Lt. Calley and his men discovered that it was populated mainly by women and children. The near absence of adult males, who might reasonably have been presumed to be Viet Cong in hiding, coupled with the fact that U.S. intelligence had declared that the village was a Viet Cong hotspot, caused Lt. Calley to weigh his options. After thought and deliberation, his men massacred several hundred Vietnamese civilians, including women, babies, and the elderly. The massacre was stopped only after three U.S. soldiers (Glenn Andreotta, Lawrence Colburn and Hugh Thompson, Jr.) noticed the carnage from their helicopter and intervened to prevent their fellow soldiers from killing any more civilians. Calley was given a life sentence after his court-martial in 1970 but was later pardoned by President Nixon. Cover-ups may have happened in other cases, as detailed in the Pulitzer Prize-winning article series about the Tiger Force by the _Toledo Blade_ in 2003.

And you wonder why people hate the United States? Wouldn't you hate someone that did that to your kin? Then after te war we were not happy with the blood that ws shed so we decide to destroy anyone that tries to tell the truth. (As a side note, I wonder if anyone would be able to find that book. Probably not...)

By the way, if anyone wants to know my sources tell me. I would have posted them but the forum will not allow me to post anything that looks like a URL address.


----------



## djchak

The irony to all this is that Vietnam today does not "Hate" the US per se.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/crossing_continents/5169638.stm

"They wanted to talk about the future, not to dwell on the past.   They would like, if at all possible, to study in the US because they admire its educational opportunities and - significantly - its "freedom"


The truth might be that Vietnam has affected the minds of the US more than vice versa.


----------



## maxiogee

djchak said:
			
		

> They would like, if at all possible, to study in the US because they admire its educational opportunities and - significantly - its "freedom"
> 
> The truth might be that Vietnam has affected the minds of the US more than vice versa.



Surely if 'they' want to go to America then 'vice versa' is exactly what has happened. Who in America wants to go to Vietnam to study?


----------



## bernik

_" does anyone have something further to offer about the thread topic? "_

Yes, me ! But when I say anything about the responsibility of Islam in the terrorist attacks, my posts tend to disappear. Am I allowed to mention the question of muslim immigration to Europe, or is it off topic ?

_" Wouldn't you hate someone that did that to your kin? "_

The My Lai massacre is not typical of what the US did in Vietnam. And the Vietnamese communists have killed more people than the US army.

_" The irony to all this is that Vietnam today does not "Hate" the US per se. "_

It doesn't seem like they hate France either. It is the same thing in Europe: during the last two big wars, we killed millions in each other's countries, and yet, we don't hate each other.

We know that the Vietnamese had nothing to do with 9/11.
The authors of the attacks came from Saudi Arabia.
In the recent London plot, the authors come from Pakistan.
In the Madrid terrorist attacks, I think the authors came from Morocco.
In 1994, four members of the Armed Islamic Group planned to crash an airbus on Paris, but they were killed on the plane by a commando attack while they were refueling. I suppose they were Algerians.

So, it has nothing to do with Vietnam.


----------



## GenJen54

This thread has zigged and zagged its way into too many subjects to count, from US intervention in WWII (now its own thread), to discussion of the word polemic, to US intervention in Vietnam, to treatment of individuals by customs and other security personnel at airports.  None of these topics really has anything to do with the idea proposed by EVERNESS:





> *Why do they hate the US?*
> 
> Why would people plan to use an explosive to attack up to 10 airplanes bound for destinations in the United States and kill hundreds of people on board, mostly Americans? Do they harbor deep-seated hatred toward all Americans and not just toward the Bush administration or something else motivates their murderous behavior?
> 
> Baudrillard's explanation is a good one. In "L'Esprit du Terrorisme," he argues that the US' agenda of dominating the world creates global resistance.
> 
> _It goes well beyond the hatred that the desolate and the exploited--those who ended up on the wrong side of the new world order--feel toward the dominant global power. This malicious desire resides in the hearts of even those who have shared in the spoils. The allergy to absolute order, to absolute power, is universal, and the two towers of the World Trade Center were, precisely because of their identicality, the perfect incarnation of this absolute order. ("L'Esprit" 13)_




If you cannot work to providing meaningful discussion to these specific questions, or address the article as offered by Everness for discussion, then I am afraid you are Off-Topic.  

If we cannot stick to topic, then this thread, too, shall be closed! (And please don't make me close it!)


----------



## maxiogee

bernik said:
			
		

> Yes, me ! But when I say anything about the responsibility of Islam in the terrorist attacks, my posts tend to disappear.


Does that not tell you anything about the content of your posts?




> Am I allowed to mention the question of muslim immigration to Europe, or is it off topic ?


I'd be interested to see (in reasoned argument, with substantiated facts) how the immigration of Muslims
(a favourite hobbyhorse of yours which seems to infiltrate many threads to which you post)
bears on why this 'they' hate the US.
I would also expect you to not defame the whole of Islam when you do this.


----------



## bernik

_the idea proposed by EVERNESS:
"Baudrillard (.) argues that the US' agenda of dominating the world creates global resistance." _

If the US has an agenda of dominating the world, why is the violent response only coming from the muslim world, while countries like Vietnam are looking for reconciliation ? In what way is the US dominating Saudi Arabia, Morocco, Algeria, or Pakistan ? Why are the Sunnis and Shiites using terrorist methods against each other ?

The obvious answer is that the world has a problem with islamic terrorism, not with the United States.


----------



## GenJen54

Let’s look at the big pink elephant in the room.   This post is not meant to promote any singular agenda, merely offer an explanation that has not already been discussed.  
 
I am not “pro” or “con” any_thing_ or _one_ in this discussion.
 
“They” (assuming *militant* Muslims) hate us because:
 
- we (the US) has exploited their lands, peoples and resources for our political gains for the past five decades;
- we (the US) has promoted a very pro-Israel political stance for the past five decades, all but ignoring completely the needs and/or rights of the Muslim populations both in and outside of our own country (to do otherwise would be seen as “racist” – sorry, but it’s the truth);
- we (the US) have decried “Islam” as a religion of “terror” while not placing any blame on other countries and/or religious groups who have committed acts against innocent Muslims in numerous countries across the globe.
- we (the US) have manipulated the plight of a people who have been held under governments of their own choosing in order to defend our interests of “democracy” and “capitalization” (read: oil).
 
While it is true many of “them” live under forms of government where people are not granted many of the same freedoms we enjoy (dictatorships, tyrannies, etc.), “we” decide to pre-emptively impose our “means” on them, even though by nature and culture their societies and people may not thrive under these means.
 
Is there any wonder “they” hate “US?” so much?  I’d hate “US” too if I were them and subjected to our treatment year in and year out.
 
We need only look at ourselves for the answer to this question.


----------



## tafanari

bernik said:
			
		

> If the US has an agenda of dominating the world, why is the violent response only coming from the muslim world, while countries like Vietnam are looking for reconciliation.


I would like you to explain to the families and surviving victims of the Oklahama bombing that the only violent response is coming from the Muslim world. Obviously the US has much too many of it's own people who have a problem with the US government. I'm assuming that when we discuss why people hate the US we are talking about the government.


----------



## GenJen54

tafanari said:
			
		

> I would like you to explain to the families and surviving victims of the Oklahama bombing that the only violent response is coming from the Muslim world. Obviously the US has much too many of it's own people who have a problem with the US government. I'm assuming that when we discuss why people hate the US we are talking about the government.


As a native Oklahoma Citian and someone who was very involved in the Red Cross response AFTER this atrocious act (I worked directly across the street from "ground zero" the week after the bombing), I have to claim that this is a question of apples and oranges. 

The Oklahoma City bombing was an act of two or three individuals who were each part of FRINGE organizations that purported anti-government ideas. The bombing of the Murrah building had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, fundamental Islam, nor the US's stance on "terror." Rather it was a reaction against a particular government agency's (ATF) botched response to the actions of _other _*fringe,* *anti-government* groups.  Had Ruby Ridge and the Waco (David Koresh) raids not been botched, one can safely assume OKC might not have happened.


----------



## tafanari

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> As a native Oklahoma Citian and someone who was very involved in the Red Cross response AFTER this atrocious act (I worked directly across the street from "ground zero" the week after the bombing), I have to claim that this is a question of apples and oranges.
> 
> The Oklahoma City bombing was an act of two or three individuals who were each part of FRINGE organizations that purported anti-government ideas. The bombing of the Murrah building had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11, fundamental Islam, nor the US's stance on "terror." Rather it was a reaction against a particular government agency's (ATF) botched response to the actions of _other _*fringe,* *anti-government* groups.  Had Ruby Ridge and the Waco (David Koresh) raids not been botched, one can safely assume OKC might not have happened.



I respectfully disagree. I don't think 9/11 was a response by mainstream muslims (they were a fringe group as well) and I could argue that if US troops had not been stationned on Saudi soil it would not have happened.


----------



## ireney

tafanari said:
			
		

> I would like you to explain to the families and surviving victims of the Oklahama bombing that the only violent response is coming from the Muslim world. Obviously the US has much too many of it's own people who have a problem with the US government. I'm assuming that when we discuss why people hate the US we are talking about the government.




I don't think we are talking only about the goverment/foreign policy or else why would the "I'm a Canadian" joke exist? 
There _are_ people who think all Americans are bad/evil/idiots. As I said before this is pure racism.

In fact this is one of the reasons this thread has become a bit complicated. Others 'hate' or hate the goverment/foreign policy and others all Americans.


----------



## GenJen54

> I don't think 9/11 was a response by mainstream muslims (they were a fringe group as well) and I could argue that if US troops had not been stationned on Saudi soil it would not have happened.


 
Where did I say 9/11 was a response by mainstream muslims?? 

What I was arguing was your comparison of 9/11 to the OKC Bombing.  The two are wholly separate and have absolutely *NOTHING* to do with each other. 

As for my idea about why "they" hate us, please read my post #119.


----------



## .   1

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> Let’s look at the big pink elephant in the room. This post is not meant to promote any singular agenda, merely offer an explanation that has not already been discussed.
> 
> I am not “pro” or “con” any_thing_ or _one_ in this discussion.
> 
> “They” (assuming *militant* Muslims) hate us because:
> 
> - we (the US) has exploited their lands, peoples and resources for our political gains for the past five decades;
> - we (the US) has promoted a very pro-Israel political stance for the past five decades, all but ignoring completely the needs and/or rights of the Muslim populations both in and outside of our own country (to do otherwise would be seen as “racist” – sorry, but it’s the truth);
> - we (the US) have decried “Islam” as a religion of “terror” while not placing any blame on other countries and/or religious groups who have committed acts against innocent Muslims in numerous countries across the globe.
> - we (the US) have manipulated the plight of a people who have been held under governments of their own choosing in order to defend our interests of “democracy” and “capitalization” (read: oil).
> 
> While it is true many of “them” live under forms of government where people are not granted many of the same freedoms we enjoy (dictatorships, tyrannies, etc.), “we” decide to pre-emptively impose our “means” on them, even though by nature and culture their societies and people may not thrive under these means.
> 
> Is there any wonder “they” hate “US?” so much? I’d hate “US” too if I were them and subjected to our treatment year in and year out.
> 
> We need only look at ourselves for the answer to this question.


 
Thank you JenGen.
That pink elephant has been clogging up this discussion from the very beginning but as a non US person I did not feel qualified to make such obvious statements.  I was not aware of some of the subtelties of your post and I am pleased to have heard them.

Freedom is a concept that everybody needs but few understand.

I am prejudiced and I know it so I can make allowances for my responses.

I have a huge personal difficulty with the concept of five times regular prayer.  This difficulty is amplified by the public sirens and reminders to pray.  The worst part for me is the obvious public pressure for all to take part but...
This is where I know that I am prejudiced and not operating with all the facts.

It is obvious that the people praying are enjoying themselves and that they gain enormous peace from the process.

I suspect that this ability to pray in company with their peers is considered by them to be one of the greatest freedoms they have.

It is virtually impossible for a foreign power to enter a society and impose freedom.  The freedom must come from within.

What is the difference between imposed freedom and oppression?

.,,


----------



## tafanari

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> Where did I say 9/11 was a response by mainstream muslims??
> 
> What I was arguing was your comparison of 9/11 to the OKC Bombing.  The two are wholly separate and have absolutely *NOTHING* to do with each other.
> 
> As for my idea about why "they" hate us, please read my post #119.



My post was a response to someone who implied that they *only* people who were acting violently against the US government were muslim extremists. It was not a response to anything that you were saying.

Obviously other kinds of people have placed bombs to kill innocent civilians in the United States. I think the fact that it was a cowardly act that killed many innocent people and was motivated by politics makes them somewhat similar but if we all agreed there wouldn't be forums like these.


----------



## .   1

tafanari said:
			
		

> I respectfully disagree. I don't think 9/11 was a response by mainstream muslims (they were a fringe group as well) and I could argue that if US troops had not been stationned on Saudi soil it would not have happened.


It is extraordinarily difficult to apply the rules of logic to the acts of a person so insane that they are willing to die in order to be able to kill vast numbers of people in the utterly vain hope that there is some form of God or Supreme Being that is going to say, "Yeah that was great man.  You should have seen the little kids and the bits of bodies and the stench of recent death.  Yes this is the very reason I created humanity and gave you a soul."

.,,


----------



## tafanari

ireney said:
			
		

> I don't think we are talking only about the goverment/foreign policy or else why would the "I'm a Canadian" joke exist?
> There _are_ people who think all Americans are bad/evil/idiots. As I said before this is pure racism.
> 
> In fact this is one of the reasons this thread has become a bit complicated. Others 'hate' or hate the goverment/foreign policy and others all Americans.



If some people don't like Greeks because those people are bigots, there is really nothing you can do about that. There always was and always be prejudice. But if people have the impression that the Greek government is acting unfairly towards a certain group, then that is something Greeks can and do something about. Whether the perception is based on fact or not.


----------



## tafanari

. said:
			
		

> It is extraordinarily difficult to apply the rules of logic to the acts of a person so insane that they are willing to die in order to be able to kill vast numbers of people in the utterly vain hope that there is some form of God or Supreme Being that is going to say, "Yeah that was great man.  You should have seen the little kids and the bits of bodies and the stench of recent death.  Yes this is the very reason I created humanity and gave you a soul."
> 
> .,,



Well, you would have to apply that to the people who killed because of Ruby Ridge or Waco, Texas.

What I was trying to say was not that terrorists were logical but that they are not all Islamic fundamentalists as it was suggested by Bernik.


----------



## .   1

tafanari said:
			
		

> Well, you would have to apply that to the people who killed because of Ruby Ridge or Waco, Texas.
> 
> What I was trying to say was not that terrorists were logical but that they are not all Islamic fundamentalists as it was suggested by Bernik.


That was who I was referring to.
I was not trying to disagree with you at all.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

tafanari said:
			
		

> But if people have the impression that the Greek government is acting unfairly towards a certain group, then that is something Greeks can and do something about. Whether the perception is based on fact or not.




This is one of the great fallacies of democracy!


* There has to be enough people who have this impression of offending behaviour;
* There has to be a viable alternative to the offending government;
* That alternative has to believe that the offending behaviour needs to be stopped;
… and finally, and more importantly …
* There has to be a willingness in the officialdom to accede to the ending of the offending behaviour.

This is true of all democracies.
Show me a multi-party democracy with viable alternative governments which are truly different from each other and I'll show you a rare country.


----------



## ireney

tafanari said:
			
		

> If some people don't like Greeks because those people are bigots, there is really nothing you can do about that. There always was and always be prejudice. But if people have the impression that the Greek government is acting unfairly towards a certain group, then that is something Greeks can and do something about. Whether the perception is based on fact or not.




a) If the perception is not based on fact there's precious little we can do. I know there is the possibility to change that false perception but not the probability of doing so.

b) If the perception is based on fact and 
 a.I protest agaist what my goverment does and vote for a party that opposed that policy what else can I do? Why should anyone hate me in this case? 
 b. I am truly misinformed and support this policy why should anyone hate me? Do I deserve to die so that my fellow Greeks will start wondering and see the truth?


----------



## tafanari

maxiogee said:
			
		

> This is one of the great fallacies of democracy!
> 
> 
> * There has to be enough people who have this impression of offending behaviour;
> * There has to be a viable alternative to the offending government;
> * That alternative has to believe that the offending behaviour needs to be stopped;
> … and finally, and more importantly …
> * There has to be a willingness in the officialdom to accede to the ending of the offending behaviour.
> 
> This is true of all democracies.
> Show me a multi-party democracy with viable alternative governments which are truly different from each other and I'll show you a rare country.


I don't think you've understood what I meant and that, ironically, might be my own fault. Ironic, because that's my whole point: if people don't understand what you're saying or doing maybe you should explain yourself better.

If people around the world think BlaBlaland are oppressing their neighbors the Yayastonians, they may dislike them because of this. If this is indeed a misperception, the people or government of Blablaland can take steps to change this perception. 

I wasn't talking about local politics in Blablaland but about Blablaland's image around the world. Blablaland doesn't even have to be a democracy.


----------



## ireney

What if Yayastonian goverments are promotting this feeling and call all BlaBladian attempts to explain things lies?


----------



## tafanari

ireney said:
			
		

> a) If the perception is not based on fact there's precious little we can do. I know there is the possibility to change that false perception but not the probability of doing so.
> 
> b) If the perception is based on fact and
> a.I protest agaist what my goverment does and vote for a party that opposed that policy what else can I do? Why should anyone hate me in this case?
> b. I am truly misinformed and support this policy why should anyone hate me? Do I deserve to die so that my fellow Greeks will start wondering and see the truth?



Well, let's use a fictional country so I don't offend.

If people around the world hate Blabland because Blablaland pollutes heavily:

a) if it's true that they pollute they can take steps to stop polluting so much so that other people don't hate them as much.

b) if it's not true, they can show the rest of the world that it's not true, that it's a misperception.

These steps don't always work and some people won't believe anything that goes against their preconceived notions but I know some Blablalands who are not trying harder enough to change their image and give everyone the impression that they don't care.

Again, I'm not talking about local Greek politics. I think most countries have relatively inexpensive ways to project a positive image of themselves around the world. I think some countries do a better job than others.


----------



## tafanari

ireney said:
			
		

> What if Yayastonian goverments are promotting this feeling and call all BlaBladian attempts to explain things lies?



They need to try harder than the Yayastonians. When there are international disputes, countries need to make their cases in the international community. When Kuwait was invaded by Iraq, the Kuwaitis did a good job of explaining how this was unjust although the Iraqi government called them liars.

That's the sort of thing I'm talking about.


----------



## Victoria32

tafanari said:
			
		

> I would like you to explain to the families and surviving victims of the Oklahama bombing that the only violent response is coming from the Muslim world. Obviously the US has much too many of it's own people who have a problem with the US government. I'm assuming that when we discuss why people hate the US we are talking about the government.


 
Exactly! The Oklahoma bombing was without question, domestic terrorism, and I read an interesting book in about 2003, about agricultural policies and farm bankruptcies, apparently the issue at the root of the founding of many of the militias - people thrown off their land, and needing an outlet for their anger...

Economic "reform"! (Spit)...


----------



## .   1

Victoria32 said:
			
		

> Exactly! The Oklahoma bombing was without question, domestic terrorism, and I read an interesting book in about 2003, about agricultural policies and farm bankruptcies, apparently the issue at the root of the founding of many of the militias - people thrown off their land, and needing an outlet for their anger...
> 
> Economic "reform"! (Spit)...


The constant mantra from my government for the accelerating acceleration of economic growth (double spit)

I want to live in a society not an economy.

.,,


----------



## bernik

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> - we (the US) has exploited their lands, peoples and resources for our political gains for the past five decades;


I am not aware that the US has been exploiting anyone !

_


			
				GenJen54 said:
			
		


			Is there any wonder “they” hate “US?” so much? I’d hate “US” too if I were them and subjected to our treatment year in and year out.
		
Click to expand...

_I don't know what you are talking about, but you do not have a healthy point of view.


----------



## .   1

bernik said:
			
		

> I am not aware that the US has been exploiting anyone !
> 
> 
> I don't know what you are talking about, but you do not have a healthy point of view.


How do you spell gobsmacked?

.,,


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Well, let me tell you, as a person who`s lived in dozens of countries and is partly involved in conflict solution because of my job, I do not quite understand who you mean by "them". The hatred for the US and its citizens seems to be rather exaggerated to me. I haven`t encountered much open dislike although I am no American myself, of course, but am often taken for one. It is rather within very politically aggressive circles or propaganda, not so much ordinary people.  I have got loads of Muslim friends as well as other religious groups and nationalities. Most may disapprove of some aspects of the American policy (but who agrees with any policy 100%?). but no great hatred for Americans as people or for the US as a country or as a culture.
 It also very much exists in people`s minds that the US should be hated. 
 I used to believe that Russians hate the British until I actually realised that Russians tend to hate anybody, and, primarily, other Russians, although the nations that do better definitely receive the greatest part of animosity. It is just an aggressive country and people penetrated by violence right at the moment (or probably always was). So we often take for personal offence or relating to our nationality what actually has nothing to do with that and could be directed at anybody else.


