While the administration speaks easily of needing years to "win" over terrorism, it is reluctant to use years to approach causes by diplomacy. Fear may work to sustain acceptance of a war footing in American, it only stimulates hostility abroad among friends and foes alike.
While the administration speaks easily of needing years to "win" over terrorism, it is reluctant to use years to approach causes by diplomacy. Fear may work to sustain acceptance of a war footing in American, it only stimulates hostility abroad among friends and foes alike.
One of the most critical mistakes of US Foreign Policy is this question. I live in a majority Muslim country which is run by Muslim leaders who back US policies in the region and the world but I can safely say that almost 95% of the populace believes US is the biggest threat to international peace and harboring a specific enmity against Muslims to make its Israeli friendly policies. They don't see US as a enemy but US leaders as a biased supporter of Israel (who in their opinion is their biggest foe). In addition, by attacking a sovereign state of Iraq on a wrong premise of WMDs and now admitting that Saddam had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, it has lost its position as a mediator in any conflict. Now the only reason to attack Iraq seems to be protecting Israel and getting a hold of oil reserves and none of these two go well with ordinary muslims around the world. Afghanistan is suffering on a daily basis, with drugs infiltrating the whole country as well as neighboring countries of Iran and Pakistan. During Taliban there was a tight leash on drugs spreading. Lebanon has also been a good case in view where muslims saw US again supporting Israel and ensuring their interests at the cost of innocent lives both in Israel and Lebanon.
Going back, I believe all these hostilities should be stopped to make US appear as a viable partner in any peace deal. If one party (e.g. Palestinians) believe that US is blindly backing Israel, there is a remote possibility of any mediator role. First step that would ultimately assist US towards ending hostilities in these countries would be to show its fair dissidence towards Israel. There has to be one area where US should stand up and say that Israel is wrong. It is one of the main tools for religious organizations to recruit new blood when they refer to innocent brothers and sisters being massacred in Palestine and US vetoing all resolutions condemning these actions at a forum like UN General Assembly and Security Council. In addition, US should take responsibility and apologize for thousands and hundreds of thousands of innocent lives of people in Afghanistan and specially Iraq. US and western world can mourn for a couple of thousand people who died in WTC on 9/11 but what about hundreds of thousands who have been wrongly killed by US and Allied Forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Lebanon. If Iraq was a case in point for an attack, why can't the US attack North Korea which has openly defied all UN and US pressure and resolutions. People in muslim world think it is a double standard as North Korea is not a muslim country. These are some of the points that should be considered to ease up the rhetoric in muslim world against USA.
The US can be more sensitive, but so much of anti-Americanism is irrational that there is little America can do. I am especially disturbed the the confluence of anti-Americanism and antisemitism. It permeates much of the world now and no, and end to the occupation will not end it.
In the minds of far too many Muslims and Arabs, America is controlled by Jews, the Mossad caused 9/11, the Holocaust never happened and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fact. It's not just limited to Arabs and Muslims. The BBC host of World Update cannot mention American Jews without a reference to "the powerful Jewish lobby." The Guardian and the Independent are filled with exaggeration of American Jewish power and influence.
I am an American, a Jew, and a Zionist. This makes me a trifecta of evil. Arab and Muslim leaders have to stop using Jews as scapegoats for whatever is wrong in the Middle East.
Posted at September 2, 2006 11:10 PM
jvd70, Amsterdam, NL:
The Monroe Doctrine started out as an innocuous (although not magnanimous, but very selfish) principle. There have been so many amendments and corollary to that Doctrine. As daniel, Arlington, VA states, one has to really not only read "between the lines," but also understand the evolution of the Doctrine to suit the current "parochial" political goals. Furthermore, the Monroe Doctrine has spawned the likes of Manifest Destiny, which obvious is still being followed; American Exceptionalism (this goes to show our moral superiority, resulting in our "perceived" "holier than thou" attitude and many feel that it parallels European Imperialism); etc. This is where my term "expediency" (i. e., we seek to solve problem with only the short-term benefits, without due consideration of long-term, adverse consequences, in view) comes in.
By the way, thank you for pointing me to the link to Karen Hughes' "The Mission of Public Diplomacy" on the U. S. State Department's website. I agree with almost all of what Ms. Hughes has enunciated.
Hmmm...., I wonder where she is these days?! I especially liked the 4E's - Engagement, Exchanges, Education and Empowerment. Perhaps, we should ask the Washington Post to let her write an Op-Ed piece.
Posted at September 3, 2006 09:37 AM
daniel, Arlington VA, USA
As much as I hate saying this, I agree with you on Iran 100%. I say let Iran enrich whatever it wants to do. Why are we (the U. S.) letting Pakistan and Abdul Qadeer Khan (Founder of the Pakistani Nuclear Research, AKA the Father of the Islamic Bomb) off the hook, despite the fact they spread nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea? Personally, I very strongly believe that we should be concerned significantly more about the biological and chemical weapons as weapons of mass destruction than nuclear weapons, because the the technologies are already out and these two are very, very difficult to detect. Imagine someone's engineering a mutation of a virus that is extremely resistant to drugs and spreading it through a carrier (birds, humans, food, etc.). We will not even know about these pathogens until it is too late. Also, these two technolgies are already widespread and easily attainable (if not already attained) by nation-states and rogue groups.
Posted at September 3, 2006 03:19 PM
Nancy K, NYS, USA
To Srikanth Raghunathan, Wash. DC
A few years ago, NYC recruited math teachers from Austria. Program that replicate that might be a good way to start also.
You are absolutely correct. Please see Karen Hughes' 4E's (http://www.state.gov/r/us/2005/49967.htm), thanks to jvd70, Amsterdam, NL.
General:
I really liked the idea of exchanging our views, although many of them disagreed and were different from mine. Most of the posters were rational and sensible. Alas, like all good things, this has to end, too! Perhaps, we can continue our discussion on a different board? Let me know of your thoughts. Thanks!
Remember, America, despite all of its faults, faux pas, and flaws, is still the best country on earth - there is no doubt in my mind. Can we improve it and make it better? Absolutely, but it takes the strength and unity provided by the diversity of her peoples.
In Israel contracts for 690— SIX HUNDRED AND NINTY— new houses in the West Bank are being let. Pure theft of land. That must be the
policy Bush okayed when Olmert was in DC, the "withdrawal" that wasn't from Gaza for something on the west bank. Now, friends and countrymen, that's how to have hatred compound on America. Not to mention the obscene injustice of it.
What gets me most about the whole Iranian nuclear "crisis" is that there's no proof that they're making any weapons!!!!
I mean, lets face it- nuclear weapons are scary. While I don't believe that the United States or a group of nations in the UN has a right to dictate another state's arsenal (unless of course everybody agreed to a ban), I can certainly sympathize with people who do, because they are terrifying weapons. But even for people who DO think we can dictate who can and can't have nuclear weapons, the fact of the matter is, there's no proof they're making any!!
Five years ago, maybe I'd be a little more skeptical... but right now the same people are saying there's no evidence they're working on nukes that said Saddam wasn't working on nukes, and the same people who say that they ARE working on nukes are the ones who said that Saddam was!!! And you all remember how that turned out. Who do you really think the world should believe this time?
One thing I would say is that Iran has not conformed to international standards of transparency in its nuclear industry, and I will say that is a concern for me. I'd be patient with them, because I know it probably seems like a threatening formality for them, given the US's rhetoric, but eventually we need inspectors, and disclosure, and cooperation with the IAEA. It would be unfair to the Iranians that have to live next to those enrichment facilities and reactors not to impress upon Ahmadinejad how important it is to be more transparent about that work. But barring that condition, they should go full steam ahead.
"The effect of pre-emption is that it also creates reciprocating fears, but it has the effect of ENCOURAGING military confrontation.
thats not a doctrine that any military should operate from."
Puuurrrrfect....wish I had thought of putting it that way.
Now, somebody posed a practical example where maybe we would pre-empt after all (this thread has gotten to big for my measely dial up connection). I will recognize that when it comes to conventional combat there is a case to be made for pre-emption. But not nuclear, ever, for the reason Daniel expressed so succinctly.
My thought Daniel is Yes, let them enrich uranium. If anyone says that amounts to appeasement, I want to know where we get the authority to prohibit another state from enriching uranium. How did we ever get ourselves into this rediculous position anyway?
To Srikanth Raghunathan, Wash. DC
Thanks for the kind words. Any program, like the Peace Corps, would be a very good start. Perhaps we also should acknowledge that the US could use a few volunteers from other countries to teach us a few things. A few years ago, NYC recruited math teachers from Austria. Program that replicate that might be a good way to start also.
OK, I know this is old news, but I want to stir the pot a little. Here's a suggestion for how to reduce anti-Americanism (in some parts of the world at least).
to: jvd70
RE:
"Good point, Srikanth; even though democratic nations can act in self interest I think the Monroe doctrine was formulated more as an anticolonialist (and partially anti Spanish) doctrine than as a colonial policy;"
———
well... I mean, its nice to quote the text of the doctrine, but you have to read between the lines as well.
Was it anti-colonialist in the sense that it was against the 17th century version of colonialism? Absolutely.
But it ushered in a new kind of colonialism or imperialism that we are still practicing today... especially in the middle east, as Srikanth Raghunathan points out. Its more of a "spheres of influence", economic domination sort of imperialism, rather than the direct colonial control practiced by Britain and Spain back then.
Plus, its important to note that just because the Monroe Doctrine introduced a NEW kind of colonialism, that doesn't mean the US didn't ALSO continue to practice the old colonialism of the 17th century. We continued to conquer the western united states, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, etc. (again as Srikanth Raghunathan points out) in the old-fashioned colonial style.
To: jvd70, Amsterdam, NL | Permalink
RE:
Daniel, the historical development of capitalism and democracy is not a roadmap for other countries to follow, a country like Kenia does not need to move through stages of industrialization, protectionism and then gradual liberalization to arrive at becoming a liberal democracy. It cannot compete industrially even if it were to enforce vast tariff barriers, it simply can't keep the Nokias and Toyotas out.
———-
Yes, I believe that was the point of my post... that there is not one solution to the problem of industrialization. However, there is one path that has NEVER worked to industrialize a country, to my knowledge, and that is immediate democratization and immediate liberalization of markets. I'd be very curious if there is a single successful instance of this (I'm probably wrong- there's probably one or two... but the point is, even if there's not one path, there are several basic patterns that we see pop up over and over again).
RE:
Globalization is a thoroughly new paradigm that doesn't fit most of the previous modes of socioeconomic thinking. It does rely very heavily on liberalism because Nokia will deliver you a new phone under warranty most liberally even if you live in Iran.