----------



## .   1

Setwale_Charm said:
			
		

> So we often take for personal offence or relating to our nationality what actually has nothing to do with that and could be directed at anybody else.


This is the flaw at the base of the question.
In order to hate a person must hate themselves and I just do not perceive many haters around here.
This question is like a tree falling in a woods of no self awareness.
Haters hate and lovers love.
U.S America does some bad things that draw huge publicity and the most negative spin possible and so many have come to the point that they are willing to believe the most ridiculous unfounded accusations as prooven fact.
For every mistake made by the States I must believe that many many more positive things are happening in the world as a direct result of U.S America.
No one loves war and no one here loves domination and our minds are assaulted by lie after lie after lie to justify a very questionable act in visiting Iraq without an invitation but I believe that it is probable that the world is a better place because of U.S. America and what is there to hate.

.,,


----------



## LV4-26

> So far the U.S. has ignored it by refusing to answer the implicit question: Why do they hate us? By what right do we exploit their resources, overthrow their elected leaders, and drop bombs on their people?"


 Although Everness already made it clear, I think it doesn't harm making it a little clearer still : those are Butterfield's questions, not Baudrillard's.


> In "L'Esprit du Terrorisme," he [Baudrillard] argues that the US' agenda of dominating the world creates global resistance.


 That was said by Everness and quoted at least twice. Though it isn't entirely untrue (that Baudrillard argues that) it might be slightly misleading. Therefore I think an additional quote from _L'Esprit du Terrorisme_ might be of some relevance


> Thus, it is no shock of civilizations, of religions, and it *goes* *much beyond Islam and America*, on which one attempts to focus the conflict to give the illusion of a visible conflict and of an attainable solution (through force). It certainly is a fundamental antagonism, but one which shows, through the *spectrum* of America (which may be the epicentre but *not, by itself,  the embodiment of globalization*) and through the spectrum of Islam (which is conversely not the embodiment of terrorism), triumphant globalization fighting with itself.


 I slightly altered a sentence as there appeared to be an error in the original translation  (which is not Butterfield's). Bolded words have been highlighted by myself.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

. said:
			
		

> This is the flaw at the base of the question.
> In order to hate a person must hate themselves and I just do not perceive many haters around here.
> This question is like a tree falling in a woods of no self awareness.
> Haters hate and lovers love.
> U.S America does some bad things that draw huge publicity and the most negative spin possible and so many have come to the point that they are willing to believe the most ridiculous unfounded accusations as prooven fact.
> For every mistake made by the States I must believe that many many more positive things are happening in the world as a direct result of U.S America.
> No one loves war and no one here loves domination and our minds are assaulted by lie after lie after lie to justify a very questionable act in visiting Iraq without an invitation but I believe that it is probable that the world is a better place because of U.S. America and what is there to hate.
> 
> .,,


 Not quite a clear viewpoint but deserves respect as a viewpoint, I guess. 
 The thing is: again having seen many political and armed conflicts, I am not at all sure that the domination of the States is a bad idea once we accept the inevitability of some sort of domination. I shiver when I think of what other powers could do if they were in the same position. despite loads of negative aspects and the notorious ignorance (Yugoslavia and their stance on Chechnya are particularly illustrative example - I can never believe my eyes when I read or hear what they declare! who are they counting on reaching with that?), still the US are doing a lot of good around the world and they do represent a sort of guarantee that the world shall not slip into complete chaos.


----------



## LV4-26

Much has been said about the US achieving a dominant role through its military and political agenda. But I think there's more to it. A dominant power is not only a power that imposes itself on a military, political and/or economical point of view, but an entity that works as *a model.
*A model of economy, of society and, ultimately, a power that (actively *or passively*) imposes its own model of a *human being*.
This model is easily spread out thanks to media globalization and the instant flow of messages and signs.
In this way, there can be a substantial number of X-haters in a given area/country if, and only if there is a substantial number of X-lovers. Only if there are enough people who are fond of that model and want to copy it and impose it on the rest of the population.
As Baudrillard stresses, this model isn't only embodied by America but America appears to be "the epicentre".
I think Saudi Arabia, for instance, is a country where you find quite a few lovers of such a model. (and hence, as many haters).

If the model is strong and influential enough and comes to impose itself to the whole globe, then there may be a number of people that will come to think that they just "don't fit" in the world that is gradually being created for them.


----------



## maxiogee

bernik said:
			
		

> __
> I don't know what you are talking about, but you do not have a healthy point of view.



The second part of that statement is a rather unusual one to see follow the first part.

As to an "unhealthy point of view" —> the same can politely be said of your obvious obsessions.


----------



## .   1

maxiogee said:
			
		

> The second part of that statement is a rather unusual one to see follow the first part.
> 
> As to an "unhealthy point of view" —> the same can politely be said of your obvious obsessions.


This is the marvelous thing about polite language.
There was a very popular saying going around when I was in the Army and it made us feel better when we had to deal with snooty superior ranks.
"There is more than one way to pronounce 'sir'."

I do not think that enough people actually hate U.S. America and many that do hate are not hating reality but hating the propoganda they have been force fed.

I doubt that Hellenistic Greece or Ancient Rome or Colonial Britain were particularly popular at the height of their power and influence.

.,,


----------



## ireney

Hah! I  had a Pakistani with really ruffled feathers over another issue altogether telling me that Alexander the Great didn' go to India for a spot of tea.

I have read articles by Iranians with a really resentful attitude towards Greek because of what Alexander did.

I'd say some are still pissed and it's been _a while _ since then  so yeap, our own punctuation marks is absolutely right


----------



## arugunu

Sorry for i couldn't read all the 8 pages of posts. I'll just tell what i do think about some particular subjects.

-A person who actually HATES all the citizens in a particular country is ILLITERATE.
-A person, who admires Bush and thinks that his attitudes towards any country make sense, is SHALLOW. (I know some turks living in US who vote for him, so no one to take it personal).
-A person, who approves what has been done in Iraq, is a beast and should be kept within the war zone to see what AN ACTUAL WAR is. I bet he'll piss into his pants, or maybe he'll ask for some snacks and beer.
-A person, who's comfortable with dying civilians and thinks that casualties in a war "FOR PEACE" is acceptable, he should be there fighting, and he'd better be one of those casualities as well.
-US sold weapons to terrorists here, and now the same US is arranging negotiations between the terrorists and the "always has been and always will be stupid" turkish government. What is the US government doing out of the US borders, why are they shouting all the time like: "We're here to bring peace, we're going to bring peace and also some Mc's and Burger King's as well"... Please leave those 3rd world countries alone, they already have so much to do...
-Who keeps and produces nuclear weapons and declares war to whom who keeps 'em as well as him, is just a COWARD. I honestly feel cool with this nuclear weapon idea, because i know if any country intends to nuke some place, i'll probably die too. Oh that's such a relief for me.
-One last "a-person-who" based opinion of mine : A person who is not aware of the US's or any other POWERFUL, VIOLENT, INCONSIDERATE country's sick policies, should please and better keep away from mentioning their OWN opinions. You don't want the blame for dying children and hundreds of "TRULY INNOCENT" people. Or, do you?
I always loved the cultures, the languages, the traditions; not the politicians. The governments (or whoever) should let people die in natural ways, not with small, metal, "worth-selling and using" angels of death. Oh, i forgot that bullets and shots are out of fashion. Now the rockets and missiles sell better.


----------



## Bran Muffin

I shall repeat.  The U.S.A. needs to learn how to mind its own business.


----------



## Bran Muffin

I agreed with most of what you said, however...


			
				arugunu said:
			
		

> -US sold weapons to terrorists here, and now the same US is arranging negotiations between the terrorists and the "always has been and always will be stupid" turkish government.


 
Where did you read/hear this???


----------



## djchak

Well, that was a post to wake you up in the morning...

I guess the next question would be...what government has not been powerful, violent, inconsiderate, or been partially based on those values stated at one time or another?

In a certain sense, any one placing any vote is shallow, as they are voting for thier intrests, and not the "other party" , whoever that may be. (if they reside in a democracy)

I think i've accepted, long before this thread, that the "rest of the world" will probably only know and judge the US based on it's government/foreign policy. But the opposite is also true... I think the logical conclusion to the current policies are voting more on domestic policies.... and more isolation from the "rest of the world". 

The US is known for going into wars in one swing of the pendulum, and isolation into the other....


----------



## Chazzwozzer

arugunu said:
			
		

> -A person, who admires Bush and thinks that his attitudes towards any country make sense, is SHALLOW. (I know some turks living in US who vote for him, so no one to take it personal).


Turkish-Americans I know voted for Bush because Kerry supported Armenian diaspora. It's simple as that. 


			
				arugunu said:
			
		

> -US sold weapons to terrorists here, and now the same US is arranging negotiations between the terrorists and the "always has been and always will be stupid" turkish government.


You mean Kurdish terrorists? Well, can you tell more about that?


----------



## djchak

So the US directly funded the PKK? That sounds a bit sketchy.


----------



## Chazzwozzer

djchak said:
			
		

> So the US directly funded the PKK? That sounds a bit sketchy.


 Well, I kinda agree. I just found something related, though: http://www.strategypage.com/messageboards/messages/37-35.asp


----------



## natasha2000

Everness said:
			
		

> Oh, c'mon mate! Australia might not be part of the US but was and is part of the "Coalition of the Willing," the Multinational force in Iraq that includes those nations whose governments have military personnel in Iraq. I was just trying to get some feedback from people from other countries who didn't support the US in this military adventure.


 
I just wanted to point out that the whole world demonstrated what they think about invasion to Iraq, including the USA people (not gouvernment!), so if you have any knowledge about it, you should know that as far as the Iraq is concerned, a huge part of population of any country whos gouvernment supported the invasion is AGAINST IT. Just for the record, 99% of Spanish population was against and demonstrated it in a series of manifestations al througout the Spain, yet, the president of that time, Aznar, did against the wish of the majority of Spaniards and supported the invasion. This means that any Spaniard's opinion is not worth of your attention?


----------



## arugunu

Yeah, you're right. There has always been rumours about who funded PKK. And the mostly accepted one here is that US sold them weapons. As long as we know that the most trustworthy rumours are always wandering around here for the reason that Turkey was zone of war, not US, but i must admit that it could be just a rumour, and yet again maybe the nearest one to the truth.
I just found an interview about this on the internet, what a retired general said in an interview : _

Many countries,mostly U.S.A., used PKK. All right U.S.A. is our friend but everyone minds their own business. U.S.A. filled the gap on the 36. parallel with PKK. U.S.A. did use PKK for their own sake, and some other countries did too. For example, what we most suffered in the war zone was the italian mines.

_Of course believing in this general is up to you, and i'm not assuring anyone that these are true. All i know is that many people died there were innocent. The rurals and the soldiers... Those soldiers were ordinary people whose only fault was being there. I have a friend there now. He's going to be there for another couple of months. He's an engineer. What does he have to do with fighting? Does he know how to? He might be killed there. If governments want war, they'll do their war with highly-trained-killers. Not with ordinary people. The seniors are always at the very back of the frontier. They shall not be killed, you know why, because they organize these legal murders. And this goes for any group,organization or whatever who wants war. They must go and get themselves killed.


----------



## arugunu

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> I just wanted to point out that the whole world demonstrated what they think about invasion to Iraq, including the USA people (not gouvernment!), so if you have any knowledge about it, you should know that as far as the Iraq is concerned, a huge part of population of any country whos gouvernment supported the invasion is AGAINST IT. Just for the record, 99% of Spanish population was against and demonstrated it in a series of manifestations al througout the Spain, yet, the president of that time, Aznar, did against the wish of the majority of Spaniards and supported the invasion. This means that any Spaniard's opinion is not worth of your attention?


Yes, you're right. People were against it here as well, but look what happened. US army turned Iraq into hell. I don't know how much better it was before the invasion, but at least i know that the population was a bit higher, the citizens weren't obliged to see those armed aliens all around, (including the turkish ones as well) and the homeless ones used to have homes.


----------



## natasha2000

arugunu said:
			
		

> Yes, you're right. People were against it here as well, but look what happened. US army turned Iraq into hell. I don't know how much better it was before the invasion, but at least i know that the population was a bit higher, the citizens weren't obliged to see those armed aliens all around, (including the turkish ones as well) and the homeless ones used to have homes.


 
Well, I can assume that ANY state is better than this one, when there are about 3000 dead per month, and no house or buliding entire, including the dictatorship. At least I would think so if I were in their shoes (hope never will). I always have to point out how impressed was I when I saw demonstrations in NY city and the quantity of people who came out to streets. But this only proves that "something is rotten in the state of Democracy" (and not only American one)....


----------



## djchak

arugunu said:
			
		

> Those soldiers were ordinary people whose only fault was being there. I have a friend there now. He's going to be there for another couple of months. He's an engineer. What does he have to do with fighting? Does he know how to? He might be killed there. If governments want war, they'll do their war with highly-trained-killers. Not with ordinary people. The seniors are always at the very back of the frontier. They shall not be killed, you know why, because they organize these legal murders. And this goes for any group,organization or whatever who wants war. They must go and get themselves killed.



The irony in this..... is the way many americans feel about thier troops in Iraq.

But let's face it, the "rest of the world" sees US forces in a different light than most americans would.

Again, the more the world hates the US, the better the chance it will see isolationism...in more than just a military way...as an option. Get ready for a less predictable, more multi polar world. While China, India, and Turkey rises, the US will be concentrating on how to slow down immigration, and forget about things like student exchange programs.

The more the world dislikes "America", the more it will make it "Fortress America", post Bush.


----------



## cuchuflete

Bran Muffin said:
			
		

> I shall repeat.  The U.S.A. needs to learn how to mind its own business.



There are those who would argue that every nation's business includes actions by other nations.  Herbert Hoover style isolationism doesn't work.  Neither does Bush's simplistic interventionism.  There is such a thing as a middle road.
However, no matter how "moderate" or sensible any foreign policy may be, some people will hate the results.

Sadly, US foreign policy has not been moderate or sensible during most, if not all, of my lifetime.  Also sadly, the same may be said of the policies of most other powerful nations.

By "mind its own business", what exactly do you mean?
Should the US cease trade with other nations?  Should it withdraw from the UN?  Should it abrogate all international treaties, and end international police cooperation?  How about so-called "foreign aid"?  Should that end as well?


----------



## caravaggio

para mi esa famosa "LIBERTAD" Y "SUEÑO AMERICANO" que tratan de vender al mundo le esta costando muchas lágrimas , sudores y penas al resto del mundo.

for me that famous “AMERICAN FREEDOM” and “AMERICAN DREAM” which  tries to sell to the world. Its costing many, sweats and pains to the rest of the world


----------



## djchak

caravaggio said:
			
		

> para mi esa famosa "LIBERTAD" Y "SUEÑO AMERICANO" que tratan de vender al mundo le esta costando muchas lágrimas , sudores y penas al resto del mundo.
> 
> for me that famous “AMERICAN FREEDOM” and “AMERICAN DREAM” which  tries to sell to the world. Its costing many, sweats and pains to the rest of the world



Well, in that case, the nations of the world can go to the UN, stop trade with the US, and minimize cooperation with it.....

Do you have a better solution?


----------



## natasha2000

tafanari said:
			
		

> I think many people hate the United States because Americans don't know much geography until it's time to bomb somebody...


 
Not even then. During the bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, once CNN said the NATO planes bombed Novi Sad, the capital of Kosovo.  
Kosovo is southern province of Serbia, and Novi Sad is the capital of Vojvodina, northern province of Serbia. I thought, when they are destroying my country, at least they should know what they are destroing, don't they?


----------



## natasha2000

Tsoman said:
			
		

> Como de pronto ya sabe, el aeropuerto es un lugar muy serioso y no representa el caracter nacional de mi pais. Le cuento que hay muchos estadounidenses que se quejan del trato en el aeropuerto tambien. le suplico que nos perdone, pero no es nuestra culpa que los empleados del aeropuerto no sepan como tratar a un visitante


 
yo diría que sabenmuy bien, y que simplemente obedecen lo que les se ha ordenado. Hace poco, me enteré que solo en EEUU es posible que te abran la maleta sin que tu lo sepas, y si está cerrada con la llave, te la rompen sin mas, yluego no te la pagan. Lo pasó a mi jefe, que es un ortodoncista mundialmente conocido, y todo eso despues de que le robaron el pasaporte en este mismo aeropuerto. Solamente pque no continuó el viaje que había empezado... Y por que no lo había continuado? porquele robaron. Y lo del robo... Le hicieron firmar que lo que pasó no fue que le robaron, sino que lo perdió. Si no hubiera firmado, no le habrían dejado hacer denuncia ni le habrían dejado ir. Eso estoy segura que no te pasa en ningún sitio en el mundo mundial!


----------



## natasha2000

djchak said:
			
		

> LOL.
> 
> I wonder if you will ever get to see
> 
> "Guests of the Ayatollah" or "444 days"
> 
> Pilger, Fisk, Chomsky are all polemics. It's no better a source than the "opinions" on Fox news. For all thier faults, I would trust anything on CNN, MSNBC, BBC, and Asharq Alaswat over the loony bin commandos you have mentioned.


 
To trust CNN?????  ja!


----------



## Bran Muffin

Chazzwozzer said:
			
		

> Well, I kinda agree. I just found something related, though: http......


 
I read this, and before reading this I saw that it is posted on a site that is basically like this one. People can go and post a lot of things there. So why should I believe it? Where are the sources? Where's the proof? How do I know that I can trust _Pars_?


----------



## Bran Muffin

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> By "mind its own business", what exactly do you mean?
> Should the US cease trade with other nations? Should it withdraw from the UN? Should it abrogate all international treaties, and end international police cooperation? How about so-called "foreign aid"? Should that end as well?


I mean that unless whatever is goining on is an immediate threat to the country, they should buzz off.  As far as trade is concerned, I would not say cout it off completely, but I *WILL* say that we have relied on imports way too much!  It has come to the point where you are lucky to find anything that is made in America, let alone something that is decently made.  Everything is now made in China or Japan.


----------



## natasha2000

. said:
			
		

> Thank you JenGen.
> That pink elephant has been clogging up this discussion from the very beginning but as a non US person I did not feel qualified to make such obvious statements. I was not aware of some of the subtelties of your post and I am pleased to have heard them.
> 
> Freedom is a concept that everybody needs but few understand.
> 
> I am prejudiced and I know it so I can make allowances for my responses.
> 
> I have a huge personal difficulty with the concept of five times regular prayer. This difficulty is amplified by the public sirens and reminders to pray. The worst part for me is the obvious public pressure for all to take part but...
> This is where I know that I am prejudiced and not operating with all the facts.
> 
> It is obvious that the people praying are enjoying themselves and that they gain enormous peace from the process.
> 
> I suspect that this ability to pray in company with their peers is considered by them to be one of the greatest freedoms they have.
> 
> It is virtually impossible for a foreign power to enter a society and impose freedom. The freedom must come from within.
> 
> What is the difference between imposed freedom and oppression?
> 
> .,,


 
Just wanted to say I strongly agree with you on everything you said. And i think that GenJen pointed out some very good thoughts to start with if any of American fewlt the necessity to do some introspection and try to answer correctly the question from the title of this thread.


----------



## arugunu

Bran Muffin said:
			
		

> I mean that unless whatever is goining on is an immediate threat to the country, they should buzz off. As far as trade is concerned, I would not say cout it off completely, but I *WILL* say that we have relied on imports way too much! It has come to the point where you are lucky to find anything that is made in America, let alone something that is decently made. Everything is now made in China or Japan.



Dear Brian, the things you say sounds a bit funny , don't they?
What's all that about buying american goods. Please take them away... 
Really. This is a country where we can still find fresh vegetables - except for istanbul. We don't need fast food. I see little children begging their mothers to buy them burgers. Those kids will grow fat as you can imagine. For your information, i'm not against buying american stuff, but you should know how further you can go. None of the world needs help from US neither from Turkey nor from any country. The countries should learn to get along with themselves, if you call that an isolation that would be an exaggeration. But, if only US isolates itself from the whole world (trading-wise and military-wise), it's only an opinion, but i'd really be glad. The US army, military sources or whatever it is, please take your bloody hands off any country. No one wants anymore blood to be spilled. Don't you think your troops are also dying in vain? Or do they die for something divine? For peace maybe?


----------



## caravaggio

djchak said:
			
		

> *Well, in that case, the nations of the world can go to the UN, stop trade with the US, and minimize cooperation with it.....*
> 
> Do you have a better solution?



a esa actitud tan arrogante con respecto al mundo es a la que me refiero

to that so arrogant attitude with respect to the world it is to which I talk about


----------



## djchak

So.. we should be less arrogant, and close ourselves off from the rest of the world.... keep all sciences, arts, cultures within the US, and not try to export them outside our borders.... AIDS drugs, aid for tsunami victims, News Channels like CNN, TV Shows, "American" Universities in places like Lebanon and Egypt... these are all arrogant methods of imperialism....right?