—-
well put, and heartily granted.
RE:
I believe that at this time in history, under peaceful circumstances (which we've by and large enjoyed since the fall of the Soviet Union) societies will naturally evolve towards liberal, capitalist democracies because people want to own items like cellphones, cars and land.
——————-
How do you figure that we've by and large enjoyed peaceful circumstances in the time since the fall of the Soviet Union? I may be way off base, but my understanding is that its been a violent decade and a half (perhaps a brief calm in the early nineties). Again, as I said before, I think the world probably will evolve towards liberal capitalist democracies. But I'm not sure they'll all be identical, I'm not sure it will be quick, and I'm not sure they'll last (although I applaud their arrival)
RE:
I think that has become evident in a great many nations (including China) where civil (ownership) rights and democracy have been strengthening. Since the cold war, ideological reasons behind inhibiting the growth of a middle class no longer can be effectively (forcefully) maintained. Once middle classes gain a critical mass they create demand for services and institutions common to democracies (eg institutions defining and regulating ownership rights). Totalitarian government at that point can only try to use a nationalist or religious ideology to stop the growth of the middle classes and to keep the wealth from spreading.
——————
hmmmm.... I started this paragraph agreeing with you, but now I'm not so sure. Inequality has been growing since the late seventies in the US, and I believe in most western democracies as well. I'm also not sure its always in the interest of totalitarian governments to stop the growth of the middle class... Saddam Hussein's Iraq I think is a good example. I hadn't traveled there, but I understand there was a (comparatively) robust middle class there. I guess I just don't see why its a necessity- why would totalitarians not want a middle class any more than communists or democrats?
RE:
In totalitarian nations where elites control strategic natural resources (oil), the elites are now so buoyed by high oil prices that they can perpetuate their ideological myths with the force of public spending (Russia, Iran, Venezuela). In some other nations (Syria, North Korea), fear is force enough.
——————-
I don't know- some nations use oil wealth wisely, some don't. I don't think we can put them all in the same grouping. FYI- The Economist had a great article last week on state owned oil companies.
RE:
Perhaps from your perspective I am 'waxing poetic' applies,I am both a progressive and a conservative. The science of economic theory relies on the science of politics to fill in gaps on why South Korea (for example) did not become a democracy until recently. Economics could not quantify the effective influence of North Korea, China and the Soviet Union on for example the South Korean trade unions and in how the cold war was reflected in labour relations in South Korea.
———-
hmmmm.... by saying that I'm studying economists, did I seem to slight other social sciences or suggest that economics could stand on its own? I'm not sure how it came out that way... everything above is agreed to.
RE:
Daniel, think outside the box a little. Ask yourself why you felt the need to tell me about your academic credentials when that is not germane to the chat we are having as free and equal citizens of western democracies?
—————————-
haha. Well, you seemed to think you had firm command of the operation of free market economies. I knew I was going to respond with some stuff that most people outside of the discipline find to be unusual or wrong, so I guess I felt that I had to have some credentials behind me. Plus, I thought I was thinking outside the box!!! All I was trying to say was that when it comes to economies, one size doesn't fit all. I sang the praises of liberalization and democracy! I pointed out that industrial policy and protection are good too and are still relevant for today (I'm not convinced that SOME of these policies aren't relevant for Kenya). Not sure how much more out of the box or open minded I could be... I basically said that some of these solutions work some of the time in some places, and sometimes they don't.
What you should really be criticizing me for is not committing to one answer.
To: Cayambe, Philo CA
RE:
Daniel, we probably would not disagree in our personal opinions, or even in the formation of a ìnational opinionî. But this is largely a product of our common culture. What I balk at is the notion that one culture has authority to supplant another.
—————-
I agree 100% with this... still not sure where we diverge...
also RE:
Actually I donít want to define acceptable and unacceptable pre-emption. That is the problem, it is essentially indefinable and therefore, off with its head. Before you can respond, you have to take a hit. Then, and only then, can you take the gloves off. I donít care much for rules that require assessment and judgment when facts will do.
———
of course, and that was the point of my thought experiment. There is no acceptable pre-emption. Its like a perverse version of the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. Mutually assured destruction depended on reciprocated fears, and the result was that no one launched nuclear missles. The effect of pre-emption is that it also creates reciprocating fears, but it has the effect of ENCOURAGING military confrontation.
thats not a doctrine that any military should operate from.
to: Zoltan
RE:
"this strangely contradicts you saying that USA is diverse. A "nation" is rather compact and uniform, a community of nations is diverse, but how can a nation be both a nation and yet very diverse ?"
——————-
And this quote demonstrates that you may not know america as well as you think. Very few americans would describe our country as, or even want it to be "compact and uniform". Most nations may not be diverse, but ours is, and we like it that way. With the exception of a few xenophobes, we take pride in the term "melting pot", and "nation of immigrants". Lyndon Johnson said that the US "is not a nation, but a nation of nations." It's been a long hard road to make it work- our struggles for universal civil rights in the past have proved that... but the very fact that we've struggled for it shows that for America, a diverse population is desired, and that diverse people can still achieve some degree of unity.
to Felixe:
RE:
"Daniel, there's one of you on every chat room. In fact you've undoubtedly used different names on most of them. A big- deal- know it- all who "educates" everyone on everything, pretending to be neutral. Shall you return to your pro Israel think tank tonight and think you've put it over on all us unwashed? And perhaps ask your leader if anti-semitism has "disappeared and become unhip in the last 61 years", or whether it it is rampant and growing, perhaps at it's apex in the world now. Never so much as upon the Israeli rampage in Lebanon just now. Your type would be interesting if it weren't so omnipresent. And so obvious.
————————
Now I'm very confused.... have you even been reading my posts? I've been criticizing Israel's activities the ENTIRE TIME. Excuse me for pointing out some anti-semitism when I see it. I think Israel has much more blood on their hands than the Palestinians or the Lebanese... but I'm still not going to tolerate racism. Plus, this is the first time I've posted on a blog in years. Although your detailed description of the blog know-it-all certainly sounds like you have some personal experience with it.
The appearance, not the historical evidence, is against the US.
Srikanth Raghunathan, Washington, D. C. wrote:
You may want to consider the "Monroe Doctrine." It is alive and well, although under a different name with modifications to suit our expediency. Does the same not apply to the Middle-Eastern nations? You may also want to consider the acquisition of Hawaii, annexation of Texas, Puerto Rico, Panama (and later relinquishment). History is replete with such examples. You are absolutely correct that we should NOT revisit history for the sake of rewriting it, but to learn what NOT to do. Let us look forward and see what can be done for the betterment of everyone's.
Good point, Srikanth; even though democratic nations can act in self interest I think the Monroe doctrine was formulated more as an anticolonialist (and partially anti Spanish) doctrine than as a colonial policy; "... the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European Power." Teddy Roosevelt strengthened it in response to European bombardment of Venezuelan ports. Considering the belligerence of European nations at the time, roughly a decade before world war 1, it's again hard to claim it was for imperial purposes, explicitly the policy was anti-imperialist.
So much depends on how you look at things, if the actions and lobby of companies like United Fruit strongly paint ones perception of US foreign policy then imperialism seems unmistakable but commercial imperialism can be the policy of a multinational company and of a fraction of society without being advocated or endorsed by the majority. Even the most absolute dictatorships cannot control the actions of all members of society, in fact absolute dictatorships seem to make corruption by highly placed bureaucrats only more prevalent, and then it can be difficult for any company, US multinational or otherwise, not to exploit such relationships. At the very least the US has stronger moral guidelines and trade boycots with nations that flaunt human rights than most European nations.
It's terribly easy to see an imperialist, dominating intent behind the actions of the 'only superpower'. To poster Shiloh the mere semantics of being 'only superpower' makes imperialsm all but guaranteed which says more about the machiavellian nature of his thought process than anything about the validity of it.
The appearance, not the historical evidence, is against the US. What can be done really to repair the damage? A greater attempt to get the message out is required, I remember the Bush administration sending out Karen Hughes who at this time is undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, she spelled out her views at her confirmation hearing http://www.state.gov/r/us/2005/49967.htm and perhaps she should do an op ed for the post.
Your points are well-said and well-taken. Especially,
"We also should strengthen the governmental and private institutions and groups that promote non-partisan examples of our culture: libraries, cultural exchange programs, student exchanges and the like. Attention to these worked very well in the past and should work now. We're a good people. Let others know."
It is funny that just the other day I was thinking about Peace Corps-type program. Would that not be a good start?
CHAD, ET AL....
As much as it galls me...and it DOES, please let me refer you to an Israeli newspaper article...Haaretz, August 15th, article by Daniel Levy. The straight stuff. The real story on the war in Iraq... and
how we are being bullied and fooled into an Iranian conflagration. The skinny on all of it. It amazed me, not the facts which I know to be true, but because of where and how it appeared.Be interested to hear what you all think...
Re DM - Albany...
***but we have to understand that our support of Israel is based on Genesis 12:3.***
>>Not quite. It started as a massive attack of the guilts mainly from Europe. On the other hand the nations in the UN were pretty sure that Israel couldn't survive for long anyhow so it made for a nice mea culpa - and then Israel went and survived. We also support it because America loves the underdog.>>
>>I don't think there is any truly equitable solution for the Middle East as it stands now. Both sides have had genuine wrongs done to them. On one hand the Palestinians did have their land unjustly taken from them (remember the right to private property - the Pursuit of Happiness). On the other hand most of the currently living Israelis have their properties by secondary or tertiary or even longer chains of formal ownership since it was originally taken>>
If you look at the Christian zionists, it is the Genesis 12:3 promise that they fear. "I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you". This is a favorite line for TV preachers as a reason to support Israel (as well as preach a false gospel of "this is how you get God to bless you" - the "prosperity gospel"). If money wasn't driving so many, you surely wouldn't see the likes of Benny Hinn et al living in luxury when Christ said he didn't have a place to rest His head. Greed and fear are two things we learn - it's got nothing to do with instinct.
As for the "underdog", you are correct - we naturally like rooting for the runt of the litter, and why? I don't know - maybe it's David and Golliath syndrome.
In terms of the Jews having been wronged - you are correct and won't get any argument from me. The problem with this is that it's not allowing the Jewish race to move on when all you do is hold onto tragedy. You have to let go in order to heal, and too many refuse. I think this refusal to let go has spawned the "anti-semitic" cry that's overused. I'm not saying there aren't cases of hate out there, but this is being played like the race card used to be, and that's degrading to both sides.