----------



## natasha2000

djchak said:
			
		

> So.. we should be less arrogant, and close ourselves off from the rest of the world.... keep all sciences, arts, cultures within the US, and not try to export them outside our borders.... AIDS drugs, aid for tsunami victims, News Channels like CNN, TV Shows, "American" Universities in places like Lebanon and Egypt... these are all arrogant methods of imperialism....right?


 
May I remind you that many scientists were not Americans but Europeans coming from Europe where they couldn't get what they got in the USA - financial support for their investigations?

As far as the CNN... You can keep them. They are liars as far as I am concerned.

I really do not understand this attitude... 
What is that you want to say?  That having some good things that are used by people in the world gives the US right to do as far as the foreign policy is concerned? So, we have Hollywood, and if you want to see the last movies Brad Pitt made, you must amen killing 3000 people per month in Iraq? Is this what you want to say? Or my English is a little bit weak?


----------



## caravaggio

djchak said:
			
		

> So.. we should be less arrogant, and close ourselves off from the rest of the world.... keep all sciences, arts, cultures within the US, and not try to export them outside our borders.... AIDS drugs, aid for tsunami victims, News Channels like CNN, TV Shows, "American" Universities in places like Lebanon and Egypt... these are all arrogant methods of imperialism....right?



Yes you can and maybe we will live better or maybe no... is the only solution you have?
That is the attitud ..walk back the word..this arrogant to think the world need you ..make me laugh.


----------



## djchak

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> May I remind you that many scientists were not Americans but Europeans coming from Europe where they couldn't get what they got in the USA - financial support for their investigations?
> 
> As far as the CNN... You can keep them. They are liars as far as I am concerned.
> 
> I really do not understand this attitude...
> What is that you want to say?  That having some good things that are used by people in the world gives the US right to do as far as the foreign policy is concerned? So, we have Hollywood, and if you want to see the last movies Brad Pitt made, you must amen killing 3000 people per month in Iraq? Is this what you want to say? Or my English is a little bit weak?



Actually, I am just asking question...in line with the thread....Why do people hate the US. As an American, it really WOULD be arrogant to guess the answers (so i've been told). SO, that's why we want people to discuss how they REALLY feel about the US.

Communication always helps...even it's on thoughts some people would not want to face.

Besides, the vast majority of people outside the US will never come here anyway, even to visit. So if people here have an opinion that America should isolate itself , and not be a part of the world, I think I should get to ask a few questions here and there.


----------



## GenJen54

caravaggio said:
			
		

> you can and maybe we will leave better or maybe no... is the only solution you have?


It seems to be the only solution some people want, including the terrrorirsts, some of whom would like nothing more than to see the U.S. anihilated in its entirety.


----------



## maxiogee

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> It seems to be the only solution some people want, including the terrrorirsts, some of whom would like nothing more than to see the U.S. anihilated in its entirety.



*That* can be said of many countries and about many organisations.
There is hardly a country in the world which hasn't got _some_ loathsome grouping which objects to its existence.
I presume that being bigger than most you get more agin you than most.


----------



## .   1

djchak said:
			
		

> So.. we should be less arrogant, and close ourselves off from the rest of the world.... keep all sciences, arts, cultures within the US, and not try to export them outside our borders.... AIDS drugs, aid for tsunami victims, News Channels like CNN, TV Shows, "American" Universities in places like Lebanon and Egypt... these are all arrogant methods of imperialism....right?


I would hope that you would be less extreme.
A reduction in arrogance does not necessarily result in pride.
A reduction in hubris will not always lead to greed.
A reduction in intervention does not guarantee isolation.

There have been strange posts here making diametrically opposed statements that do utterly nothing to promote understanding.
There are are assumptive rhetorical questions posted resulting in nothing but a confusion (but this is probably the intention).

It is not logical to assume that I do not love you I MUST therefore hate you.
It is not logical to assume that if I do not agree with you I MUST therefore hate you.
It is most certainly not logical to assume that if I am not you then I MUST hate you.

This space is full of strange people and wonderful people and strange and wonderful people but there are also a few strange and not at all wonderful individuals that I am ever so pleased are not me.

.,,


----------



## arugunu

Actually you don't understand what we were talking about djchak.
I totally completely agree with natasha and caravaggio about anything.
The point is no one hates US citizens, but your country's attitudes towards any other country. And about the arrogance, US just can't be arrogant, i don't see anything that US is particularly good at, except marketing. You're just good as any other country, US loves killing though. 
Please do not talk about arts. I know the most of the real american artists always tell that they love their country and they are ashamed about what US is doing. 
Besides indepent american cinema, all the american films of the last two decades are shallow, non-sense, time consuming. They're snacks. The lot who are eager to see real intellectual material do not watch Holywood films. If we were to talk about contemporary music, i regard those artists' success as a result of their genius and ambition. There are plenty of them in Europe, Asia or here as well. Arts is something else. Arts should be something you CANNOT sell. But US does it very well indeed.

None of the world needs your help. US doesn't have to send aids to the countries he invaded. But guess what, US should look benevolent, considerate. Sorry, i don't buy it. I hope no other sensible human being don't.
Please let someone explain me what US does that makes him "deserve" to be arrogant.

And one more question to the forum writers who actually want us to imagine how our countries would be if US did not sell their stuff to us.
Are you actually approving of this war or any other which was declared by US?


----------



## arugunu

Sorry for creating one more individual post but i just don't want to edit the previous one.

You mentioned about your TV SHOWS!!!
Why? You really like 'em, don't you?
Which one do you want to keep away from us, from the poor little 3rd world country beggars? CSI NY, 24 ,LOST, Buffy the vampire slayer, or her poor afraid-of-the-light lover Angel???
As i'm a beggar, i should be asking money from you, but i'm only asking you to take these away, please... Every individual in the world is getting more illiterate because of them. Those shows are making them "telly junkies". Maybe they remember that those dusty things with pages are called "books", and they're actually for reading not for keeping on the shelves.


----------



## caravaggio

corregido..sound for me the same in spanish live and leave..that was a mistake


----------



## maxiogee

arugunu said:
			
		

> i don't see anything that US is particularly good at,





> US loves killing though.





> I know the most of the real american artists always tell that they love their country and they are ashamed about what US is doing.





> all the american films of the last two decades are shallow, non-sense, time consuming.





> Arts should be something you CANNOT sell. But US does it very well indeed.





> None of the world needs your help.


What a load of arrogance - this is all personal opinion presented as fact. What makes your opinions so valid that they speak for all the world?




> And one more question to the forum writers who actually want us to imagine how our countries would be if US did not sell their stuff to us.
> Are you actually approving of this war or any other which was declared by US?


Can one not exclude the other? I'm puzzled here. I don't support any wars anywhere - I have declared my pacificism on many threads here - but I appreciate my American computer and many other products on sale here which are produced by American companies.


----------



## Yeu

djchak said:
			
		

> Actually, I am just asking question...in line with the thread....Why do people hate the US. As an American, it really WOULD be arrogant to guess the answers (so i've been told). SO, that's why we want people to discuss how they REALLY feel about the US.
> 
> Communication always helps...even it's on thoughts some people would not want to face.
> 
> Besides, the vast majority of people outside the US will never come here anyway, even to visit. So if people here have an opinion that America should isolate itself , and not be a part of the world, I think I should get to ask a few questions here and there.


 
Some people don't like (I'm not saying hate) americans for the way you think, you must know not everyone want to go to the US, there are good life outside US, I think americans can travel to know the world, because there is a world even you don't know it. Nowadays nobody is an Island, even you need the other contries, but is sadly you use the war to health your economy, some other contries only work and pay high taxes for example.


----------



## Yeu

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Can one not exclude the other? I'm puzzled here. I don't support any wars anywhere - I have declared my pacificism on many threads here - but I appreciate my American computer and many other products on sale here which are produced by American companies.


 
That are made in China or another place in the third world. US need us too, but please don't come with the speech that is a better world because of them. They take advantage of the poverty and the bad governants of other contries.


----------



## arugunu

maxiogee said:
			
		

> What a load of arrogance - this is all personal opinion presented as fact. What makes your opinions so valid that they speak for all the world?
> 
> 
> Can one not exclude the other? I'm puzzled here. I don't support any wars anywhere - I have declared my pacificism on many threads here - but I appreciate my American computer and many other products on sale here which are produced by American companies.



All right. They're presented as facts, sorry for that, that's the way i write down my opinions. And also sorry for giving the impression that i was speaking on all the world's behalf.
You appreciate your american computer, sounds a bit strange doesn't it?
There are plenty more of them out there, right?
I'm not against their products, except their featherless fried chickens (KFCs) and all other unhealthy american food. 
I'm talking about the arrogance. Why? There are plenty more companies which produce computers. What's the difference that makes you fancy the american ones. I don't want to say "we must not buy them". I just wonder if they really imagine me crying myself to bed if they stop selling those. No, i actually will be happy. Those companies in our own lands will appreciate that. They will be able to sell some of their own.


----------



## GenJen54

Yeu said:
			
		

> but is sadly you use the war to health your economy, some other contries only work and pay high taxes for example.


I'm not sure where you got this idea. This "war" has obliterated our economy. It is estimated that as of September $318.5 billion will have been spent on this war. When our current president took office, our national budget was more or less "balanced." Now we're closing in on $9 trillion in debt. It's an outrage. I do not run my own household accounting like this. Why should I have to put up with a government that does

As to arugunu's contentions, I agree they also smack of arrogance. If he wishes to complain about the great American "Marketing" machine, that is fine. He also has the right to choose NOT to partake of American-made products. It's no skin off my back. 

But pray, tell us, if you are so superior, what are Turkey's great contributions to the world order?


----------



## djchak

Yeu said:
			
		

> Some people don't like (I'm not saying hate) americans for the way you think, you must know not everyone want to go to the US, there are good life outside US, I think americans can travel to know the world, because there is a world even you don't know it. Nowadays nobody is an Island, even you need the other contries, but is sadly you use the war to health your economy, some other contries only work and pay high taxes for example.



Which American posters here said that there wasn't a good life outside the US?   

If people don't like americans for the way they think, or the way they are...then why would they want them to travel to thier part of the world, especially if they might never go to the US themselves?

So does everyone here agree that the US only makes war to benefit itself?
Not becuase it might feel threatened?

If you were an American, would you feel threatened by how people would pre judge you?


----------



## arugunu

As i see you thought that i was backing my country up when i was criticising US's policies. No, i'm not backing Turkey up. I'm not happy with anything goes on here as well. Our governments have always been stupid as i mentioned before. What do you mean "for the world order"? Does chaos need order? Do you really feel that this world actually needs a COP to serve and to protect? Is this world somekind of shopping centre which needs a volunteer to protect it from being plundered?


----------



## .   1

arugunu said:
			
		

> Actually you don't understand what we were talking about djchak.
> I totally completely agree with natasha and caravaggio about anything.
> The point is no one hates US citizens, but your country's attitudes towards any other country. And about the arrogance, US just can't be arrogant, i don't see anything that US is particularly good at, except marketing. You're just good as any other country, US loves killing though.
> Please do not talk about arts. I know the most of the real american artists always tell that they love their country and they are ashamed about what US is doing.
> Besides indepent american cinema, all the american films of the last two decades are shallow, non-sense, time consuming. They're snacks. The lot who are eager to see real intellectual material do not watch Holywood films. If we were to talk about contemporary music, i regard those artists' success as a result of their genius and ambition. There are plenty of them in Europe, Asia or here as well. Arts is something else. Arts should be something you CANNOT sell. But US does it very well indeed.
> 
> None of the world needs your help. US doesn't have to send aids to the countries he invaded. But guess what, US should look benevolent, considerate. Sorry, i don't buy it. I hope no other sensible human being don't.
> Please let someone explain me what US does that makes him "deserve" to be arrogant.
> 
> And one more question to the forum writers who actually want us to imagine how our countries would be if US did not sell their stuff to us.
> Are you actually approving of this war or any other which was declared by US?


Thanks mate.
Your English is slightly twisted  but your thinking is perfectly lucid.  It is wonderful to meet a human.
In answer to your question. 
No.

.,,


----------



## maxiogee

Yeu said:
			
		

> That are made in China or another place in the third world. US need us too, but please don't come with the speech that is a better world because of them. They take advantage of the poverty and the bad governants of other contries.



It's a Macintosh and they were made here in Ireland (and we're not Third World!) for quite some time, but it is still an American computer!

> And please don't…
And please make presumptions on my account.

The whole world is a better world because of everyone in it. Without any one of the members here, this forum would be the lesser for it. Without any nationality it would be a lesser world.

=====



			
				arugunu said:
			
		

> You appreciate your american computer, sounds a bit strange doesn't it?


What is strange about that? Can you explain why I shouldn't appreciate it?


----------



## arugunu

djchak said:
			
		

> If you were an American, would you feel threatened by how people would pre judge you?



A big percent of the world population thinks that turks are strict muslims who cut robbers' arms off, cuts liars' tongues off etc. it's not any different from Iran, right? But it's not like that here. What do you think i should do? I don't care. I don't enjoy living in turkey, i don't feel like i belong here. But i don't feel like i belong elsewhere too. If you say to a 3rd world country citizen that they will be very upset when you stop selling american goods, that's the actual point which the prejudices fly away. From that time on, they see that they were right about their prejudices. 
Why do you feel threatened? Why do all those guys seem to threaten you or your country? Did your country do any harm to any of those guys? What do you think the Iraqis were feeling? the same as you? A bit threatened? Or invaded?


----------



## Yeu

djchak said:
			
		

> Which American posters here said that there wasn't a good life outside the US?
> 
> If people don't like americans for the way they think, or the way they are...then why would they want them to travel to thier part of the world, especially if they might never go to the US themselves?
> 
> So does everyone here agree that the US only makes war to benefit itself?
> Not becuase it might feel threatened?
> 
> If you were an American, would you feel threatened by how people would pre judge you?


 
I'm mexican. I'm proud of my culture, I recognize our bad and good things, but I don't think if we don't exist the world would stop. I don't care what think another people of us, I'm only worried about what think my family and friends from me as mexican. My grandfather is american, he born in the US, I could be american too, but my family choose not to do it. I love shopping in US, I used to date an american, many people are so nice, but at the end of the day the arrogance stand out, many times I think because of the ignorance.


----------



## Yeu

maxiogee said:
			
		

> It's a Macintosh and they were made here in Ireland (and we're not Third World!) for quite some time, but it is still an American computer!
> 
> The whole world is a better world because of everyone in it. Without any one of the members here, this forum would be the lesser for it. Without any nationality it would be a lesser world.


 
First I don't say China was the third world, I said the third world thinking in Latinamerica: Mexico, Chile, for me is a reality, the third world don't make us less. So I never say Ireland was the third world.

That's my point, everyone is in this world and we need it, and nobody can be an Island. So anyone must use his good will or money to humiliate the others or take advantage of other.


----------



## arugunu

maxiogee said:
			
		

> What is strange about that? Can you explain why I shouldn't appreciate it?


I usually appreciate good food, good music, a good film, a nice painting or a book, not a box full of transistors, which would really be fun to throw mine out of the window. Maybe it's all about me. I don't appreciate cars as well... Has this answer to maxiogee's question been a bit off-topic?


----------



## djchak

"What do you mean "for the world order"?"

Um, are you refering to another poster? I never said anything about a "world order"

I also don't recall accusing you of "backing your country up".

Yeu:

"many people are so nice, but at the end of the day the arrogance stand out, many times I think because of the ignorance"

Ok, I think we all can accept criticism...BUT in what way are Americans arrogant? I can also accept that we are ignorant....but EVERYONE around the world is ignorant of something... it's not a crime.


----------



## Yeu

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> I'm not sure where you got this idea. This "war" has obliterated our economy. It is estimated that as of September $318.5 billion will have been spent on this war. When our current president took office, our national budget was more or less "balanced." Now we're closing in on $9 trillion in debt. It's an outrage. I do not run my own household accounting like this. Why should I have to put up with a government that does


 
My idea was because there is a war economy, and the US used it.

Maybe know is different, because we have more information, we are more close to you, we suffer the consequences of your goverments. 

If your economy is not to good, I think is because the medicine was worst that the illness... I'm not happy for that, because even we want or not (Mexico) depends of you, we say if US have a Flu, Mexico would have a pneumonia.


----------



## maxiogee

arugunu said:
			
		

> I usually appreciate good food, good music, a good film, a nice painting or a book, not a box full of transistors, which would really be fun to throw mine out of the window. Maybe it's all about me. I don't appreciate cars as well... Has this answer to maxiogee's question been a bit off-topic?


Can you not apppreciate the 'good' when you come across it - whatever it is?
Mine is a good thing, and I appreciate it.
You will find that people who own Apple computers feel that way.


----------



## djchak

Yeu said:
			
		

> That's my point, everyone is in this world and we need it, and nobody can be an Island. So anyone must use his good will or money to humiliate the others or take advantage of other.





I am trying to understand you, but it makes less and less sense.

Good will and money from the US = Humiliation of other countries???

I don't understand......Max offered a useful analogy on how US technology gets spread around the world.... and you are saying what? That we shouldn't do it? Stop spreading science and technology, keep it within our borders?


----------



## .   1

arugunu said:
			
		

> I usually appreciate good food, good music, a good film, a nice painting or a book, not a box full of transistors, which would really be fun to throw mine out of the window. Maybe it's all about me. I don't appreciate cars as well... Has this answer to maxiogee's question been a bit off-topic?


Appreciate has a wider usage than is sometimes assumed.

I appreciate my computer.  To be more accurate I appreciate what my computer can do or allow me to do.
I appreciate a good book.  To be more accurate I appreciate what a good book can do or allow me to do.

Appreciate and appreciation are slippery and have many meanings.

I appreciate U.S. American culture and I have an appreciation for some of it and an incomprehension for the rest and this is pretty much true of my own culture.

We are all different individuals in a confusing situation and we should be moving walls and clearing floorboards in the chambers of our minds not creating artificial barriers with the definitions of words.

.,,

.,,


----------



## caravaggio

No se trata de vivir excluyendonos unos de otros, lo que se trata es de vivir armoniosamente, respetando al vecino y al no tan vecino. No vivir sobre él y defender un ideal sobre todas las cosas que no compartimos todos. No imponiendo ideas por la fuerza y menos si no somos capaces de dar el ejemplo. Pues aplaudamos tambien las cosas por las que podriamos quererlos, pero no se esmeren en borran con una mano lo que hacen con la otra.
The question is not to exclude each other, is to live harmoniously, respecting to the neighbor and the not so neighboring . Not to live on  to defend an ideal on all the things that we did not share all. Not imposing ideas by the force and less if we are not able to give the example. Then we applaud also the things by which could to want them, but they do not take pains in erase with a hand which does with the other. (uff por un traductor)


----------



## Everness

. said:
			
		

> It is not logical to assume that I do not love you I MUST therefore hate you.
> It is not logical to assume that if I do not agree with you I MUST therefore hate you.
> It is most certainly not logical to assume that if I am not you then I MUST hate you.
> .,,



I think you're neglecting one small detail: the fundamental irrationality of human beings. In The Interpretation of Dreams (1899) Freud argued, among other things, that 1) the nature of mind, while it could never be fully known, was fundamentally irrational and 2) the irrationality of mankind would continually evidence itself in aggression and conflict. 

In sum, it is not logical to assume that people will behave logically.


----------



## Yeu

djchak said:
			
		

> Ok, I think we all can accept criticism...BUT in what way are Americans arrogant? I can also accept that we are ignorant....but EVERYONE around the world is ignorant of something... it's not a crime.


 
Arrogant, when some are proud of what they have or were they live (US for example), when they think the third world is because of the laziness of the people, when they are proud for the color of the skin or eyes. When they feel superior for being american.
When they think you go to the US because is the best you can do, and is the only place you can make you dreams come true.

I have a good life in Mexico, and now I have it in Chile, maybe some day I'll need to go to US because of my husband's job, I love the US for vacation, but I don't think is the better place to live, even if I have more money.


----------



## djchak

Yeu said:
			
		

> My idea was because there is a war economy, and the US used it.
> 
> Maybe know is different, because we have more information, we are more close to you, we suffer the consequences of your goverments.



Um, most countries have the same information.... the facts... it's how they get presented in the press.

The US government helped sponsor extremely stupid and destructive policies accross South America... but it's been a while since we did anything without the consent of your governments.

And that's not the point anyway. This is about what the world thinks of the USA as a WHOLE, not just the government.


----------



## Chazzwozzer

*Arugunu,* Amerika'nın yürüttüğü politakadan ben de memnun değilim ve eminim ki buradaki insanların çoğu da. Hükümetin yürütüyor olduğu politaka yüzünden buradaki insanlarla tartışmak bence çok anlamsız. Doğru değil mi?

Amerikan kültürünü ve ABD'nin değerlerine saldırmak, Bush'un politikasından daha da anlamsız geliyor bana.