Lastly, in regards to the bullies? Well, give that this administration sees a bully behind every tree, around every corner and under every rock...it sure throws a lot of expensive punches. You can't handle everyone that simply, but it's a start - and this administration's problem is it doesn't want to stop throwing punches. It's acting like a cheap, drunken honky tonk crowd on "fifty cent beer" night. A lot can be solved if they would just sober up instead of the morning after going back for a taste of the "dog that bit 'em" the night before.
Otherwise, I noticed you didn't have much negativity on my post, so I must be flying fairly close to the target. LOL :)
The United States government should not let its foreign policy be guided by of the policy's popularity either abroad or at home.
But the actions of our government, our businesses, our large-scale philanthropy and, perhaps most important, our arbiters and merchants of culture should be guided by the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. As each sector acts in its best interests, it should consider the effect of those activities on U.S. prestige, power and, maneuverability. There would be no better criteria for all of us to follow than those in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution: establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. These principles translate well into a global environment. But they present the same problems we struggled with during the years that we developed as a nation.
One question for businesses which export inferior products to other nations ought to be: is the profit realized actually worth the damage done to the general Welfare of the recipients? Does it affect the reputation of the business and the country? Recently, Andrew Young's comment about inferior products sold to African-Americans by the owners of small grocery stores cost Young his job. The statements he made, while astonishingly undiplomatic for a public spokesman, had small grains of truth in them. Was the profit worth the hostility created?
The government might do well to ask if the votes garnered domestically by exporting our views on population control, for instance, are worth the hostility generated among the leaders of countries which do not share those views? Does the withholding of funds for birth control education, or even education for women insure the Tranquility, or stability, of the countries affected?
Does philanthropy, international aid and US aid promote the general Welfare? This is a very difficult line to judge, but for the sake of the goodwill we can generate, it's crucial to be thoughtful and deliberate in our choices.
The tastemakers and merchants of American culture bear heavy responsibility in this area and they can't be told often enough that money isn't everything. They must begin to understand that the American First Amendment can cause millions of people to develop hostile opinions about us and be susceptible to their political leaders' need to use us as an external threat.
We also should strengthen the governmental and private institutions and groups that promote non-partisan examples of our culture: libraries, cultural exchange programs, student exchanges and the like. Attention to these worked very well in the past and should work now. We're a good people. Let others know.
Re: Post at September 2, 2006 02:44 AM
ª Chris Ford, Chevy Chase, USA |
Hello Chris,
So the problem is the liberal jews from the left and the neocons and
zionist from the right in the US. I guess your solution is simple as your problem is.
Since all talented big liers build up their big lie from pieces of truth and from pieces of pseudo-truth, no wonder you do the same.
Your personal big lie is — in my humble opinion— in the putting forward the idea that most muslims (due to the teachings of their koran, perpetual jihad mood) and europeans (due to their nationalism, racism, envy, snobism of universal scale, superiority complex on ethnic and continental level) would have no reason for and expression of hostility toward a jewless America — while a person of your intellect must know from history and pure reading of contemporary events that it's ain't so.
If the United States does what it can to quell anti-Americanism then it would be violating all of the rights it sets out for its own people. If Bush's desire is to bring"freedom" to so many countries, he is essentially saying that he wants to have freedom (including freedom of expression, press, etc) then he has no right to try and quell anti-Americanism.
The west should stop the 'Cold hollocaust' it has launched upon the palestinains since 1948, I urge western people to visit the west bank and see for themselves how the jewish fascists who you call settlers treat the palestinains in palestine, see the only aparthied democracy in the middle east at work. I went to Hebron/west bank a year ago, a settler kid came up to me while I was walking and he spit at me, I wanted to hold the kid by his hand take him to his parents to tell them about his manners, if you think I could do that, think again, becasue the second I lay a hand on him, Israeli terror forces would have shot me to death.
imagine living among paestinains wher settler kids slap you around in the streets, take over you neigbours' home because 'God gave them the right to', through trash at them, all this and the palestinains cant do anything, if they try to fight back the west calls them terrorists. That is how you drive them to be suicide bombers.
peace is the fruit of justice, make israel go back to 1967 borders.
Stop the ethnic cleansing of palestinains if you dare or are you worried about being labled anti-semites.
It's strange ... but getting people to stop hating you isn't a secret. Not only that, it's not that hard once you recognize - and this is the key - that what you're doing and saying is creating the problem. It could be that the Bush Administration hasn't recognized that what its attitude, and what it's doing and saying doesn't make the rest of the world very happy. (In much of the Islam world, the response is more visceral.) It's also likely the Bush Administration doesn't care. They've always been more interested in making their political base happy than the rest of the world. It's sad, but true. Mr. Bush never left the country before he became President. He's fundamentally, incurably incurious and uninterested in anything outside the United States. I could go on, but most of you understand this guy and the people he surrounds himself with.
So, more to the question, assuming Bush actually wanted to make amends and stop doing and saying things that engender hatred in others, he would:
1) Publically, acknowledge the situation and promise to change things.
2) Demand and receive the resignations of everyone in his administration who has been involved in foreign policy. I mean everyone: Rice, Cheney (yes Cheney), Rumsfeld, every member and advisor to the White House, etc.
3) The vacated posts would be filled with people with real experience in international relations and those who have a track record for building good relationships with other countries. Doesn't matter what party they're from.
4) Set a new course, actually talk to governments the Bush doesn't like. Engage them. Ask for support from your friend. Don't dictate. Drop the absolutist speech.