Sen ülkenin kültüründen ve insanlarından mı nefret ediyorsun yoksa ülkenin yurtdışı politikasından mı?

Bir kez daha düşün lütfen.


----------



## djchak

Yeu said:
			
		

> Arrogant, when some are proud of what they have or were they live (US for example), when they think the third world is because of the laziness of the people, when they are proud for the color of the skin or eyes. When they feel superior for being american.
> When they think you go to the US because is the best you can do, and is the only place you can make you dreams come true.



So, every other nation has a right to be pround of thier culture...except the US.

And the US citizens think people are poor becuase they are...lazy.

 Proud for the color of the skin or eyes? So sorry, anyone of ANY race or nationality came become Americans. the US is held together by an ideaology, not ethnicity.

And to top it all off... Americans are arrogant for being proud they achieved thier dreams here.

Wow.


----------



## Yeu

djchak said:
			
		

> Um, most countries have the same information.... the facts... it's how they get presented in the press.
> 
> The US government helped sponsor extremely stupid and destructive policies accross South America... but it's been a while since we did anything without the consent of your governments.
> 
> And that's not the point anyway. This is about what the world thinks of the USA as a WHOLE, not just the government.


 
mmm I used to be a neighbor and I think different, you have a great power in our goverment, the difference now is that you make in a "political way".

If not is the point, I'm saying what I think of you, because your goverment and the people that follow it affect us (when I were in Texas many people voted for Bush in the re-election), maybe is more like a mexican. Maybe the aswer could be: I don't hate the americans, I'm sad many times for your goverment and the way that affect us and another nations.


----------



## arugunu

All right here's your answer.
I love the american arts. All those composers i've been listening and all those wonderful directors i appreciate, they're american. I'm not feeling upset that they're not european but american, that doesn't bother me. I love good old Buk and Fante they were also americans. But if you ask me what i think about normal US citizens. I can tell you honestly that i'll never generalize about this.
I don't have any right to generalize. But if you insist i'd tell you that i like americans as much as i like turks, brits or italians. I like the way Buk answers when his soon-to-be girlfriend asks him in the film Barfly if he hates people or not : 

"No, i don't hate people. I just seem to feel better when they're not around"

That's all i think about people of all nations. They could be nice, or evil. It depends who they are as individuals.


----------



## maxiogee

arugunu said:
			
		

> You didn't djchak, GenJen did.
> 
> Also about the americans being arrogant, i didn't say that either. Another forum writer said that. Please check out the previous posts.
> 
> Maxiogee, you might be right about the Apple stuff. I have an apple i-pod. And i often thank god for it's still working well. Apple is genius when it comes to marketing. They sell those i-pods like selling nuts. And when the battery is gone for good, they charge you the price of another brand new i-pod. It's a good idea isn't it?




Do you do anything but complain? What do you expect someone who makes a product/provides a service to do but to sell it?

I have had Macintosh products since 1988.
I like them. I liked them more before they abandoned one of my favourite applications (I wrote and told them so!) - but it still works reasonably well.
I don't spend my time complaining to everyone who'll listen. When *my* iPod battery dies I'll replace it with a little bit of constructive disassembly!

Why do you object so much to "marketing"? 
This thread is going way off topic. All you do is gripe and you have no constructive solutions to offer. You still haven't really answered "WHY" to the thread's question.


----------



## Fernando

You are right. 

US is a stupid country. Nobel prizes are given to them because Swedish are nice with them.

Personal computers were invented by a Polish and an US citizen called Gates (probably British, rather than American) which stole him all credit.

Life in US is hell. People flee from there by the millions.

Europeans watch US films and drink Coca-Cola because of their military power. If not, because they are masochists.

Military bases in Europe are an illegal occupation of European soil, against the opposition of their governments.

Any previous Empire (Turkish, Spanish, Roman, British) has spread peace and love for everywhere.

But Empires are not good. A multipolar world, such as Europe in 1914 and in 1939 are (by far) better.

US intervention is no longer necessary. Nations makes it without foreign evil influence. Cambodja, Uganda, Congo and Albania are good examples of how paradise can be done without strangers.

US is a theocracy. Bush is the Supreme Pontiff. There is not atheists in US (or are severely seized).


----------



## arugunu

Sevgili Chazzwozzer, ben de tam o konuya açıklık getiriyordum. Zaten anlamışsındır eğer tüm yazdıklarımı okuduysan ki, ben amerikalılardan nefret falan etmiyorum. Amerikalılardan nefret ediyorum demek "ben aptalım" demekten farksız olurdu. Ben sadece kendini beğenmiş olmalaları için bir neden göremediğimi söyledim. Ki bu kendini beğenmişlik mevzusunu da ben açmadım. Bir amerikalı "napalım yani kendimizi beğenmeyi bırakalım ve bu ülkelere mallarımız yollamayalım" dedi. Ben de kimsenin bunlara ihtiyacı yok, dedim. Ki bence hala da yok.


----------



## Yeu

djchak said:
			
		

> So, every other nation has a right to be pround of thier culture...except the US.
> 
> And the US citizens think people are poor becuase they are...lazy.
> 
> Proud for the color of the skin or eyes? So sorry, anyone of ANY race or nationality came become Americans. the US is held together by an ideaology, not ethnicity.
> 
> And to top it all off... Americans are arrogant for being proud they achieved thier dreams here.
> 
> Wow.


 
I'm proud of my culture, but I don't think is the best and the only one.

Maybe you're one of the good citizen, and you don't see how are another americans with the people of the other contries, american or not. The part of the ideology sounds nice, but I saw another thing.


----------



## arugunu

maxiogee said:
			
		

> You still haven't really answered "WHY" to the thread's question.


All right i stopped complaining. 
In answer to the thread : "Why do they hate us?"
No. i don't hate you. Where did you get that impression that we hate you?

If all which was expected from me was a "yes",then tell me why this is a thread and not a poll?


----------



## Chazzwozzer

arugunu said:
			
		

> Sevgili Chazzwozzer, ben de tam o konuya açıklık getiriyordum. Zaten anlamışsındır eğer tüm yazdıklarımı okuduysan ki, ben amerikalılardan nefret falan etmiyorum. Amerikalılardan nefret ediyorum demek "ben aptalım" demekten farksız olurdu. Ben sadece kendini beğenmiş olmalaları için bir neden göremediğimi söyledim. Ki bu kendini beğenmişlik mevzusunu da ben açmadım. Bir amerikalı "napalım yani kendimizi beğenmeyi bırakalım ve bu ülkelere mallarımız yollamayalım" dedi. Ben de kimsenin bunlara ihtiyacı yok, dedim. Ki bence hala da yok.



Coca Cola, Pepsi, McDonald's, Burger King, Dunkin Donuts, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Star Bucks falan filan... Bunlar olmadığı bir Türkiye hayal edebiliyor musun?

TV'yi açtığında The Simpsons'ı, South Park'ı, Spongebob'ı The O.C.'yi hatta Popstar gibi yarışmaların olmadığını düşünebiliyor musun?

National Geographic gibi TV'de izleyebileceğin en iyi kanalın olmadığını düşün.

Gerçekten ihtiyacımız yok mu? Bunlar sadece devede kulak üstelik. Aklıma gelen ve eminim en kötü örneklerdi. Sağlık ve bilim alanında ABD'nin dünyaya çok büyük katkıları var.

Adamlar açıkçası gurur duymakta haklı. Biz de Türkiye'nin başardığı ve dünyaya katkısı olduğu konularda gurur duymakta haklıyız. Biri çıkıp Türkiye hakkında böyle şikayetler de ve "İşte siz böylesiniz, dünyanın size ihtiyacı yok!" dese ne hissederdin?

Hoşlanmadığın politakaysa, bence politika olarak kalmalı. Çünkü benim için öyle. Kendini beğenmişlik ise her milette olan bir şey. Türkiye'nin dünyanın en iyi ülkesi olduğunu söylemiyor mu halkımızın yarısı? "Cennet vatanım, dünyanın her yerini gördüm en iyi ülke bizimli." demiyorlar mı?

Diyorlar... Çünkü herkes diyor. Herkese göre kendi ülkeleri mükemmel. Ve bu konuda da ABD övünmekte haklı. Haaa, biri çıkıp "Irak'a savaşa girdiğimizden dolayı çok mutluyum ve bununla gurur duyuyorum." derse o zaman istediğini demekte haklısın, çünkü kapımızın önünde olan biten bir olay ve sonuçlarını biliyoruz.

Saygılar.


----------



## maxiogee

arugunu said:
			
		

> All right i stopped complaining.
> In answer to the thread : "Why do they hate us?"
> No. i don't hate you. Where did you get that impression that we hate you?
> 
> If all which was expected from me was a "yes",then tell me why this is a thread and not a poll?



I didn't ask if you hate the Irish. (I'm Irish by the way).
I asked you what the thread asked you — Why do 'they' hate the US? You seem to be very against the US and have little good to say about it, but the question is not about any one person - it is about why do the terrorist groups, and other large masses of people, hate the US.

No-one asked you for a "yes". Whatever gave you that idea?


----------



## djchak

Yeu said:
			
		

> I'm proud of my culture, but I don't think is the best and the only one.
> 
> Maybe you're one of the good citizen, and you don't see how are another americans with the people of the other contries, american or not. The part of the ideology sounds nice, but I saw another thing.



Tell us what you saw.

Oh, and by the way: when Americans say that they think the US is the "best" , all they are really saying is: "life is GOOD here, woohoo!" They aren't putting down other countries. 

And if you went to Texas, you saw a state with a huge hispanic population!
The truth is, there is a lot more diversity in other parts of the US.

The US you describe sounds like a people farm, completely devoid of any culture. I can see why so many people say the US doesn't have a culture...but usually they haven't been there, much less to 5 different states. You think Chicago is like Phoenix?


----------



## arugunu

Chazzwozzer said:
			
		

> Coca Cola, Pepsi, McDonald's, Burger King, Dunkin Donuts, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Star Bucks falan filan... Bunlar olmadığı bir Türkiye hayal edebiliyor musun?
> 
> TV'yi açtığında The Simpsons'ı, South Park'ı, Spongebob'ı The O.C.'yi hatta Popstar gibi yarışmaların olmadığını düşünebiliyor musun?
> 
> National Geographic gibi TV'de izleyebileceğin en iyi kanalın olmadığını düşün.
> 
> Gerçekten ihtiyacımız yok mu? Bunlar sadece devede kulak üstelik. Aklıma gelen ve eminim en kötü örneklerdi. Sağlık ve bilim alanında ABD'nin dünyaya çok büyük katkıları var.
> Saygılar.


Sevgili Chazzwozzer,
Ben o bütün TV shovlarının bağımlılık yarattığını ve insanları daha boş bir hale getirdiğini düşünüyorum. Beni bile bağlayabiliyorlar. Ben aylarca televizyon izlemediğimi bilirim ama hala yakalasam kalkamayacağımı biliyorum başından. National Geographic gayet iyi bir kanal. Ama BBC'nin belgeselleri onları asla aratmazdı değil mi?

O bütün baştaki şeyler KFC ya da StarBucks, Gloria her neyse, ya, bunlara gerçekten ihtiyacımız yok. Obez bir yeni nesil istediğimize emin misin?
Bilim alanında Amerika'nın katıkılarını yadısyabileceğimi sanmıyorum.
Ama katkıları kadar NASA sayesinde sakladıklarını da unutmayalım. Eee malum çıkarları için kullanabilecekleri birşeyler varsa, hemen saklıyorlar.

Türkiye için düşüncelerimi sorarsan; aynı dili konuştuğum bir ülkede olduğum için mutluyum. Ama bir başarıyı genelde bir gruba ya da tek bir insana yüklemeyi severim.Yeni bir klips geliştiren türk beyin cerrahının başarısını duyunca türkiye adına değil o insan adına sevinirim, ve sonuçta "TÜRK bilim adamı ... keşfetttii" gibi bir haberde türk kelimesinin büyük olması beni gerçekten sinirlendirir. Çünkü o adamın başarısını aziz nesin'in oranlaması doğrultusunda  aptal insan içeren koskoca bir ülkeye atfetmek kesinlikle tasvip ettiğim bir düşünce olmaz. Biraz acımasızca konuşuyorum galiba ama beni mazur gör.
Sevgiler.


----------



## arugunu

maxiogee said:
			
		

> I didn't ask if you hate the Irish. (I'm Irish by the way).
> I asked you what the thread asked you — Why do 'they' hate the US? You seem to be very against the US and have little good to say about it, but the question is not about any one person - it is about why do the terrorist groups, and other large masses of people, hate the US.
> 
> No-one asked you for a "yes". Whatever gave you that idea?



Why do they hate americans?
Muslims are all bound to eachother. I don't know why, i guess,i don't know because i'm not one of them. And i can also tell you something. It's written in the holy book of muslims that "if anyone to attack your religion, you shall kill 'em". Maybe, i'm not phrasing it correctly. I hope there'll be a muslim to put it right. But it was something like that. So, they believe US killed muslims (i don't know if they'll be this interested if the dead people were of any other religion), and they want to get even with US.


----------



## Yeu

djchak said:
			
		

> Tell us what you saw.
> 
> And if you went to Texas, you saw a state with a huge hispanic population!
> The truth is, there is a lot more diversity in other parts of the US.
> 
> The US you describe sounds like a people farm, completely devoid of any culture. I can see why so many people say the US doesn't have a culture...but usually they haven't been there, much less to 5 different states. You think Chicago is like Phoenix?


 
I know more the 5 states in the US, I know that NY y not the same the Phoenix, I have been there...


----------



## Chazzwozzer

arugunu said:
			
		

> Why do they hate americans?
> Muslims are all bound to eachother. I don't know why, i don't know maybe because i'm not one of them. And i can also tell you something. It's written in the holy book of muslims that "if anyone to attack your religion, you shall kill 'em". Maybe, i'm not phrasing it correctly. I hope there'll be a muslim to put it right. But it was something like that. So, they believe US killed muslims (i don't know if they'll be this interested if the dead people were of any other religion), and they want to get even with US.


 Well, it is the only post I could agree with you. 

By the way, it should be something like "War with those who don't believe in God." I'm not sure, a Muslim must confirm us. But I don't think every Muslims follow this _ayet_, there's a weeny-tiny group of people like that.



			
				arugunu said:
			
		

> Sevgili Chazzwozzer,
> Ben o bütün TV shovlarının bağımlılık yarattığını ve insanları daha boş bir hale getirdiğini düşünüyorum. Beni bile bağlayabiliyorlar. Ben aylarca televizyon izlemediğimi bilirim ama hala yakalasam kalkamayacağımı biliyorum başından. National Geographic gayet iyi bir kanal. Ama BBC'nin belgeselleri onları asla aratmazdı değil mi?
> 
> O bütün baştaki şeyler KFC ya da StarBucks, Gloria her neyse, ya, bunlara gerçekten ihtiyacımız yok. Obez bir yeni nesil istediğimize emin misin?
> Bilim alanında Amerika'nın katıkılarını yadısyabileceğimi sanmıyorum.
> Ama katkıları kadar NASA sayesinde sakladıklarını da unutmayalım. Eee malum çıkarları için kullanabilecekleri birşeyler varsa, hemen saklıyorlar.
> 
> Türkiye için düşüncelerimi sorarsan; aynı dili konuştuğum bir ülkede olduğum için mutluyum. Ama bir başarıyı genelde bir gruba ya da tek bir insana yüklemeyi severim.Yeni bir klips geliştiren türk beyin cerrahının başarısını duyunca türkiye adına değil o insan adına sevinirim, ve sonuçta "TÜRK bilim adamı ... keşfetttii" gibi bir haberde türk kelimesinin büyük olması beni gerçekten sinirlendirir. Çünkü o adamın başarısını koskoca aziz nesin oranlamasıyla aptal içeren bir ülkeye yüklemek kesinlikle tasvip ettiğim bir düşünce olmaz. Biraz acımasızca konuşuyorum galiba ama beni mazur gör.
> Sevgiler.


Sevgili arugunu,
Amerika'ya özgü bir şeyin olması rahatsız edebilirken, İngilizlere özgü bir şeyin olması seni rahatsız etmiyor mu gerçekten? NGC yerine BBC izlemek örneğin, dediğin gibi.

NASA'nın bana kalırsa sakladığı pek bir şey yok. Adamlar ne olduysa aynen duyuruyor. Aya çıkış videoları kaybolmuş, tüm dünyaya duyurdular. Beyaz Saray NASA'yı bu kadar açık olduğu için suçluyor. Eğer Dan Brown'ın İhanet Noktasını okumuş olsaydın, orada daha fazla ayrıntı bulabilirdin, gerçekten de fazlasıyla şeffaf bir kurum.

ABD'nin katkısının hiç olmadığını iddia etmek bana çok gerçek dışı geliyor. Tanrı aşkına, gerçekten de Amerika şeytani bir ülke mi? 

Türkiye konusuna gelince, Aziz Nesin'in lafına ben de katılıyorum. Ancak Türkiye'yi gerçekten de iğrenç bir ülkeymiş gibi burada lanse etmek ve Türk düşmanlığı yaratmak pek iyi bir şey değil, zaten yeterince düşmanımız var. Bana kalırsa da, ABD en iyi olmasa da, iyi bir dost ülke. Katılmıyor musun bu konuda?

Saygılar, sevgiler...


----------



## peacebird

arugunu said:
			
		

> Fernando, that was really "calling a spade a spade".
> I am in total agreement with you.


I think you may have missed the irony/sarcasm in Fernando's post.


----------



## arugunu

Chazzwozzer said:
			
		

> Sevgili arugunu,
> Amerika'ya özgü bir şeyin olması rahatsız edebilirken, İngilizlere özgü bir şeyin olması seni rahatsız etmiyor mu gerçekten? NGC yerine BBC izlemek örneğin, dediğin gibi.
> 
> NASA'nın bana kalırsa sakladığı pek bir şey yok. Adamlar ne olduysa aynen duyuruyor. Aya çıkış videoları kaybolmuş, tüm dünyaya duyurdular. Beyaz Saray NASA'yı bu kadar açık olduğu için suçluyor. Eğer Dan Brown'ın İhanet Noktasını okumuş olsaydın, orada daha fazla ayrıntı bulabilirdin, gerçekten de fazlasıyla şeffaf bir kurum.
> 
> ABD'nin katkısının hiç olmadığını iddia etmek bana çok gerçek dışı geliyor. Tanrı aşkına, gerçekten de Amerika şeytani bir ülke mi?
> 
> Türkiye konusuna gelince, Aziz Nesin'in lafına ben de katılıyorum. Ancak Türkiye'yi gerçekten de iğrenç bir ülkeymiş gibi burada lanse etmek ve Türk düşmanlığı yaratmak pek iyi bir şey değil, zaten yeterince düşmanımız var. Bana kalırsa da, ABD en iyi olmasa da, iyi bir dost ülke. Katılmıyor musun bu konuda?
> 
> Saygılar, sevgiler...



Puffff, hakkında konuşmak için ne kadar derin konular ve ben de bunlar hakkında konuşmak için fazlasıyla çiğim. Evet ingilizlere karşı bir zaafım var kabul ediyorum. İngiliz aksanıyla konuşuyorum, hatta abartıp tertemiz bir ingiliz aksanıyla konuşmak için kendimi eğittiğim için türkiyede konuştuğum birçok ingiliz olmayan turistin "gerçekten türk müsün yoksa ingiliz mi" gibi garip sorularıyla karşılaştım. 
NASA konusunda katılabileceğimi düşünmüyorum sana... Hala ay yüzeyine çıkma konusunda çok fazla söylenti var. Amerika'nın hiç oraya gitmediği konusunda bile... Amerika şeytani bir ülke mi bilmiyorum. Ama insanların çok fazla kaygılı oldukları söylenemez. Sırtlarını arkalarına yaslayıp "gerçek" bir savaş filmi izlemeyi tercih ediyorlar.
Ya keşke bu iyi bir dost olan ülke bizi kullanmıyor olsaydı da sana katılabilseydim. Ama ne yazıkki her ülkeye yaptıkları veya günün birinde yapacakları gibi bizi de güzelce kullanıyorlar. 
Bu arada küçük bir not düşeyim.Bahsettiğimiz fast food kurumlarıyla ilgili düşüncelerim sana temelsiz gelmesin diye söylüyorum. Çok fazla kola içtim hayatım boyunca. Burger ve Mc ikisini de denedim. Burger King'i seçtim. Ama tabii sonradan mideme kramplar girdi. Bu doğal bir sonuçtu ve ben vazgeçmedim, yedim, ta ki "oh be ülkemdeyim, gerçek yemekleri özledim" diyene kadar. Star Bucks ya da Gloria'ya bir karşıtlığım yok tek eleştirim şu olacak : "Çok Pahalılar". Ama insanların oraya gitmeye özenmesi yüzünden iyi iş yapıyorlar. Neyse ki filtre kahvemi evimde yapıp içebiliyorum ve Jacobs'un hangi ülke tarafından üretildiği konusunda hiçbir fikrim yok. Ama en azından kahve yüzünden bir obezite problemi çekmeyeceğim : )))

Sonuç olarak frenchising yüzünden ülkemizde yeni kurumlar açılamıyor ve insanlar açıkta kalıyor diye düşünüyorum. Yabancı yatırımcılara tamam da önceliği bizim insanlarımıza versek...