I think this would be achievable. But not likely ... about as likely as getting 450,000 troops to stablize Iraq. And that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
It's strange ... but getting people to stop hating you isn't a secret. Not only that, it's not that hard once you recognize - and this is the key - that what you're doing and saying is creating the problem. It could be that the Bush Administration hasn't recognized that what its attitude, and what it's doing and saying doesn't make the rest of the world very happy. (In much of the Islam world, the response is more visceral.) It's also likely the Bush Administration doesn't care. They've always been more interested in making their political base happy than the rest of the world. It's sad, but true. Mr. Bush never left the country before he became President. He's fundamentally, incurably incurious and uninterested in anything outside the United States. I could go on, but most of you understand this guy and the people he surrounds himself with.
So, more to the question, assuming Bush actually wanted to make amends and stop doing and saying things that engender hatred in others, he would:
1) Publically, acknowledge the situation and promise to change things.
2) Demand and receive the resignations of everyone in his administration who has been involved in foreign policy. I mean everyone: Rice, Cheney (yes Cheney), Rumsfeld, every member and advisor to the White House, etc.
3) The vacated posts would be filled with people with real experience in international relations and those who have a track record for building good relationships with other countries. Doesn't matter what party they're from.
4) Set a new course, actually talk to governments the Bush doesn't like. Engage them. Ask for support from your friend. Don't dictate. Drop the absolutist speech.
I think this would be achievable. But not likely ... about as likely as getting 450,000 troops to stablize Iraq. And that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
One way to stop anti-Americanism is to eliminate the bullying rah-rah flag-waving macho-jock idiocy that has come to signify America over the last 6 years. Another way would be to stop dabbling with the fates of other nations. Yet another way would be to remember that charity begins at home, and to stop sending our wealth and our jobs across the globe. Some folks claim that CNN is an ambassador of fear-mongering, but others can plainly see that FoxNews Channel has become the ambassador of paranoid ideation with its constant "alerts". All of the American cable news channels don't bring the viewer enough actual news, opting instead for the sound of bickering voices shouting to be heard over one another, often deliberately pairing know-nothing pundits of the left and right in order to provoke, much in the manner of a bloodless cockfight. Some visible proof of what have so far been many empty claims from our Supreme-Court-appointed administration couldn't hurt. A shift from the push to Armageddon towards one of desiring peace on earth would help. A nation as powerful as this one doesn't have to fear appearing weak in its desire for world peace. War is over, if you want it. Ceasing to label religions other than Christian ones as "fascists" might go a long way towards the creation of a more acceptable image of the USA. And self-labeled Christians might try acting like Christians for once, instead of selfish, End-Times lunatics. Letting the world see that America can actually hold an honest presidential election would be impressive, too.
One way to improve the image of the U.S. would be to curb the international, irrational CNN fear mongering. The inane, stupid things I've seen and heard on that international network do more harm than good to the cultural vector presented as the USA.
Brian Torri, Arlington Heights, IL, USA sayz:
"
I look upon anti-Americanism as a fact of life for generations to come.
"
Hello Brian, you write better than most of your fellowe NeoConArtistes......
but the shallowness of your thought processes are the same tepid dirty water.
America doesn't represent Americans right now,
it represents, a small, grayish-yellow, portion of Americans
it represents the AntiChrist driven "christians," those that preach hatred and power over as a way of maintaining their hold on America
what the world sees as "America in action," is the Executive Branch and Complicit Congress...a very few people,
that the world sees as American attitudes in Iraq are the result of foisting the PNAC agendae on Americans as_if it were the correct response, and somehow.........just because it's not working, that the whole world is incorrect in their response to it.......
the key players have all known each other for decades, and are family and not really representative of America, nor do they want to be
you might as well be a Limbaugh, a Chris Ford, or some other low level diatriber, making up garbage about why we must "support das furher" because they the unbelievers are "das weaklings!" und must be eliminated!.
well I suggest to you, that you're the weakling, weak mind, weak morals and weak resolve. European movies are disturbing to many Americans because they don't usually have the patent _good_guys_ and _bad_guys_ and "cars blowing up," isn't the main plot line.......
to simple people with comic book mentalities, it always boils down to one thing....."WHO DO I NEED TO KILL,"
why do we need to kill anyone? how is that relevant?
the first step in dealing with a world situation is not to choose a side and eliminate the enemy........what childish none sense.
working through something in a fashion that actually delivers a solution, rather than using the Military Industrial Complex Mindset that, or should I say kneejerk mentality has
every world situation defined as a "war," whether we know it or not
or
"when all you have is a screwdriver, then all the solutions seem like a screw........"
the world would move into alternative patterns, but since the current regime was moving to federalize as a way of stopping intervention by it's own people....rewriting law, making a monkey head of a world government..."the decider," ook ook ook
and little deciders out beating the bushes getting out that "terrorist," party line......
the Executive Branch and Complicit Congress are using _this_ simplistic reasoning to manipulate the situation...
As neither the American military, nor their leaders have any desire to stay in Iraq, perhaps another lesson in democracy for all parties involved in this conflict is about due. It has been several months or more since Iraqi people have been asked their opinions at the ballot box. So now is as good a time as earlier that Iraq should be brought to the polls again.