Türkiye'yi korumak için söylebileceğim pek birşey yok. Türkiye'nin de politikasını sevmiyorum, ne azınlıklarla ilgili, ne de kendi vatandaşlarıyla ilgili... Eğer insanlarla aynı dili konuşmuyor olsaydık ilk fırsatta burayı terketmiş olurdum (gerçi pek de aynı dili konuşuyor değiliz İstanbul'da yaşayanlar olarak). Büyük şehirler dışında türkiye çok güzel bir yer. Ama gerçekten türkiye ne demek, bunu gerçekten bilmiyorum.


----------



## Chazzwozzer

arugunu said:
			
		

> Puffff, hakkında konuşmak için ne kadar derin konular ve ben de bunlar hakkında konuşmak için fazlasıyla çiğim. Evet ingilizlere karşı bir zaafım var kabul ediyorum. İngiliz aksanıyla konuşuyorum, hatta abartıp tertemiz bir ingiliz aksanıyla konuşmak için kendimi eğittiğim için türkiyede konuştuğum birçok ingiliz olmayan turistin "gerçekten türk müsün yoksa ingiliz mi" gibi garip sorularıyla karşılaştım.
> NASA konusunda katılabileceğimi düşünmüyorum sana... Hala ay yüzeyine çıkma konusunda çok fazla söylenti var. Amerika'nın hiç oraya gitmediği konusunda bile... Amerika şeytani bir ülke mi bilmiyorum. Ama insanların çok fazla kaygılı oldukları söylenemez. Sırtlarını arkalarına yaslayıp "gerçek" bir savaş filmi izlemeyi tercih ediyorlar.
> Ya keşke bu iyi bir dost olan ülke bizi kullanmıyor olsaydı da sana katılabilseydim. Ama ne yazıkki her ülkeye yaptıkları veya günün birinde yapacakları gibi bizi de güzelce kullanıyorlar.
> Bu arada küçük bir not düşeyim.Bahsettiğimiz fast food kurumlarıyla ilgili düşüncelerim sana temelsiz gelmesin diye söylüyorum. Çok fazla kola içtim hayatım boyunca. Burger ve Mc ikisini de denedim. Burger King'i seçtim. Ama tabii sonradan mideme kramplar girdi. Bu doğal bir sonuçtu ve ben vazgeçmedim, yedim, ta ki "oh be ülkemdeyim, gerçek yemekleri özledim" diyene kadar. Star Bucks ya da Gloria'ya bir karşıtlığım yok tek eleştirim şu olacak : "Çok Pahalılar". Ama insanların oraya gitmeye özenmesi yüzünden iyi iş yapıyorlar. Neyse ki filtre kahvemi evimde yapıp içebiliyorum ve Jacobs'un hangi ülke tarafından üretildiği konusunda hiçbir fikrim yok. Ama en azından kahve yüzünden bir obezite problemi çekmeyeceğim : )))
> 
> Sonuç olarak frenchising yüzünden ülkemizde yeni kurumlar açılamıyor ve insanlar açıkta kalıyor diye düşünüyorum. Yabancı yatırımcılara tamam da önceliği bizim insanlarımıza versek...
> 
> Türkiye'yi korumak için söylebileceğim pek birşey yok. Türkiye'nin de politikasını sevmiyorum, ne azınlıklarla ilgili, ne de kendi vatandaşlarıyla ilgili... Eğer insanlarla aynı dili konuşmuyor olsaydık ilk fırsatta burayı terketmiş olurdum (gerçi pek de aynı dili konuşuyor değiliz İstanbul'da yaşayanlar olarak). Büyük şehirler dışında türkiye çok güzel bir yer. Ama gerçekten türkiye ne demek, bunu gerçekten bilmiyorum.


Çok güzel tartışıyorsun bu arada. Üslübun çok hoş. Tebrik etmek istedim 

Amerikan franchising'i konusunda sana diyebileceğim tek şey şu: "World is turning into a global village." ve Amerika bu village'in muhtarı. Pazarlama konusunda uzman bir muhtar. Ha bir de konuyla ilgili ilginç bir haberi paylaşmak istedim:
http://www.radikal.com.tr/haber.php?haberno=93378

Bu arada, İngiliz aksanına sahip olduğun için tebrik ediyorum. Gerçek bir İngiliz konuştuğunda ben de kendimden geçiyorum. Ancak bana Amerikalı gibi konuştuğumu söylüyorlar, CNBC-e sağ olsun yıllar boyu çok şey kazandırdı bana. 

Neyse, burada noktalamak istiyorum.

P.S: Jacobs, Alman(mış.)


----------



## .   1

Chazzwozzer said:
			
		

> But I don't think every Muslims follow this _ayet_, there's a weeny-tiny group of people like that.


I absolutely agree with you.

.,,
We have an itty little mob with tiny moral weenies twisting the meanings of their holy books to suit their odious ideologies


----------



## bernik

djchak said:
			
		

> the US is held together by an ideology, not ethnicity.



What ideology ?


----------



## Fernando

We, the people of the United States, believe that all men are created equal and blah blah.


----------



## bernik

I'm sure there is the same kind of blah blah in other countries' constitutions !


----------



## Fernando

Well, they were the first. Give them some credit.

The point of djchak is that race, religion (some Islamic countries) common history (most European countries) is not so important. The important thing is to agree with a set of values (individualism, democracy, economic freedom and so on). A visa is also a good thing.


----------



## bernik

_"Well, they were the first. Give them some credit."_

But who can believe that the authors of the American constitution believed in Djchak's theory ?

_" The point of djchak is that race, religion (some Islamic countries) common history (most European countries) is not so important. "_

You should tell Djchak that his theory doesn't make sense.

_" The important thing is to agree with a set of values (individualism, democracy, economic freedom and so on). "_

I know the theory, but it does not work.
If I agree with all the values you mentionned, it doesn't make me into an American.
And if an American decides he no longer believes in democracy, it doesn't make him into a North-Korean.


----------



## natasha2000

djchak said:
			
		

> Ok, I think we all can accept criticism...BUT in what way are Americans arrogant? I can also accept that we are ignorant....but EVERYONE around the world is ignorant of something... it's not a crime.


 
This thread's subject is "why do they hate us" started by an American, and therefore, the on-topic would be bad things that the US do, and not the good ones. So if you yourselves ask the others to throw the stones at you, then why are you so touchy? You asked for this (not you personally, but since the thread was started by an American citizen, ten Americans in general).

It is not a crime to be ignorant. Of course not. But somehow, when an American is ignorant he is also arrogant, which means, he does not want to learn and admit he is mistaken. Arrogant was your reply to some other forero's post (I don't remember whose, sorry, and I am too lazy to check). It sounded like a spoilt brat's speech, "so if you don't want to play with me as I want, than give me my toys back". You just didn't try to understand what is that he is talking about, and why is he talking like this and all that stuff. 
I was wondering... In this forum, Americans are usually so eager to know the opinions of other nations about themselves, and then when they hear it and don't like it, they get offended. Furthermore, sometimes it seems they manage to make difference between their government and their people, understood as two different wholinesses, but very quickly they melt those two things, and criticizm pointed towards their gouvernment's foreign policy (which is of major concern and interest of other countries, domestic policy we usually leave to them, Yankees) is understood as criticizm of their people. The themselves generalize themselves. 
So, this thread is about what other people DON'T LIKE about the US. There was another thread about what people LIKE about the US, too.. Also very polemic and long one.


----------



## tafanari

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> This thread's subject is "why do they hate us" started by an American, and therefore, the on-topic would be bad things that the US do, and not the good ones.



I agree, Natasha. If I asked you why you don't like me (assuming that you didn't like me which I think is almost impossible) I would not expect to hear that I'm handsome, charming, and debonnaire. You don't like people for *negative *things not *positive *ones.


----------



## natasha2000

maxiogee said:
			
		

> it is about why do the terrorist groups, and other large masses of people, hate the US.


 
When it was specified that those who hate tue US is only terrorists? And then you add, other large masses of people... What? Turks are not "large mass of people, with almost 73 million of inhabitants? Then Serbia, with poorish 8 million wouldn't even be considered to have the right to vote in this thread.... 

I don't understand your point here. What is that you think we should talk about and express here? Why do terrorists hate the US? Someone said this at the beginning of this thread - no need to have such a headache - the very same terrorists have said this many times. And as far as the opionions of "large masses of people..." may I remind you of your words:



> How could I possibly presume to sum up in a post the opinion of the Irish on any subject?
> How could anyone possibly know what people mostly think of a whole nation?


 
So, argunu's expressing his thoughts, like everyone else here because he cannot possibly speak on behalf of the whole Turkish nation which IS I assume, a "large mass of people"...

If I am wrong, please tell me what do you think when you say "a large mass of people"?

I would also appreciate if Turkish participants wrote in ENglish, since I doubt that here are too many people actually speaking Turkish. I can also write in Serbian, but I want to be understood, so I write in English. If it is a private thing, then please use PM. Thank you.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

arugunu said:
			
		

> Sorry for i couldn't read all the 8 pages of posts. I'll just tell what i do think about some particular subjects.
> 
> -A person who actually HATES all the citizens in a particular country is ILLITERATE.
> -A person, who admires Bush and thinks that his attitudes towards any country make sense, is SHALLOW. (I know some turks living in US who vote for him, so no one to take it personal).
> -A person, who approves what has been done in Iraq, is a beast and should be kept within the war zone to see what AN ACTUAL WAR is. I bet he'll piss into his pants, or maybe he'll ask for some snacks and beer.


 well, well, what has been done in Iraq is by far not the most terrible thing on the face of the world. I tell you as a person who knows what WAR actually is. And Hussein had been doing terrible things to his population, far more terrible that what the Turkish Intelligence does, believe me. (Here I base my words on reporting, of course). It is important not to forget that the blame always rests with either or all sides. 
 Why does everyone so much focus on Iraq anyway? What has been done in Yugoslavia, Vietnam? I guess, things that have been done "without too much ado" in other countries were awful too.
 At any rate, I wouldn`t be so categorical. It is eventually one`s own business who one chooses to hate and what grounds they have gor that. I refrain from hating a nation as a wholea athough I must admit that I have had in the course of my life a dubious pleasure of living in countries in defence of whose people I just cannot say anything.


----------



## natasha2000

Setwale_Charm said:
			
		

> well, well, what has been done in Iraq is by far not the most terrible thing on the face of the world. I tell you as a person who knows what WAR actually is. And Hussein had been doing terrible things to his population, far more terrible that what the Turkish Intelligence does, believe me. (Here I base my words on reporting, of course). It is important not to forget that the blame always rests with either or all sides.
> Why does everyone so much focus on Iraq anyway? What has been done in Yugoslavia, Vietnam? I guess, things that have been done "without too much ado" in other countries were awful too.
> At any rate, I wouldn`t be so categorical. It is eventually one`s own business who one chooses to hate and what grounds they have gor that. I refrain from hating a nation as a wholea athough I must admit that I have had in the course of my life a dubious pleasure of living in countries in defence of whose people I just cannot say anything.


 
Well, maybe you're right, but i have to repeat again... The title of this thread is not Vietnam, Turkish intelligence or ex-Yugoslavia war crimes. 
It is about the US.


----------



## Pirlo

Bran Muffin said:
			
		

> I shall repeat. The U.S.A. needs to learn how to mind its own business.


 
I agree. I'm not going to become further involved in this discussion, political threads are the worst!


----------



## Chazzwozzer

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> When it was specified that those who hate tue US is only terrorists? And then you add, other large masses of people... What? Turks are not "large mass of people, with almost 73 million of inhabitants? Then Serbia, with poorish 8 million wouldn't even be considered to have the right to vote in this thread....


 Please correct me if I am wrong, do you mean that all Turks actually hate the US or did I understand you completely wrong?



			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> So, argunu's expressing his thoughts, like everyone else here because he cannot possibly speak on behalf of the whole Turkish nation which IS I assume, a "large mass of people"...


 Whatever argunu has said, they are all his personal thoughts. For the most part, I disagree with him BUT I absolutely respect him. Neither he nor I can't speak on behalf of the whole nation.



			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> I would also appreciate if Turkish participants wrote in ENglish, since I doubt that here are too many people actually speaking Turkish. I can also write in Serbian, but I want to be understood, so I write in English. If it is a private thing, then please use PM. Thank you.


 We both know for which reason this forum has a PM system, thank you.

Since Cultural Discussions is a multilingual forum, you can also address anyone who speaks Serbian and discuss the topic in your own native language. So, whenever you like to hear the comments on your thoughts from English-speaking audience, then you simply write in English. Just like I'm doing now.


----------



## djchak

"so if you don't want to play with me as I want, than give me my toys back"

Show me where I said that.

"You just didn't try to understand what is that he is talking about"

Um, I think I have gone out of my way, for clarifications, to make sure I fully understand the differing person's opinion. 

" But somehow, when an American is ignorant he is also arrogant, which means, he does not want to learn and admit he is mistaken"

Just becuase we have a thread asking for different opinions, does that mean we have to agree with every single one?

Is that something americans must do, or does every nationality have to do that?

If I were to tell someone that thier country sucked, and they didn't understand my argument, would it automatically be thier fault?

I was remarkink on how the hostilty of other nations affected America in the past, and will probably affect it in the immeadiate future. Chuchufete even remarked that "Hoover style isolation" had problems. He understood my point.


----------



## natasha2000

Chazzwozzer said:
			
		

> Please correct me if I am wrong, do you mean that all Turks actually hate the US or did I understand you completely wrong?
> 
> You are VERY wrong. I have never said that all Turks hate Americans. That would be generalisation of the worst kind, and if you knew me just a little bit (by reading my posts, of course. like others do), you would know that I HATE generalisations.
> Please, try to read again my post. It was directed to Maxiogee, and not to Turks at all.
> 
> Whatever argunu has said, they are all his personal thoughts. For the most part, I disagree with him BUT I absolutely respect him. Neither he nor I can't speak on behalf of the whole nation.
> Have I said anything different? Read again what I have said.
> 
> We both know for which reason this forum has a PM system, thank you.
> 
> Since Cultural Discussions is a multilingual forum, you can also address anyone who speaks Serbian and discuss the topic in your own native language. So, whenever you like to hear the comments on your thoughts from English-speaking audience, then you simply write in English. Just like I'm doing now.
> 
> I consider this VERY RUDE. If I come accross to another Serbian not only in Cultural, but in ANY forum in WR, I keep on speaking English or the language dictated by the majority of the thread. If you don't want to be understood, use PM. Don't be rude to other foreros.


----------



## natasha2000

djchak said:
			
		

> "so if you don't want to play with me as I want, than give me my toys back"
> 
> Show me where I said that.
> 
> You didn't say this word for word, but what you've said looked like this.
> 
> Here and here
> 
> I see it as overreaction to what other forero said. It is a little bit exaggerated, don't you think so?
> 
> "You just didn't try to understand what is that he is talking about"
> 
> Um, I think I have gone out of my way, for clarifications, to make sure I fully understand the differing person's opinion.
> 
> " But somehow, when an American is ignorant he is also arrogant, which means, he does not want to learn and admit he is mistaken"
> 
> Just becuase we have a thread asking for different opinions, does that mean we have to agree with every single one?
> Is that something americans must do, or does every nationality have to do that?
> No, of course not. But try to fight those negative opinions with reasonable arguments, and not with a childish behavior (don't ask me again what childish behavior, I have already explained it and quoted the posts where I find your answers childish).
> 
> On the other hand, I wasn't thinking of you at all when I wrote this. I think I know you good enough to know that you know better than that. Nobody is perfect, though.
> 
> If I were to tell someone that thier country sucked, and they didn't understand my argument, would it automatically be thier fault?
> 
> It didn't seemed you were saying you did not understand what other people were saying. It seemed what I have already said.
> 
> I was remarkink on how the hostilty of other nations affected America in the past, and will probably affect it in the immeadiate future. Chuchufete even remarked that "Hoover style isolation" had problems. He understood my point.
> 
> I don't think that isolation is the answer to this question. I agree with what Cuchuflete said, too. That was one of wise answers, trying to profound a little bit more the subject. It was not a brad's reaction. May I remind you what Chuchu said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are those who would argue that every nation's business includes actions by other nations. Herbert Hoover style isolationism doesn't work. Neither does Bush's simplistic interventionism. There is such a thing as a middle road.
> However, no matter how "moderate" or sensible any foreign policy may be, some people will hate the results.
> 
> Sadly, US foreign policy has not been moderate or sensible during most, if not all, of my lifetime. Also sadly, the same may be said of the policies of most other powerful nations.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The underlined is mine. Maybe you should try to restrain your passion and to use more your wits. (It is a little piece of advice, with no second or malicious thoughts, honestly). We all love our countries. But we should also be ready to see its bad sides, too. And I repeat, we now talk about the US because it is the subject of this thread, asked by a fellow American, too.
Click to expand...


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Setwale_Charm said:
			
		

> well, well, what has been done in Iraq is by far not the most terrible thing on the face of the world. I tell you as a person who knows what WAR actually is. And Hussein had been doing terrible things to his population, far more terrible that what the Turkish Intelligence does, believe me. (Here I base my words on reporting, of course). It is important not to forget that the blame always rests with either or all sides.
> Why does everyone so much focus on Iraq anyway? What has been done in Yugoslavia, Vietnam? I guess, things that have been done "without too much ado" in other countries were awful too.
> At any rate, I wouldn`t be so categorical. It is eventually one`s own business who one chooses to hate and what grounds they have gor that. I refrain from hating a nation as a wholea athough I must admit that I have had in the course of my life a dubious pleasure of living in countries in defence of whose people I just cannot say anything.


 Do not those relate to the US just as much and characterize it?


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Th fact of the matter is: 1- People feel bitter about America dictating to a great extent what life should be (and please note, it`s nothing to do with G.W. Bush, his predecessors were none the better). But, let`s face and admit it, - most other countries would have loved to be in the place of America, so that`s more a question of pure envy.
 2- most jokes at least, about America which I have heard in different countries dealt rather with the supposed low educational level of Americans than with the country`s foreign policy. To an extent, it`s true , I can cite loads of examples I have come across. BUT! for one thing, it doesn`t make Americans worse people, for another, what is education really? Russians considered themselves extremely educated  and in a sense they are, in the sense of quoting Dostoyevsky and Pushkin, turning to history and into deep philosophical discussions which at first produce an impression of great minds, later - one realises there is absolutely nothing behind it. Americans do not know of F.Dostoyevski, they know nothing of the great poetry of the Silver Age, yet they know far better the basics of first aid and how to use a credit card( I do not! and I confess it most sincerely ). So what does it mean educated? I wouldn`t mind Americans learning who Haydn is (so that members of the Senate do not ask me whether this great composer is performing himself tonight ) or learning more of the world history and regional history before believing in universal democracy and poking everywhere, yet let`s define the priorities or at least the degree of priority or gravity of each aspect.


----------



## Victoria32

djchak said:
			
		

> The more the world dislikes "America", the more it will make it "Fortress America", post Bush.



Which, in my opinion, (and that of many others) is not a bad thing at all!


----------



## Victoria32

maxiogee said:
			
		

> but I appreciate my American computer and many other products on sale here which are produced by American companies.



Erm, Japanese computer here...


----------



## .   1

Setwale_Charm said:
			
		

> Th fact of the matter is: 1- People feel bitter about America dictating to a great extent what life should be (and please note, it`s nothing to do with G.W. Bush, his predecessors were none the better). But, let`s face and admit it, - most other countries would have loved to be in the place of America, so that`s more a question of pure envy.
> 2- most jokes at least, about America which I have heard in different countries dealt rather with the supposed low educational level of Americans than with the country`s foreign policy. To an extent, it`s true , I can cite loads of examples I have come across. BUT! for one thing, it doesn`t make Americans worse people, for another, what is education really? Russians considered themselves extremely educated and in a sense they are, in the sense of quoting Dostoyevsky and Pushkin, turning to history and into deep philosophical discussions which at first produce an impression of great minds, later - one realises there is absolutely nothing behind it. Americans do not know of F.Dostoyevski, they know nothing of the great poetry of the Silver Age, yet they know far better the basics of first aid and how to use a credit card( I do not! and I confess it most sincerely ). So what does it mean educated? I wouldn`t mind Americans learning who Haydn is (so that members of the Senate do not ask me whether this great composer is performing himself tonight ) or learning more of the world history and regional history before believing in universal democracy and poking everywhere, yet let`s define the priorities or at least the degree of priority or gravity of each aspect.


I have only a slippery grip on what you said but I think I totally agree with you.
Do not feel as though the lack of credit card ability is a hinderence (I wish my daughter had such a lack ).

This thread is dancing around the obvious (and that is aside from JenGen's pink elephant in the room).  We are all absolutely the same and there is nothing we can or should do about that.

We are being asked why anybody hates an artifical concept.  What is US?
In order for any clarity of debate I call a Point Of Order and request a definition from the author of the question.

Everness I ask you directly.
In the context of this thread will you tell us what or who is US?

.,,


----------



## .   1

May I please thank Natasha for a very reasoned set of opinions.
I am learning vast amounts of information about the contributors here and I wish to thank Everness in this respect.
I hope that every rational person is as amused at the contents of this thread as am I.

.,,
My ribs are hurting.


----------



## borhane

. said:
			
		

> In the context of this thread will you tell us what or who is US?
> 
> .,,


this is a good question !! 
for me us is
1- bush administration
2-every american voted in him
3-all countries giving support to US or under its umbrella like "UK israel..."


----------



## natasha2000

Setwale_Charm said:
			
		

> Th fact of the matter is: 1- People feel bitter about America dictating to a great extent what life should be (and please note, it`s nothing to do with G.W. Bush, his predecessors were none the better). But, let`s face and admit it, - most other countries would have loved to be in the place of America, so that`s more a question of pure envy.
> 2- most jokes at least, about America which I have heard in different countries dealt rather with the supposed low educational level of Americans than with the country`s foreign policy. To an extent, it`s true , I can cite loads of examples I have come across. BUT! for one thing, it doesn`t make Americans worse people, for another, what is education really? Russians considered themselves extremely educated and in a sense they are, in the sense of quoting Dostoyevsky and Pushkin, turning to history and into deep philosophical discussions which at first produce an impression of great minds, later - one realises there is absolutely nothing behind it. Americans do not know of F.Dostoyevski, they know nothing of the great poetry of the Silver Age, yet they know far better the basics of first aid and how to use a credit card( I do not! and I confess it most sincerely ). So what does it mean educated? I wouldn`t mind Americans learning who Haydn is (so that members of the Senate do not ask me whether this great composer is performing himself tonight ) or learning more of the world history and regional history before believing in universal democracy and poking everywhere, yet let`s define the priorities or at least the degree of priority or gravity of each aspect.


 
Good for you. I am so happy for you. But no, thanks, I would rather have for a friend a person who quotes Dostoyevski and doesn't know to use the credit card...

Russians do not have nothing behind them....  

You left me speachless.... 

So, we can all imagine YOUR priorities, sure. But please speak for yourself. I really cannot imagine any American nor any other citizen of this world with two grams of brain who would like you to speak on their behalf...


----------



## Setwale_Charm

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Good for you. I am so happy for you. But no, thanks, I would rather have for a friend a person who quotes Dostoyevski and doesn't know to use the credit card...
> 
> So, we can all imagine YOUR priorities, sure. But please speak for yourself. I really cannot imagine any American nor any other citizen of this world with two grams of brain who would like you to speak on their behalf...


Natasha, I was talking about the differences in the perception of education. I don`t know why you took it so personal. Russians pride themselves on deep and thorough education and true, they do the chemistry equations at school which hardly any adult Westerner (or for that reason, Non-westerner) can ever do. BUT! The knowledge is completely impractical. Having worked in humanitarian missions years ago, we were amazed by the way they do not know simplest things of everyday life. They are just not taught the practical side of their subject. 

Another point, being a popualtion expert now, I can talk of my own field. For instance, the sexual , family, social, tolerance etc education level of Russians - that`s quite something! I used to see similar ideas being accepted by the majority of the society in Africa, maybe Asia,, entirely wild! and killing themselves. Academicians in demography at Moscow State UNI believe in the most outrageous myths that the society imposes. And come to think of it, I do not so much care for chemistry, but I would forgive someone not being able to quote Dostoyevski or Pushkin (which in Russia is accepted as a quality mark of a person almost), yet not having wild ideas about everyday life. Despite belonging to Oxford Uni (or because of that) I am not so completely blindely charmed by this 'high-brow' knowledge. There is knowledge for books and knowledge for life - that`s I mean. And that`s the difference between the Russian and the western perception of education. Thats` why, probably, Russians will always be able to boast of having great scientists, yet on average the population will be remarkably backward.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

natasha2000
So said:
			
		

> Does speaking of somebody suggest only praise???


----------



## Setwale_Charm

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Russians do not have nothing behind them....
> 
> You left me speachless....


That`s another point and that`s a bit away from the subject of americans. What I meant is this: My professor used to say that if you encounter somebody who speaks on his subject in such intelligent terms that no-one can understand, that shows he really doesn` t know what he is talking about.
However generalising this may be, I know what he meant. I see it in the Russian intellectual thought. That`s something to do with the ir national character, probably (not particularly Russian, but very typical), they like the form, the title and the show-off. The most respected thinkers and specialists are respected for their style,not for their thought, if you see what I mean. The smarter and the less succinct they are - the more recognition they get. It is also done in other fields. I don`t know whether you know any Russian, but they themselves have a word "ponty" for that and tha sums it all. And at first one is baffled thinking that thre is something completely fathomless here. A long time after, one realises there is much more show-off init all. I used to think so too before I read Russians discussing with serious faces demography - my subject. A friend of mine confessed he didn`t know much about demography and didn`t understand much. I comforted him saying that I didn`t understand much either. I published a number of articles in Russia and got a mixed reply to that. People were surprised to read something so succinct in language , yet couldn`t believe i was a serious scientist because I lacked that 'posh' language. Russians of course have great specialists among them but those are usually, on the contrary, quiet people, off-the- stage


----------



## natasha2000

Setwale Charm.
Please reread your first post which I quoted, and you'll see what I meant. I didn't take anything of what you said personally, since I am not even Russian. I was just amaized that someone underestimates so much the good education, giving the priority to the knowledge on how to use the credit card!!! Yes, in YOUR world where you have been working, quoting Pushkin is not of a big help, really, I couldn't agree more on that. But speaking in general, not all people in the world work what you do. Besides, how can you be so sure that people from western world know how to give first aid, and Russians don't? Only on the basis of meeting a few Russian crazy professors? Well, I think that almost all crazy (but brilliant) professors in this world do not have much connection with the real world, that is why they are crazy (but brilliant). I strongly doubt that if you stop an average westerner on the street he/she would know how to give the first aid. I think you are speaking from a too narrow point of view, and you shuld rethink what you said. Thank you for your second post, it clarifies a lot the first, completely shallow one.

And yes... So, beeing Russians (and I suppose all East European countries) so desperately incompentent, can you explain me then the opinions of many Americans in this forum when they say that America usually welcomes them with open arms, since they come a lot better prepared than anyone else in this world? 

I think this is a big straying off-topic, but hey... That is why moderators are here... 

EDIT: A long time ago, I also knew how to give first aid, since I had this as a subject in school. But with a destruction of socialism and a big entrance of capitalism, these clases were abolished. Do children in westerner schools have clases of first aid?


----------



## natasha2000

Setwale_Charm said:
			
		

> That`s another point and that`s a bit away from the subject of americans. What I meant is this: My professor used to say that if you encounter somebody who speaks on his subject in such intelligent terms that no-one can understand, that shows he really doesn` t know what he is talking about.
> However generalising this may be, I know what he meant. I see it in the Russian intellectual thought. That`s something to do with the ir national character, probably (not particularly Russian, but very typical), they like the form, the title and the show-off. The most respected thinkers and specialists are respected for their style,not for their thought, if you see what I mean. The smarter and the less succinct they are - the more recognition they get. It is also done in other fields. I don`t know whether you know any Russian, but they themselves have a word "ponty" for that and tha sums it all. And at first one is baffled thinking that thre is something completely fathomless here. A long time after, one realises there is much more show-off init all. I used to think so too before I read Russians discussing with serious faces demography - my subject. A friend of mine confessed he didn`t know much about demography and didn`t understand much. I comforted him saying that I didn`t understand much either. I published a number of articles in Russia and got a mixed reply to that. People were surprised to read something so succinct in language , yet couldn`t believe i was a serious scientist because I lacked that 'posh' language. Russians of course have great specialists among them but those are usually, on the contrary, quiet people, off-the- stage


 
Vanity is not a privilege of Russians. I work with "great minds" of orthodontics (from all over the world), and I see what you describe all the time. 

Now please, let's go back to the original subject, because we are straying very dangerously off-topic here, and I hate being deleted.


----------



## maxiogee

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> When it was specified that those who hate tue US is only terrorists?


I think you mean to ask "When was it specified that terrorists are the only ones who hate the US?" (Please forgive me if I misinterpret your words, but "when it was" does not introduce a sentence.)

It wasn't specified — and that is why I included "other large masses of people".




> And then you add, other large masses of people... What? Turks are not "large mass of people, with almost 73 million of inhabitants? Then Serbia, with poorish 8 million wouldn't even be considered to have the right to vote in this thread....



The original question in the thread was 
In this article, Butterfield makes an interesting point:
"So far the U.S. has ignored it by refusing to answer
the implicit question: Why do they hate us? By what
right do we exploit their resources, overthrow their
elected leaders, and drop bombs on their people?"​
* It seems that some people here are seeing that "US" in the question as 'us' - but the question makes it quite clear that it is a question which the USA is to ask itself — why do 'they' hate us. The "US" is the United States of America.

and I asked 
Why do 'they' hate the US? You seem to be very 
against the US and have little good to say about 
it, but the question is not about any one person 
- it is about why do the terrorist groups, and 
other large masses of people, hate the US.​
The reason I asked about terrorists is that they are the ones who most show their hatred, they are also the ones the United States need most to come to understand - and the reason I added "and other large masses of people" is because that is what "they", in this context, means.




> I don't understand your point here. What is that you think we should talk about and express here? Why do terrorists hate the US? Someone said this at the beginning of this thread - no need to have such a headache - the very same terrorists have said this many times. And as far as the opionions of "large masses of people..." may I remind you of your words:
> 
> 
> 
> maxiogee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How could I possibly presume to sum up in a post the opinion of the Irish on any subject?
> How could anyone possibly know what people mostly think of a whole nation?
Click to expand...


I have listened to, and read, so much propaganda from the IRA and other terrorists over the years that I know not to expect to see their real thoughts in their announcements. We do need to have 'such a headache' - terrorists have reasons far removed from the ones they announce. Their announcements are always aimed at several constituencies - their political enemies, their own supporters, and the world at large are but three such constituencies - there are more.

I did not say that we could not arrive at why these people hate the US, I said I - one person - could not sum up in one post such matter.

This thread is NOT a vote - and I don't understand why you think it is.
As I see it we are asked (edit—>) by why we think people might hate the US - those groups which do. We can answer this by reference to our personal knowledge of people who belong to such groups, br reference to our having read political manifestos from such groups, by reference to having seen such groups up close.




> So, argunu's expressing his thoughts, like everyone else here because he cannot possibly speak on behalf of the whole Turkish nation which IS I assume, a "large mass of people"...


He is not asked to speak on behalf of the Turkish nation. He is not asked to speak on behalf of anyone - he is asked to contribute to the discussion - not to offer personal opinions of why 'he' has problems with the US.

Please note that the response of mine which you quoted above was offered in response to this question…
> So Tony, do Irish mostly love or hate the US? That is what I said I couldn't speak about on behalf of the Irish people, nor could I sum up in one post. 
I think that there is a world of difference between "Do ABC feel X or Y about 123" and "Why do ABC feel X about 123".




> If I am wrong, please tell me what do you think when you say "a large mass of people"?


Because the United States of America has no reason to concern itself with why some person called Qwert Yuiop might hate it, but it has every reason on the world to concern itself with why The Qwert Yuiop Liberation Army - or maybe The Church of Qwert Yuiop might hate it.


----------



## LV4-26

. said:
			
		

> We are being asked why anybody hates an artifical concept.  What is US?
> In order for any clarity of debate I call a Point Of Order and request a definition from the author of the question.


 Certainly. There seem to be much confusion here.


			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Furthermore, sometimes it seems they [American forer@s] manage to make difference between their government and their people, understood as two different wholinesses, but very quickly they melt those two things, and criticizm pointed towards their gouvernment's foreign policy (which is of major concern and interest of other countries, domestic policy we usually leave to them, Yankees) is understood as criticizm of their people.


 The fact is that several of those here who've launched verbal attacks (please consider this phrase as neutral, factual) against the "US" (whatever that means) have used *"you"* (parcitularly when addressing djchak) in the place of "*the US"*. It would be too long to quote all instances but please trust me. Therefore the identification US = US citizens doesn't come solely from the Amercians. Actually, I think only djchak used "_we_" for "_the US_" in one post.
It only goes to show that there is some confusion in everybody's mind about what "the US" stands for. And how could it be otherwise?


			
				borhane said:
			
		

> this is a good question !!
> for me us is
> 1- bush administration
> 2-every american voted in him
> 3-*all countries giving support to US or under its umbrella like "UK israel..."*


 (bolding is mine)
This is *not* going to make the matter less confusing


----------



## LV4-26

Everness quoting Butterfield said:
			
		

> "So far the U.S. has ignored it by refusing to answer the implicit question: Why do they hate us? By what right do we exploit their resources, overthrow their elected leaders, and drop bombs on their people?"


 Here, the "_we_" seems to refer mainly to the US government, doesn't it? It seems to be clearly a matter of foreign policy. Or is it a more blurry "we"?


----------



## borhane

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> This is *not* going to make the matter less confusing


US leaders say that there's no neutral position !!! either you're with or against us !! 
me as muslim living in a weak exploited world !! & having no choices in my acts!! I have to believe any voice that call to leave as in peace & quietude ( like Germany France Russia & china in the war against Irak & its illusory WMD)
who is being killed in Afganistan Irak lebanon & soon Syria & Iran !!! just moderate muslims ! everybody knows that ... 
the world is showing us his new face its the final battle of USA ! if it will win it will take oil and benefits for free & it will control the development of India China & Russia " de près" and it will lead the world more than...! if not China will rapidly take its place ! and the only looser in all that is the great midle east in souls economy or civilisation ( how can a country without civilisation destroy 5000 year of civilisation ?) 
lets recap : there's four figures of the struggle
1- USA & sons ULD
2- the east " Russia & China"
3-Europe " France & Germany"
4-all the muslim world


please correct my point of view


----------



## natasha2000

maxiogee said:
			
		

> I think you mean to ask "When was it specified that terrorists are the only ones who hate the US?" (Please forgive me if I misinterpret your words, but "when it was" does not introduce a sentence.)
> 
> Sorry for my poor English, but it was 3 o'clock in the morning, and English is not my native language, as you already know. The point is that you understood me.
> 
> It wasn't specified — and that is why I included "other large masses of people".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The original question in the thread was
> 
> In this article, Butterfield makes an interesting point:
> "So far the U.S. has ignored it by refusing to answer
> the implicit question: Why do they hate us? By what
> right do we exploit their resources, overthrow their
> elected leaders, and drop bombs on their people?"​I would not agree... The original question is in the title, where THEY means ALL who are not Americans. At least I understood it like this. If I am wrong, then I would like Everness to correct me and to specify what he means by THEY. It seems incredible that after 13 pages of discussion, it is still not very clear who is THEY and what is US from the question.
> 
> * It seems that some people here are seeing that "US" in the question as 'us' - but the question makes it quite clear that it is a question which the USA is to ask itself — why do 'they' have us. The "US" is the United States of America.
> 
> I also assumed that an article is missing and that "US" is "the USA" and not "us". But even if it is not The USA and it is us, considering that the one who put the question is American citizen, I don't have many doubts about what is US. If I am wrong, please Everness, correct me, and for Crist sake, tell us what is that US.
> 
> 
> and I asked Why do 'they' hate the US? You seem to be very
> against the US and have little good to say about
> it, but the question is not about any one person
> - it is about why do the terrorist groups, and
> other large masses of people, hate the US.
> ​The reason I asked about terrorists is that they are the ones who most show their hatred, they are also the ones the United States need most to come to understand - and the reason I added "and other large masses of people" is because that is what "they", in this context, means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand your point here. What is that you think we should talk about and express here? Why do terrorists hate the US? Someone said this at the beginning of this thread - no need to have such a headache - the very same terrorists have said this many times. And as far as the opionions of "large masses of people..." may I remind you of your words:
> 
> I have listened to, and read, so much propaganda from the IRA and other terrorists over the years that I know not to expect to see their real thoughts in their announcements. We do need to have 'such a headache' - terrorists have reasons far removed from the ones they announce. Their announcements are always aimed at several constituencies - their political enemies, their own supporters, and the world at large are but three such constituencies - there are more.
> 
> Well, GenJen wrote a very good post on pink elephant. Maybe you missed it. On the other hand, why should terrorist lie? They say what they mean: I hate you because I want you out of my land. Now, if their reasons are correct or not, of a sane or insane mind... That is a completely another topic.
> 
> I did not say that we could not arrive at why these people hate the US, I said I - one person - could not sum up in one post such matter.
> 
> This thread is NOT a vote - and I don't understand why you think it is.
> Where did I say this thread is a VOTE?
> 
> As I see it we are asked by we think people might hate the US - those groups which do.
> 
> I do not understand this sentence, the sytaxis is wrong. Shouldn't it be:
> 
> 
> 
> As I see it, we are asked by why we think people might hate the US - those groups which do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We can answer this by reference to our personal knowledge of people who belong to such groups, br reference to our having read political manifestos from such groups, by reference to having seen such groups up close.
> 
> But who are those groups? Only terrorists? Or the whole countries can also be groups? If countries also can be groups in this context, then, a Turk or an Aussie or an Irish or a Serb can try to give their opinion, and tell us something about the general feelings of his nation about the USA. On the other hand, I strongly disagree with this kind of thinking, because it would be a huge generalisation, and therefore I conclude that we here can only speak about our feelings and thoughts as persons. Of course, those feelings and thoughts appeared on the basis of some concrete events, or what we read or saw on TV or from our personal experience. But it never stops to be our personal opinion. Therefore, questions of this type in a forum like this one are not very fruitiful, and always finish in a very ugly manner.
> 
> He is not asked to speak on behalf of the Turkish nation. He is not asked to speak on behalf of anyone - he is asked to contribute to the discussion - not to offer personal opinions of why 'he' has problems with the US.
> 
> That is what he has done. Contributed to discussion, even if you consider his contribution "complaining", he did what it was asked for. Furthermore, it is YOUR personal opinion that he is complaining. I have not seen anyone here saying the same for his posts. People do not agre with him, people argue with him, but they do not say "you are just a "wining old lady"
> 
> Please note that the response of mine which you quoted above was offered in response to this question…
> > So Tony, do Irish mostly love or hate the US? That is what I said I couldn't speak about on behalf of the Irish people, nor could I sum up in one post.
> I think that there is a world of difference between "Do ABC feel X or Y about 123" and "Why do ABC feel X about 123".
> 
> Yes, I know to what question you answered this what I quoted. Since I did not understand your point I was trying to deduce, and I was, kind of, asking and answering for by myself to my own questions. Since you said that the thread asked why do terrorists and "large masses of people" hate the US, I assumed that the large masses of people could be countries and nations. And then I refused this idea, bvecause you yourself wouldn'd say something like this if you already refused to give the opinion of all Irish people, because it is impssible and ridiculous thing to even try, and let alone to do. That is why at the end I still didn't have clear what you meant by "large masses of people", and I asked you to clarify it for me.
> 
> Because the United States of America has no reason to concern itself with why some person called Qwert Yuiop might hate it, but it has every reason on the world to concern itself with why The Qwert Yuiop Liberation Army - or maybe The Church of Qwert Yuiop might hate it.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## natasha2000

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Here, the "_we_" seems to refer mainly to the US government, doesn't it? It seems to be clearly a matter of foreign policy. Or is it a more blurry "we"?


 
I wish you were right, but...
This is something that Everness should confirm.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Setwale Charm.
> Please reread your first post which I quoted, and you'll see what I meant. I didn't take anything of what you said personally, since I am not even Russian. I was just amaized that someone underestimates so much the good education, giving the priority to the knowledge on how to use the credit card!!! Yes, in YOUR world where you have been working, quoting Pushkin is not of a big help, really, I couldn't agree more on that. But speaking in general, not all people in the world work what you do. Besides, how can you be so sure that people from western world know how to give first aid, and Russians don't? Only on the basis of meeting a few Russian crazy professors? Well, I think that almost all crazy (but brilliant) professors in this world do not have much connection with the real world, that is why they are crazy (but brilliant). I strongly doubt that if you stop an average westerner on the street he/she would know how to give the first aid. I think you are speaking from a too narrow point of view, and you shuld rethink what you said. Thank you for your second post, it clarifies a lot the first, completely shallow one.
> 
> And yes... So, beeing Russians (and I suppose all East European countries) so desperately incompentent, can you explain me then the opinions of many Americans in this forum when they say that America usually welcomes them with open arms, since they come a lot better prepared than anyone else in this world?
> 
> I think this is a big straying off-topic, but hey... That is why moderators are here...
> 
> EDIT: A long time ago, I also knew how to give first aid, since I had this as a subject in school. But with a destruction of socialism and a big entrance of capitalism, these clases were abolished. Do children in westerner schools have clases of first aid?