America and its allies should once again assist in the process of putting democracy first. Even in the face of insecurity. It took the founding fathers of The USA many years to get the process right; so a few more exercises at the ballot box, lessons on civil democracy are worth the effort.
The Iraqi government, Sadr, the UN, the American government, the American people, let them all do their part; let world opinion be heard standing behind democracy; let's hear the people of Iraq again ............... "We the people of Iraq want to speak, in this referendum... "We the people ask ... the Americans to a) stay and defend Iraqi freedom, b)....hang it up.
Keep the language plain and simple.
People in free societies vote. And the easisest way for the American to exit this conflict is to be told by the people they are supposedly fighting for. Iraq needs to step up to the plate and speak.
By all means vote the Americans out, send them home, send them packing with a lesson in democracy.
Until US foreign policy reflects respect for other people and governments, it will be rejected by the rest of the world, now that the avarice and greed behind it have been revealed by the policies of George W. Bush. The most basic tenet of democracy is self-rule, that means the governed choose their government. Remember? That means even if we don't like their choices, we have an obligation to respcet them. Thus far, we have adopted the attitude that we know what is best for everyone and that means forcing "democracy" on an unwilling people or forcing our version of democracy onto them despite their having made a different choice than what we want. The fact that we are willing to kill innocent civilians to bring democracy to people proves to them that it isn't a good thing. When will the US understand that better business is not the driving force behind everyone? Some of us value human life, good food grown on farms where people are allowed to raise their families in peace and a dream of a future in which those precious things are protected and respected? This is certainly not something anyone in the world would associate with US policy, domestic or foreign. Kristina
I like and agree with your comments. (I am sure that you have heard the expression "Ugly American." That is what we are in the eyes of international people.) Zoltan's comments reinforce that this "holier than thou" attitude is certainly not uniquely our problem. What a great analogy between "old money" and our attitudes!
To Daniel: Yup, we agree. I was lamenting about Zoltan's first thought which was stop thinking we're superior. This was a valid point. Our nation does act like it thinks it is superior and/or better then anywhere else on the planet. Pride in one's country is one thing, but constantly telling the world we're better then everyone else is really bad for foreign policy and American image overseas. Had Zoltan stopped after his original thought I would have been impressed, but he didn't. He then fell into the same trap many in this country have fallen into: telling others how to live their lives by how to act and think. Anyway, I was thinking Zoltan not only wrote like an American he reasoned like one? Zoltan are you really a New Yorker?
The United States emerged from WWII in an unnatural position of power the world has never seen before. While Britian, France, Russia, China, Japan, Italy etc., etc., had been decimated by the war the United States was barely scratched. Not only did we come out of WWII with only minor fatalies in relationship to the countries listed above but our infrasturcture was also intact. Our manufacturing capabilities were actually considerably greater by the end of the war. Let us not forget we were the only country who could make and deliver nuclear weapons. Militarily, we were invincible by the end of WWII. I only bring this up because that was only 61 years ago America became the modern days first superpower.
I ask the Zoltan's what they expect from the ,"new powerful?" Much like new money vs. old money power has many of the same characteristics. New money is usually arrogant, conspicuous and garish. Old money is more reserved, thoughtful and handled with taste. America simply hasn't learned how to handle it's power with grace. We're still arrogant, conspicuous and garish with our power. Hence, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. All 3 conflicts have 2 things in common. First, not one of these countries posed a security risk to the United States. Second, not one of these conflicts have been fought on US soil. For the last 61 years it has always been America sending troops around the globe with very little thought as to why or what the consequences would be. This isn't a judicious use of power.
When America learns to use her power and resources with prudence and grace we will be respected.
Cayambe, Philo CA:
First, I must say that it is really nice to have a rational perspective from a rational person. (Some of the posters here resort to ad hominem atatcks and vilifation of dissenters defeating the puprose of a "discussion.")
You are correct that what is currently happening to Palestinians at the hands of hard-line Israelis is only just a prelude to what is in the offing. (I stand corrected for misapplying the term "holocuast," at this stage. However, what I meant was that "holocaust-like" treatment would be the lasts steps in the progression of the events in the Middle-East.)
I completely agree with your statement: "I?ve yet to persuade myself that our civilizations are somehow intrinsically better, or vice versa. There is no reason why one should impose upon the other; when in Rome, do as the Romans do works for me."
"mike, Glendale, Arizona
Americans need to realize that 15 years from now,there will be a new superpower. it is the C word.
China, India and russia are the only countries that benefit from the NeoCons policy of fighting muslims.
I have a clear vision for the future which many americans lack, in 2020 we will be saying God bless china, so I recommend that we dont act as bullys becasue one day, after 15 years, we will pay for what we are doing."
This is exactly what I have been saying; we must reprioritze our goals and act on them, immediately. I would not be entirely suprised, if we (the U. S.) were to become a second-world, or even third-world country, by 2050, or 2060. There are many posts on my blog (http://nanomat.blogspot.com)
"daniel, Arlington VA, USA
China has a lot going for it, but nobody seriously believes that its current growth rate is sustainable.
In five years, when fuel is oppresively expensive and no alternatives have been implemented (especially in China and the US), see how China is doing then. It has a lot of potential, but it doesn't currently have the institutions or the staying power to guarantee a superpower role. Japan provides a good example of where China is headed- China will definitely be a more prominent player fifteen from now, but its not going to maintain the growth we're seeing today. At some point, the party is going to end there.