 
  Oh no! You completely misunderstood me! I am not giving priority to the knowledge of credit card use, not in the least!! I have lived my life without knowing it and although it does cause trouble sometimes , I do not think I missed as much as i would if I had missed on learning the world culture (including the Serbian language, by the way). What I meant is: purely theoretical knowledge of some specific subjects in the absence of knowledge which is much more relevant to actual life - that`s something i am against. Any society first needs to know the facts about life for survival, then come the classics. The venereal disease and violence-ridden Russian youth are not much helped by the knowledge of Fedor Mikhailovich, I`m afraid . And Eastern European scientists are welcomed particularly for that: for their brilliant knowledge of their narrow speciality! The West can hardly ever boast with such examples, or maybe with a very few. Yet, for practical life these specialists find it very hard to adapt and seem little adaptle to people around them. 
  Again it was all to illustrate the differences between mentalities and the perception of the American character. And I know the details about Russian education just from being responsible for analyzing and reporting on the Russian population, that includes surveys on how well people manage certain skills, what their ideas on certain matters are. That gives you a clear picture. I never jump to conclusions on the basis of a few acquaintances of mine, if my friends or myself happen to appear crazy to you, I assure you, it`s nothing to do with the British or Russian culture in general.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Vanity is not a privilege of Russians. I work with "great minds" of orthodontics (from all over the world), and I see what you describe all the time.
> 
> Now please, let's go back to the original subject, because we are straying very dangerously off-topic here, and I hate being deleted.


 We are! The hope is that discussing Americans cannot be done in isolation from other nations and their opinion and perception of the US. So I hope the moderators shall be understanding and kind and compassionate etc etc. It is all for the sake of the ultimate truth , remember!!


----------



## LV4-26

Natasha2000 said:
			
		

> I would not agree... The original question is in the title, where THEY means ALL who are not Americans. At least I understood it like this. If I am wrong, then I would like Everness to correct me and to specify what he means by THEY. It seems incredible that after 13 pages of discussion, it is still not very clear who is THEY and what is US from the question.



You're both right.
If we stick to Everness' initial post, those concerned are only those referred to as "they/their" By what right do we exploit *their* resources, overthrow *their *elected leaders, and drop bombs on *their* people?"
which obviously doesn't include the whole of the non-American world.

Now if you read Butterfield's essay (link in the initial post), you can read this



			
				Butterfield quoting Baudrillard said:
			
		

> In the end it was they who did it but we who wished it


 which is admittedly hard to take when taken out of its context. One has to read more of the article and read Baudrillard's essay _The Spirit of Terrorism_ to understand what he means (in case he means anything ).
In any case, in the above sentence, "_we_" obviously refers to many more (or rather, different) people than "_they_" in the previous one.

PS : 13 pages? You should shift to "40 posts per page". It's only 7 on my PC!


----------



## maxiogee

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> I would not agree... The original question is in the title, where THEY means ALL who are not Americans. At least I understood it like this. If I am wrong, then I would like Everness to correct me and to specify what he means by THEY. *It seems incredible that after 13 pages of discussion*, it is still not very clear who is THEY and what is US from the question.



Why do people *not* understand what the thread question is? It is only five words long and all one needs to know, to understand the question, is in the first post.
The question posed in the title of the thread is a direct 'lift' from the quote in the first post…

In this article, Butterfield makes an interesting point:
"So far the U.S. has ignored it by refusing to answer
the implicit question: Why do they hate us? By what
right do we exploit their resources, overthrow their
elected leaders, and drop bombs on their people?"​The author thinks the United States (the U.S.) needs to ask (itself) the question "Why do they hate us?" - and it needs to answer that question.
There can be no doubt about who US is here - it is the United States!
Who else could it be - in reference to whom could the United States ask itself "Why do they hate us?"

The reference to "they" is unarguably simple - "Why do they hate us"  - the "they' is 'those who hate us'.
How much more simple can it be. Look at it from another angle - who 'could' it be?
Where 'hate" is concerned there can be only two types. One of those types can be broken into two types
*a)* Those who hate us
*b)* Those who do not hate us
— *b1)* Those who are indifferent to us
— *b2)* Those to like us​
If you do not know who "they" and "us" are, can you tell me to whom you think these terms *might* refer?


============================================




			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> maxiogee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is NOT a vote - and I don't understand why you think it is.
> 
> 
> 
> *Where did I say this thread is a VOTE?*
Click to expand...

*
*
Post #232


			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> *And then you add, other large masses of people... What? Turks are not "large mass of people, with almost 73 million of inhabitants? Then Serbia, with poorish 8 million wouldn't even be considered to have the right to vote in this thread....*


Remember now?


============================================




> On the other hand, why should terrorist lie?


Do you really not know?



> They say what they mean: I hate you because I want you out of my land. Now, if their reasons are correct or not, of a sane or insane mind... That is a completely another topic.


But in many cases the hatred is against people who are not in "my" land.



			
				natasha2000 said:
			
		

> maxiogee said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The reason I asked about terrorists is that they are the ones who most show their hatred, they are also the ones the United States need most to come to understand - and the reason I added "and other large masses of people" is because that is what "they", in this context, means.
> 
> 
> 
> But who are those groups?
Click to expand...

How many times do I need to indicate it? "they" are people who hate the US. Some of those are terrorists, and some are not, but they are groups which do hate it - be that the majority of the citizens of some country, the extremists of some religion, the members of some political organisation, any body of people.

========
Thank you for pointing out my error of "by" for "why", I have amended it. I can only suppose that I rephrased my comments and missed that.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

borhane said:
			
		

> this is a good question !!
> for me us is
> 1- bush administration
> 2-every american voted in him
> 3-all countries giving support to US or under its umbrella like "UK israel..."


 Was Clinton`s Administration better in your book?
 People do not always vote for what they get. Do you like everything your President does? Did you expect your candidate to do just that? And being allies is just choosing the lesser of the many evils, I guess. You do not like all they do but the advantages outweigh the drawbacks and for a while there is no better option. ...My, it`s beginning to sound like marriage...


----------



## natasha2000

maxiogee said:
			
		

> If you do not know who "they" and "us" are, can you tell me to whom you think these terms *might* refer?
> 
> I have already done it.
> 
> 
> ============================================
> 
> 
> 
> [/b]
> Post #232
> 
> Remember now?
> 
> Ok. By "right to vote", I meant, "right to speak here in this thread". now I realize it was a unsuccessful figurative expession. Sorry.
> 
> 
> ============================================
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do I need to indicate it? "they" are people who hate the US. Some of those are terrorists, and some are not, but they are groups which do hate it - be that the majority of the citizens of some country, the extremists of some religion, the members of some political organisation, any body of people.
> 
> Well precisely for this, I think that you did wrong saying that one forero is just complaining. He was expressing his opinion. So at the end, I was right. "huge massess of people" really can be countries or nations. I have already elaborated what I think of generalizing, which here would be precisely this if one person tries to give the opinion of a whole group.
> 
> ========
> Thank you for pointing out my error of "by" for "why", I have amended it. I can only suppose that I rephrased my comments and missed that.
> You're welcome. This only proves that nobody is perfect (even if you are a native)


----------



## natasha2000

Setwale_Charm said:
			
		

> Was Clinton`s Administration better in your book?


 
In mine, of course NOT!


----------



## natasha2000

Setwale_Charm said:
			
		

> Oh no! You completely misunderstood me! I am not giving priority to the knowledge of credit card use, not in the least!! I have lived my life without knowing it and although it does cause trouble sometimes , I do not think I missed as much as i would if I had missed on learning the world culture (including the Serbian language, by the way).
> This is a bad joke, really. There is no need to throw into my face that MY language is not worth of learning. But don't worry, we can continue discussion because I put a little effort to learn YOUR language. Anyway, I am glad that all those who learn it, they learn it because they like it, and not because they are forced to do it (becase of the practical side of it, so deary to you). You know, people in this world actually DO unpractical things, like learning some almost forgotten language only because of passion they have for it, and for nothing more. Anyway, do you really think that the world would advance so much if there weren't totaly inpractical but inventive and brilliant people? To be practical is ok, but to be only practical... Is boring.
> What I meant is: purely theoretical knowledge of some specific subjects in the absence of knowledge which is much more relevant to actual life - that`s something i am against. Any society first needs to know the facts about life for survival, then come the classics. The venereal disease and violence-ridden Russian youth are not much helped by the knowledge of Fedor Mikhailovich, I`m afraid . And Eastern European scientists are welcomed particularly for that: for their brilliant knowledge of their narrow speciality! The West can hardly ever boast with such examples, or maybe with a very few. Yet, for practical life these specialists find it very hard to adapt and seem little adaptle to people around them.
> Again it was all to illustrate the differences between mentalities and the perception of the American character. And I know the details about Russian education just from being responsible for analyzing and reporting on the Russian population, that includes surveys on how well people manage certain skills, what their ideas on certain matters are. That gives you a clear picture. I never jump to conclusions on the basis of a few acquaintances of mine, if my friends or myself happen to appear crazy to you,
> They "do not appear crazy to me"! It is a fact and there is nothing bad about it, it is more tragic. Nikola Tesla, a great physician to whom we owe alternating current electric power, was completely crazy of "germofobia" (sorry, I don't know how to say it in English). For each meal, he wiped each piece of cutlery with 16 newly opened paper tissues, yet he had so great mind which invented so many PRACTICAL things.
> I assure you, it`s nothing to do with the British or Russian culture in general.
> I believe you. But then, do not ordinary people differ fromcountry to country, too? What's wrong with that?


----------



## maxiogee

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> Well precisely for this, I think that you did wrong saying that one forero is just complaining. He was expressing his opinion. So at the end, I was right. "huge massess of people" really can be countries or nations. I have already elaborated what I think of generalizing, which here would be precisely this if one person tries to give the opinion of a whole group.



But his complaints were not explaining why anyone would "hate" the US.
If he hates the US for those reasons then he has a problem.
My point about the thread is that it invites us to post why we think those who do hate the US may do so. We may draw our references from personal knowledge or experience of those who are in this category. Anugunu was hardly listing causes for hatred.

We can speak of what we know, without generalising, if we have evidence and knowledge to support it. I might well say something like "There are those in Ireland who think X, Y & Z" — that is the essence of what is being asked here. I would be guilty of gross misrepresentation if I said "The people of Ireland think X, Y & Z", and people reading that would know immediately that it was false.

No-one is being asked here to do that.


----------



## heidita

I think the USA has also had quite some admiration from a large part of the Spanish population when the train stations were attacked by terrorists.

I was very much admired by the feeling of the country and sticking together when the twin towers were brought down by the same group of terrorists. Most of the USA and its people felt as one and behaved accordingly. In Spain quite the opposite happened. The government was blamed for the attack and people drifted apart in different beliefs and opinions of who was to blame.

I certainly know why my mother hates the USA. One day before the official end of World War 2, my home town and the two neighbouring towns were bombed by allied forces and thousands of children and women were killed, the only people left in the cities. At the age of 85 she will never understand that things have changed. 

I have a great admiration for the Americans' patriotism, the feeling together, the joy when abroad they meet people from their own country, the joy they can feel for the simplest things. Of course, this is my personal opinion and I do not know if it is right according to the topic. I hope so.

And I agree with Setwale charm, people unfortunately do not always get what the have voted for. Yes just like marriage, or a melon, like you say in Madrid. You buy something you think is good and it turns out pure cucumber. Pity.


----------



## zena168

I think Americans don’t understand how much U.S. try to influence or even control the political matters of other people’s country. We report news, facts but not the motives behind them. It’s a global economy, everything is done to manipulate trade or secure our own political and economic interest. Some country may appreciate the intrusion and see it as aid but there sure are many others who don’t. I may be exaggerating, but I’ve seen foreign papers that describe U.S. as a bully.  I think that image explains just about why they hate the U.S..


----------



## don maico

Hate is too strong a wrd IMO . It may apply to a minority but the ways its used would think it was very widespread. Dislike ,disagreement even disdain maybe  but hate??? AlQaeda hate but then they hate the whole of the western world and what it represents so lets get things in proportion shall we?
What we can do is criticise aspects of US policy which we diasagree with, both domestic and international, or attitudes that annoy and even baffle as at times.
For eg i dont understand their reluctance to embrace the concept of a State funded health system , one that  every one can access . They dont see healthcare as a right, education yes but not healthcare- bizarre!Picture this a woman has to make a choice between selling her house , receiving a life saving heart operation or dying?????????And no one seems to give a doo doo.
Ity also tends to make an  all mighty mess of things at times albeit for possibly valid reasons.Like VietNam. Hundreds of thousands killled, a country virtually defoliated and the US still lost???And after all that it couldnt bring itself round to apologise for the needless carnage. Vietnam ,for its part, has grown and feels no rancour which says a lot for its people. The Uk had a similar problem with Malaysia re the spread of communism but through a measured response and by winning the support of the people won that particular conflict.
Then there is Iraq. Can someone please explain what thats all about other than the fact Haliburton / Chenney  have some very good rebuilding contracts out there? Why did they rope us into it and why didnt they think what they would do once the war was won?
Tbh I am rather reluctant to criticise them too much as I would far rather have them as the superpower than say the Chinkies. At least i understand their language generally like their people appreciate some of their culture and recognise that whatever some may think we are linked to them . I am also grateful to them for coming ot our aid in our times of greatest need when were down on our knees alone facing the might of the Germans( Ok the Ruskies played a very major role too). I am also grateful that thay helped to face off the threat of communism.
All in all there are far more positives than negatives re the USA. On a more individual level the only things I find irksome is the arrogant attitude shown by some, the loud mouth bragging , the notion that we are alll somehow envious of them and the idiotic belief that we would all like to be like them???????????Hello??Very incorrect!I would also like then to embrace the concept of education, to be aware that there is world outside their borders , that "furriners" do things somewhat differently and that that needs to be respected.We also dont all want KFCs or McDonalds dotted around in every town - The French in particular have a very strong and proud culinary tradition and view that kind of Americana with disdain.Anyway enough of that . Let us celebrate their can do mentality, their industry, their belief in freedom and democracy their music movies nad if oyu have not visited that country I suggest you do. i have bee  few times , my wife several . We like it!Let us preserve Pax Americana


----------



## Setwale_Charm

natasha2000 said:
			
		

> In mine, of course NOT!


 I personally think Clinton`s action in Yugoslavia was much worse. One can find some side excuses for intervening into Iraqi affairs. Hussein was a most horrible tyrant and the things that were happening under him...large masses of Iraqis did welcome the idea of outside help in overthrowing him at first.
 Milosevic was definitely no piece of sugar either, but the whole situation was different. What the hell did they stick their nose into an absolutely sovereign land having its own constitutional government and not in any way affecting other countries?!! And that`s not only Clinton, that`s the idiot of Blair too and the rest. The pretext of the crimes during the Yugoslavia split happening again? Come, each nation bore about the same amount of responsibility for that.


----------



## natasha2000

Setwale_Charm said:
			
		

> I personally think Clinton`s action in Yugoslavia was much worse. One can find some side excuses for intervening into Iraqi affairs. Hussein was a most horrible tyrant and the things that were happening under him...large masses of Iraqis did welcome the idea of outside help in overthrowing him at first.
> Milosevic was definitely no piece of sugar either, but the whole situation was different. What the hell did they stick their nose into an absolutely sovereign land having its own constitutional government and not in any way affecting other countries?!! And that`s not only Clinton, that`s the idiot of Blair too and the rest. The pretext of the crimes during the Yugoslavia split happening again? Come, each nation bore about the same amount of responsibility for that.


 
Miloshevic et al. was a war criminal and he was responsible for many violent deaths, many violations, many destroyed lives and youths among which is also mine. IMHO, he did not get what he deserved - humilliation to be judged by his own people. He made a missery of life of his own people in the first place, and he did it in the name of this people, of ME. How could have he possibly dared!  
I personally would like to have had the opportunity to ask him to give me back my youth. And he is also responsible for me being bombed. 

NO EXCUSE can be found or given for bombing the other country without being directly attacked by the same. There is NO EXCUSE for what was and is going on in Afganistan, or for 3000 dead per month in Iraq. NO EXCUSE AT ALL.


----------



## Fernando

Excuse for Afghanistan: A group of terrorists attack US citizens and soldiers in Yemen, Somalia, Bali, WTC, Europe, etc. Hundreds (US people and not) die. Finally, they get to kill 3,000 US common citizens in NY. 

The group that organizes these attacks live, trains and have its heardquarters in Afghanistan. The leader of that group, who repeats he targets every US citizen, lives in the open and appears as the deputy country president.

Afghanistan was said many times they should retire their support for that group and previous measures (economic blockade, etc) were put into force. Results: none.

Incidentally, they oppressed their women and destroyed their own heritage but, well, I assume that could be a problem for Afghanis. US government could or not act because of that.


----------



## natasha2000

Fernando said:
			
		

> Excuse for Afghanistan: A group of terrorists attack US citizens and soldiers in Yemen, Somalia, Bali, WTC, Europe, etc. Hundreds (US people and not) die. Finally, they get to kill 3,000 US common citizens in NY.
> 
> The group that organizes these attacks live, trains and have its heardquarters in Afghanistan. The leader of that group, who repeats he targets every US citizen, lives in the open and appears as the deputy country president.
> 
> Afghanistan was said many times they should retire their support for that group and previous measures (economic blockade, etc) were put into force. Results: none.
> 
> Incidentally, they oppressed their women and destroyed their own heritage but, well, I assume that could be a problem for Afghanis. US government could or not act because of that.


 
It is your right to think like this. I have no wish to discuss this with you.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Fernando said:
			
		

> Excuse for Afghanistan: A group of terrorists attack US citizens and soldiers in Yemen, Somalia, Bali, WTC, Europe, etc. Hundreds (US people and not) die. Finally, they get to kill 3,000 US common citizens in NY.
> 
> The group that organizes these attacks live, trains and have its heardquarters in Afghanistan. The leader of that group, who repeats he targets every US citizen, lives in the open and appears as the deputy country president.
> 
> Afghanistan was said many times they should retire their support for that group and previous measures (economic blockade, etc) were put into force. Results: none.
> 
> Incidentally, they oppressed their women and destroyed their own heritage but, well, I assume that could be a problem for Afghanis. US government could or not act because of that.


 
Well, the Iraqis are mostly dying of their own co-citizens` hands. The Americans just opened Pandora`s box in this case.

Still, I think bombing anybody as a way of retaliation for terrorist attacks? No, this should be done in a different way. 


As for women, well, I agree...to an extent. But one should bear in mind that it is the women of these lands who should decide for themselves. So that we do not become like some feminist crusaders I know who are ready to go and save the poor martyrs (according to their own Western views), only forgetting to ask the "poor ones" whether they actually want to be forcefully dragged away from the kitchen and into the job market. This means NO progress to me, the same kind of totalitarian approach, just the vice-versa kind.


----------



## Fernando

US did not carpet-bombed Afghanistan as a retaliation. They merely overthrew the Taliban government. Most (if not all) attacks were performed against fighters out of populated areas. Civil casualties were quite low (by far, below 3,000, which would be a poor retaliation) and always unwanted. Once Talibans were overthrown US soldiers (alongside with NATO-UN soldiers) stayed in the country under a mandate of the UN and the petition of the democratically-elected Government.

You should notice I have said "incidentally", talking about the woman's case. I believe in the principle of the "humanitarian intervention", but I understand the people who is against.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Oh, I did not mean that I have quarrell wth what you are saying. Just wanted to point out, because one of the negative sides of the western intervention, esp. of the US, is that they often take no trouble to learn a bit about the local customs and assume the world should be living in exactly American ways.


----------



## natasha2000

Setwale_Charm said:
			
		

> *Well, the Iraqis are mostly dying of their own co-citizens` hands. The Americans just opened Pandora`s box in this case.*
> 
> Still, I think bombing anybody as a way of retaliation for terrorist attacks? No, this should be done in a different way.
> 
> 
> As for women, well, I agree...to an extent. But one should bear in mind that it is the women of these lands who should decide for themselves. So that we do not become like some feminist crusaders I know who are ready to go and save the poor martyrs (according to their own Western views), only forgetting to ask the "poor ones" whether they actually want to be forcefully dragged away from the kitchen and into the job market. This means NO progress to me, the same kind of totalitarian approach, just the vice-versa kind.


 
At last we agree on something! 
Everything but red coloured is what I think, too.
I think that those who open Pandora's box are the biggest criminals, because they knew exactly what they were doing. No dictator (like Miloshevic, for example) killed by his own hand thousands of people, yet is considered (and IS) as guilty as those who did it, even more, because it was done with his blessing. I certainly cannot accept that Bush et al. didn't know what they were doing or where are they sticking their noses, when it was no concern of them. Biological weapons? Bull! Ha! The same as with capturing Bin Laden. They supposedly attacked Afganistan to catch Bin Laden. Now where is that Bin Laden? and biological weapons? I simply cannot believe that American administration is so stupid. There must be something else there...


----------



## maxiogee

I'm withdrawing from this discussion as it seems to be just a load of personal complaining - not an attempt to understand the minds of those who actually hate the United States.
Discussion here seems pointless.


----------



## GenJen54

> Discussion here seems pointless.


I agree, Tony. 

For the most part, *many of the* Americans who have participated on this thread have been willing to understand and critizise their own position as Americans in the eyes of the of the world, and keep some level of tact while doing it. It's a trait *some of the* others sadly have not been able to respect. The anti-American hatred and vitriol which is increasing in the world today has made its way to this thread, without much of an effort to bridge understanding.


----------



## natasha2000

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> I agree, Tony.
> 
> For the most part, *many of the* Americans who have participated on this thread have been willing to understand and critizise their own position as Americans in the eyes of the of the world, and keep some level of tact while doing it. It's a trait others sadly have not been able to respect. The anti-American hatred and vitriol which is increasing in the world today has made its way to this thread, without much of an effort to bridge understanding.


 
Not all Americans participating in this thread were ready for constructive discussion, as not all non-Amercans, too. Please, do not generalize. I beg you.

As far as Maxiogee's observation, I agree. I withdraw too. As always, these kind of discussions always finish in nothing, and only leave bitter taste in the mouth. Pitty.
Good day, ladies and gentleman!
Elvis has left the building.


----------



## maxiogee

GenJen54 said:
			
		

> Why people hate … XYZland.



As roving Ambassador for XYZland I take total umbrage at the suggestion that anyone would hate our gallant and glorious nation. Only someone in the pay of the evil and perverted ABCistan would publish such calumny. I demand that you withdr… (excuse me, there are some flashing lights outside and some gentlemen in white coats are coming up the drive - I may be away some time) …this is not fini


----------



## ireney

And I can reply for why people hate Greece in the most humble and well moderated way. 'Cause we are the best that's why! We invented everything on the planet (PCs, kimonos, nail clippers, avian tape, cell phones, space travel, Latin, American football, that thing you use to peel off potatoes, you name it, we did it). 
Plus half of us are aliens and you just can't stand it can you? You are all green with envy at our pointy eared ancestors who could hold the forth and fifth finger stuck together, the index and middle too AND THE TWO SETS SEPARATED WITH NO TROUBLE!!

Wait for me maxiogee I'm coming !!

P.S. And you show your hatred by inventing the only thing that you _did_ invent in this world, namely all non Greek prepositions just to make me, personally, loose a percentage of my scalp every time I play the Eeny meeny miney mo while scartching my head trying to choose the right(?) one


----------



## Everness

Why do they hate US? has become a common issue discussed in many contexts. Here's a contribution from a Libertarian.

http://www.fff.org/comment/com0608c.asp

According to the author, there are two camps. (Yes, let's keep it simple)

Camp 1. _The anger and hatred that Arabs and Muslims have for the United States is rooted in decades of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East._

Camp 2: _The chants of “Death to Israel. Death to America” from hundreds of thousands of Shiites marching in Baghdad last week had nothing to do with U.S. foreign policy but were motivated instead by hatred for American principles and lifestyles._

I'm not a libertarian but I agree with the author's recommendation:

_With the situation in the Middle East degenerating into ever-increasing violence, conflict, death, suffering, and destruction after decades of U.S. intervention, what better time for the American people to reevaluate U.S. foreign policy, not only in the Middle East but also in the rest of the world?_

Our distinguished French friend Baudrillard would laugh his behind off at this suggestion but I think it's a good place to start. (Let's not forget Sean François Revel’s famous quip, “If you remove anti-Americanism nothing remains in French political thought today, either on the Left or Right.”) So far Bush's attempt to change the world in our image exporting some of America’s “freedom and values” ain't working.


----------



## Outsider

Why do they hate us? -- a reply at _Al Jazeera_
Why do they hate us? -- an American's opinion


----------



## .   1

Everness said:
			
		

> Why do they hate US? has become a common issue discussed in many contexts. Here's a contribution from a Libertarian.
> 
> http://www.fff.org/comment/com0608c.asp
> 
> According to the author, there are two camps. (Yes, let's keep it simple)
> 
> Camp 1. _The anger and hatred that Arabs and Muslims have for the United States is rooted in decades of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East._
> 
> Camp 2: _The chants of “Death to Israel. Death to America” from hundreds of thousands of Shiites marching in Baghdad last week had nothing to do with U.S. foreign policy but were motivated instead by hatred for American principles and lifestyles._
> 
> I'm not a libertarian but I agree with the author's recommendation:
> 
> _With the situation in the Middle East degenerating into ever-increasing violence, conflict, death, suffering, and destruction after decades of U.S. intervention, what better time for the American people to reevaluate U.S. foreign policy, not only in the Middle East but also in the rest of the world?_
> 
> Our distinguished French friend Baudrillard would laugh his behind off at this suggestion but I think it's a good place to start. (Let's not forget Sean François Revel’s famous quip, “If you remove anti-Americanism nothing remains in French political thought today, either on the Left or Right.”) So far Bush's attempt to change the world in our image exporting some of America’s “freedom and values” ain't working.


Lovely to hear from you Everness.
Do you intend to answer any of the questions posed to you regarding clarification of the points of the question of this thread?
I must say that I am bored with constant quotes from dead white males being used to discuss something they were not writing about in the first place.

.,,


----------



## Everness

Outsider said:
			
		

> Why do they hate us? -- a reply at _Al Jazeera_
> Why do they hate us? -- an American's opinion


Actually both opinions are American. Sandy Shanks is an author and columnist living in South California. 

Mr. Shanks starts his article accusing Americans of ignorance when it comes to history. 

_The query is based entirely on ignorance, which, by itself, is a result of a chronic American fault - a near total apathy towards history. The vast majority of Americans are clueless regarding the past of faraway lands as well as their own. 
_
Is this true? Is it a baseless generalization? Or is it a much needed introduction in order for Aljazeera to publish your stuff? 

However, his theory is pretty sound. Let me summarize it. 

First, when events like 9/11 or the Iraq War take place, we tend to fixate on the present at the expense of the past. What's the present? The era beginning on September 11, 2001. Actually many, many posts focus on that type of here and now. 

Second, since the fall of the Arab empire in the 11th century, Arabs have not been in control of their own destiny and continue not be in control today. Bush's attack on Iraq is a good example of the latter. Mostly Western people come over to try to solve their problems and save them from themselves. (And access their oil, but that's another story.) He mentions the Crusades, Egypt and Suez, and the mother of all insults: 

_The greatest ignominy, by far, perpetrated by the West upon the Arab people is the formation of the state of Israel._

Is there a way out? 

_However, centuries of Western domination are kind of hard to forget and that will remove any holier-than-thou attitude American negotiators may have. Once a man's grievance is recognised, that can go a long way towards understanding._

Quite simple, uh? The US needs to get off its high horse, put things in historical perspective, and recognize that the Arabs might have all the right to be pissed at us.


----------



## Everness

. said:
			
		

> Lovely to hear from you Everness.
> Do you intend to answer any of the questions posed to you regarding clarification of the points of the question of this thread?
> I must say that I am bored with constant quotes from dead white males being used to discuss something they were not writing about in the first place.
> 
> .,,



Oh, I like to be missed! I thought I had answered all questions posed to me and if I haven't, I'm ready to fulfil my duties. In terms of your boredom related to my constant quotes from dead white males, I have two questions. 

First, when did Baudrillard die? I thought he was still alive and creating havoc among the intelligentsia. If he already died, I want to mourn him. 

Second, I agree with Baudrillard when he points out that Westerns have ceased to exchange with the dead collectively. This attitude won't allow us to solve the puzzle of 9/11. This is how Butterfield interprets Baudrillard on this issue.

_Modern Western cultures have largely ceased to exchange with the   dead collectively, partly because we no longer believe in their continued existence, and partly because we no longer value that which cannot be accumulated or consumed. The dead have no value by our measurements. We give them nothing and expect nothing from them in return, and yet they remain with us, in our memories, obligating our recognition and response. How do we respond to the symbolic challenge of death and the dead, the     challenge they pose to our conscious experience? This is the question of 9/11._

http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/pmc/text-only/issue.902/13.1butterfield.txt


----------



## .   1

Everness said:
			
		

> Oh, I like to be missed! I thought I had answered all questions posed to me and if I haven't, I'm ready to fulfil my duties. In terms of your boredom related to my constant quotes from dead white males, I have two questions.
> 
> First, when did Baudrillard die? I thought he was still alive and creating havoc among the intelligentsia. If he already died, I want to mourn him.
> 
> Second, I agree with Baudrillard when he points out that Westerns have ceased to exchange with the dead collectively. This attitude won't allow us to solve the puzzle of 9/11. This is how Butterfield interprets Baudrillard on this issue.
> 
> _Modern Western cultures have largely ceased to exchange with the dead collectively, partly because we no longer believe in their continued existence, and partly because we no longer value that which cannot be accumulated or consumed. The dead have no value by our measurements. We give them nothing and expect nothing from them in return, and yet they remain with us, in our memories, obligating our recognition and response. How do we respond to the symbolic challenge of death and the dead, the challenge they pose to our conscious experience? This is the question of 9/11._
> 
> http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/pmc/text-only/issue.902/13.1butterfield.txt


Thanks again for another quote from a bloke I am utterly not interested in.
Do you intend to post any of his odd opinions relating to women as well to give us a good understanding of where he is coming from.

Your question is
Why to they hate US?

My direct question to you is;
Who are they and who or what is US?

.,,
My thoughts are that you prefer to be noticed than missed.


----------



## Everness

. said:
			
		

> My direct question to you is;
> Who are they and who or what is US?
> 
> .,,
> My thoughts are that you prefer to be noticed than missed.



When I initially posed this question, "they" were the people who were planning to blow up 10 America-bound flights and "us," the United States as a country.  (By the way, what happened with the investigation of this alleged plot to blow up planes from the UK to US? Oh, silly of me! I forgot that our next Congressional elections are in November.)

The first responses I got made me realize that those identities are kind of fluid. However, I still believe that this question can only be answered at an individual level. "Speak for yourself or show some solid and reliable polls that capture the anti-American sentiment in your country." But some of us feel entitled to act as spokespersons for a whole group or country. Again, the only more or less reliable general responses are provided by polls. http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252

Bush somehow tapped into our collective state of mind and posed this exact same question. 

_Americans are asking, why do they hate us?  They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government.  Their leaders are self-appointed.  They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other._http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html

Now, Bush didn't ask me if I was asking that question. So either he is a mind reader or he had already started wiretapping Americans on September 12, 2001, and that's exactly what most of my fellow Americans were saying. Who hates us according to Bush? Apparently the leaders of these terrorist organizations. Interestingly enough, he left identities kind of in the air. However, his description of those leaders matches the description of many Arab leaders in the Middle East. Let's not forget that Israel is the only democracy in that area despite what Neve says. http://www.counterpunch.org/gordon02032004.html


----------



## .   1

Everness said:
			
		

> When I initially posed this question, "they" were the people who were planning to blow up 10 America-bound flights and "us," the United States as a country. (By the way, what happened with the investigation of this alleged plot to blow up planes from the UK to US? Oh, silly of me! I forgot that our next Congressional elections are in November.)
> 
> The first responses I got made me realize that those identities are kind of fluid. However, I still believe that this question can only be answered at an individual level. "Speak for yourself or show some solid and reliable polls that capture the anti-American sentiment in your country." But some of us feel entitled to act as spokespersons for a whole group or country. Again, the only more or less reliable general responses are provided by polls. http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252
> 
> Bush somehow tapped into our collective state of mind and posed this exact same question.
> 
> _Americans are asking, why do they hate us? They hate what we see right here in this chamber -- a democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms -- our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other._http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/09/20010920-8.html
> 
> Now, Bush didn't ask me if I was asking that question. So either he is a mind reader or he had already started wiretapping Americans on September 12, 2001, and that's exactly what most of my fellow Americans were saying. Who hates us according to Bush? Apparently the leaders of these terrorist organizations. Interestingly enough, he left identities kind of in the air. However, his description of those leaders matches the description of many Arab leaders in the Middle East. Let's not forget that Israel is the only democracy in that area despite what Neve says. http://www.counterpunch.org/gordon02032004.html


Now that I know the question I will be able to answer.
I have no idea and care even less about the motives or ideologies of a bunch of murderous thugs but thanks for asking.

.,,


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Everness said:
			
		

> Now, Bush didn't ask me if I was asking that question. So either he is a mind reader or he had already started wiretapping Americans on September 12, 2001, and that's exactly what most of my fellow Americans were saying. Who hates us according to Bush? Apparently the leaders of these terrorist organizations. Interestingly enough, he left identities kind of in the air. However, his description of those leaders matches the description of many Arab leaders in the Middle East. Let's not forget that Israel is the only democracy in that area despite what Neve says. ]
> 
> I doubt you would ever call Israel democratic if you had to live there. Depending, of course, on what you mean by 'democratic'. Bush cites ansolutely absurd reasons for which Americans are supposedly hated. I think, a great deal comes from not understanding the Islamic culture and mind and thus either demonising or composing myths about it.


----------



## becky_tai

ireney said:
			
		

> And I can reply for why people hate Greece in the most humble and well moderated way. 'Cause we are the best that's why! We invented everything on the planet (PCs, kimonos, nail clippers, avian tape, cell phones, space travel, Latin, American football, that thing you use to peel off potatoes, you name it, we did it).


Kind of off-topic, and I know that your post was in jest, but I find your comments interesting because for some reason I've never made the connection between the Ancient Greeks and the modern inhabitants of Greece, I thought they were different people somehow and I didn't know that modern-day Greeks see the ancient variety as "us".

Okay, now back to "Why do they hate US?"...


----------



## mytwolangs

Everness said:


> Do you think this is a good time for the US to answer these implicit questions, especially the first one: *Why do they hate us? *Would this be a relevant or futile intellectual exercise? At least the timing is pretty good: Britain has just thwarted an alleged major plot to attack America-bound airliners and in exactly one month, it's the 5th anniversary of 9/11.


 
The rest of this planet cannot accept one simple fact - The USA is the one thing standng in the way of the countries who want world domination. Some countries are very resentful for that. 

Without America keeping this planet in line, we would have no other languages or cultures to enjoy. 

And to the neighbors over in Britial, Helluva job, mates


----------



## maxiogee

mytwolangs said:


> The rest of this planet cannot accept one simple fact - The USA is the one thing standng in the way of the countries who want world domination. Some countries are very resentful for that.
> 
> Without America keeping this planet in line, we would have no other languages or cultures to enjoy.



 
There are those who would say that the US is standing at the 
head of the queue of the countries who want world domination.

 
As to your comment that without America we would have no other languages or cultures to enjoy - American culture is what many think is destroying other cultures - that if America really cared about other languages it would dub it's cultural exports into the languages of the countries to which it exports them - movies and tv programmes for instance. But no, if the people in XYZland want the latest Hollywood blockbuster to be in XYZish, they have to pay for it to be dubbed.


----------



## .   1

mytwolangs said:


> The rest of this planet cannot accept one simple fact - The USA is the one thing standng in the way of the countries who want world domination. Some countries are very resentful for that.
> 
> Without America keeping this planet in line, we would have no other languages or cultures to enjoy.
> 
> And to the neighbors over in Britial, Helluva job, mates


This must surely be an ironic post.

.,,


----------



## they call me mariah

There are many reasons why they hate us and some have been mentioned here but when ever I have/had a question, would go to this site for information.
http://www.parida.com/  or http://www.rinfret.com 

Because I knew Pierre Rinfret personally, knowing him to be direct and honest about what was happening around the world; would go to his site before accepting the trite being reported by the media.
If one does go to the site see Pierre's remarks on "the French" and "Arabs hate", you will find some answers other than, what has been posted here on this forum.


----------



## luar

I learned from my father to dislike the American government. I did not know exactly why he carries these _anti-American feelings_, until just recently. My father revealed that his grand father was tortured by US soldiers during the first American occupation of our country, Dominican Republic (1916-1924). 

Before I learned about this horrible event, I had my own reasons to dislike the American government (I am going to mention just a few). It was enough for me to know that the US supported the dictatorship of Rafael Leonidas Trujillo, a murderer who ruled the country for 31 years (1930-1961). Some speculated that his regimen ended just because he forgot he was a servant not the boss. 

Later, in 1963, the American government supported the military coup that overthrown the first president to be elected after the Trujillo era was over, Juan Bosch (excellent writer, by the way). Once again, in 1965 our country was occupied. A group of Dominicans vainly tried to put Bosch back as the legitimate president of the nation. The US responded sending more than 20, 000 soldiers “to protect American citizens”. Some believed that these actions were motivated by fear. The US did not want another Cuba in the Caribbean. 

It is clear, at least for me, that the US government is not the only one responsible for what happened. They have been lucky to find “generous” Dominican man and women willing to support their well-intentioned actions.

Now you can also understand why we cheer for baseball and not so much for football.


----------



## Victoria32

natasha2000 said:


> NO EXCUSE can be found or given for bombing the other country without being directly attacked by the same. There is NO EXCUSE for what was and is going on in Afganistan, or for 3000 dead per month in Iraq. NO EXCUSE AT ALL.



It may sound naive, but I _*wholly agree with Natasha2000 here. 
*_


----------



## Victoria32

Everness said:


> So far Bush's attempt to change the world in our image exporting some of America’s “freedom and values” ain't working.



I think, Everness, that the statement above is one thing that we can all (Americans and otherwise) agree on!


----------



## Victoria32

mytwolangs said:


> The rest of this planet cannot accept one simple fact - The USA is the one thing standng in the way of the countries who want world domination. Some countries are very resentful for that.
> 
> Without America keeping this planet in line, we would have no other languages or cultures to enjoy.
> 
> And to the neighbors over in Britial, Helluva job, mates


I hope as others have said, that this was meant to be ironic... 


luar said:


> I learned from my father to dislike the American government. I did not know exactly why he carries these _anti-American feelings_, until just recently. My father revealed that his grand father was tortured by US soldiers during the first American occupation of our country, Dominican Republic (1916-1924).
> 
> Before I learned about this horrible event, I had my own reasons to dislike the American government (I am going to mention just a few). It was enough for me to know that the US supported the dictatorship of Rafael Leonidas Trujillo, a murderer who ruled the country for 31 years (1930-1961). Some speculated that his regimen ended just because he forgot he was a servant not the boss.
> 
> Later, in 1963, the American government supported the military coup that overthrown the first president to be elected after the Trujillo era was over, Juan Bosch (excellent writer, by the way). Once again, in 1965 our country was occupied. A group of Dominicans vainly tried to put Bosch back as the legitimate president of the nation. The US responded sending more than 20, 000 soldiers “to protect American citizens”. Some believed that these actions were motivated by fear. The US did not want another Cuba in the Caribbean.
> 
> It is clear, at least for me, that the US government is not the only one responsible for what happened. They have been lucky to find “generous” Dominican man and women willing to support their well-intentioned actions.
> 
> Now you can also understand why we cheer for baseball and not so much for football.



Thank you for your post, luar, it is good to hear about this kind of thing from one who has (or whose family have) experienced it. 

Finally, yay, multiquote!!!


----------



## Everness

Setwale_Charm said:
			
		

> I doubt you would ever call Israel democratic if you had to live there. Depending, of course, on what you mean by 'democratic'. Bush cites ansolutely absurd reasons for which Americans are supposedly hated. I think, a great deal comes from not understanding the Islamic culture and mind and thus either demonising or composing myths about it.



I assume that you lived there but for some reason you're not willing to share your thoughts about democracy in Israel. Would it make any difference if I'd ask you to define democracy and your perspective on how undemocratic Israel is?


----------



## heidita

Don't the Islamic terrorists hate all democracies? the US is by no means the only democracy in their hate-vision, so to speak.

I have just returned from Germany. Two days later they found bags with bombs on local trains which fortunately didn't explode. A Lebanese was arrested.

I don't think the US can be hated for that reason. 

Why not focus in any case on the things why the USA should be admired and at least respected? What about the democratic system which doesn't exist in other countries which prevents a certain leader to be elected more than three times? this happened in Spain and in my humble opinion was a disaster for the country.


----------



## Maja

heidita said:
			
		

> What about the democratic system which doesn't exist in other countries which prevents a certain leader to be elected more than three times?


Actually, I think that is the case in most countries...


----------



## Fernando

Maja said:


> Actually, I think that is the case in most countries...



Not the case in Spain and in most European countries.


----------



## heidita

Fernando said:


> Not the case in Spain and in most European countries.


 

Exactly, in European countries this is not the case. And much abuse is caused.


----------



## cuchuflete

Either this conversation is too arcane for me to understand, or the lack of term limits in some European countries is somehow related to why some people hate a non-European nation.

When this sort of digression takes place, it is often a sign that
the original topic is about out of fuel.  Would some kind soul please throw some gasoline on it?


----------



## Fernando

So, do you also think it deserves to be burnt?


----------



## Benjy

yes.

thread closed.


----------