My biggest concern is Russia. They have massive energy deposits that will help them weather the storm of higher fuel prices until alternative fuels become readily available. Putin is finally putting a stop to the free-for-all looting of Russian society by rogue businessmen- this will be important for future growth.
The only chance the US has is to get off their oil addiction, pour investment into alternative fuel, and reinvigorate our industrial base. We can do this by diverting money away from our military and away from our pseudo-colonial adventures abroad."
Daniel, China is investing quite a bit on alternative energy sources (solar, wind, hydro, and tidal). This does not even include the nuclear power plants that are being commissioned! I agree with you that China needs to slow down its rate of growth to more manageable levels. However, China and India have massive middle-class poplulations, which could potentially dampen the ill-effects of rapid growth. Furthermore, those two cultures emphasize education, above all (at least, for now).
Chris Ford, Chevy Chase, USA
You are denigrating an entire class of people by attributing all of our (the U. S.) political problems to the Jewish population. Yes, they, in general, are much better off than most average middle-class popluation. Perhaps, it is time for the rest of us to learn from the "Jewish" people how to be successful?! I have many Jewish and Mulsim friends who are "best of buddies."
I agree with you on this statement (please see my previous posts): "We need to really get into educating the best American kids in culture and language skills we will need in future interactions in Asia, the Muslim world, and India. We need strategic communications and linguistic skills on the level we had with rivals, allies, and foes during WWII and the Cold War."
Will you and your associates analyze and formulate a
condensed review and conclusions after reviewing all comments to your question under this post global discussion?
Maybe if we roll over and drop dead. Europeans seem to have lost any faith whatsoever in their ability to see rightly and then act rightly as a result of savaging themselves in two wars, the second of which really involved the whole world. WWI involved only Europe and the Mediterranean, as I recall. It was in WWI, though, that they managed to blow up 1 million men in just two battles in one year, at the Somme and Verdun. They are nearly wholly spineless and feckless as proven in their inability to fully staff the UN Resolution authorizing the newest peacekeeping force to southern Lebanon. They can be counted on to get irritated by us because we still at least believe in ourselves and our ability to act, however misguided. They will offer little if any constructive criticism because they are so superior to us, we are too stupid to understand, let alone take their advise. Never mind that the U.S. is ages better than they are in integrating Muslims into general society, which is totally pathetic when you consider the sort of cultural cold-war going on here over their Muslim status. Europe is beyond what is essential in today's geopolitical climate, a good grasp of religion and an innate sense of the innate worthiness of any individual to have a democratic government responsive to their needs. MENA may be a largely tribal region, due to the many empires that have ruled over it. Nevertheless, much can be had from engaging those fires into a productive furnace of popular expression.
Which brings me to my next point: Much of the MENA region has got to get over themselves. Basically, their everpresent, a priori condition of humiliation, which is so pervasive and all-powerful that it always seems to be felt above and beyond any other consideration, like having a future or treating the religious minorities in the MENA region, especially Christians, like something other than garbage. Keep in mind, these are **native** Christians, most of whom predate Islam because Christianity predates Islam; they are as native as native gets, but given the abhorrent conflation of nationalism and national identity with being Muslim, they are a priori not truly citizens of the nations they live in and whose existence their community predates. In the end, the hostility in MENA to the U.S. has only something to do with the even-handedness we need in our foreign policy in the region; it has much more to do with their ominpresent feeling of humiliation, of which Israel is only a more prominent factor, not a determinative one. Golda Meir said it best when she said that Israel would not roll over and drop dead so that a beautiful eulogy may be said of it. Neither should the other MENA countries bear such a demand. They should take it upon themselves to shed their humiliation, as we in the West are powerless to do anything at all about it.
Basically, the anti-Americansim in Europe is fashionable due to their overwhelming sense of arrogant superiority to us, not to mention their condescending point of view of the MENA region. Anti-Americanism in MENA is largely due to their humiliation at being left so far behind due to an ancient arrogance of superiority to the West, appropriate at the time, but which led to the inward focus of the Ottoman Empire, starting with the naval loss at Lepanto/Navpaktos and accelerating through the defeat at Vienna. Now, in an irony of history, they feel we in America and Europe look down on them and disregard all of their ambitions. We do not, but we can never prove it.
I look upon anti-Americanism as a fact of life for generations to come. We are an easy whipping boy, fashionable to blame and whose money alone is sought. We are almost a fetish of freedom and unrestrained power (and sexuality, for that matter) to a world which seems only too happy to blame us for just about everything. Wonder what happens when we tire of it. Does anyone at all care a whit about that possibility? I can almost see a day in which the American public gets fed up with trying to win anyone's approval and withdraws from virtually all global institutions, relying instead on a series of bilateral and multilateral agreements to get things done. Hope the Swiss like the U.N., because it'll get shipped back to them in short order, becoming what it already seems to be acting like again, the League of Nations II. Hope you're happy with that.
The statement that US policies have caused an increase in Muslim anti-Americanism is not only wrong, but it shows why the pro-authoritarian newspapers like the Washington Post are part of the problem. The logical extension from the basis of your question is that Muslims would be less anti-American if we went back to the policies of Clinton, and Bush 41, that supported authoritarian dictatorships in Muslim countries. The foolishness of that speaks for itself. Now, it could be the the Islamic facsists are more anti-American than they were before President Bush decided to stand up to them, but I do not even think that is true. In fact, it is common knowledge that what is respected more than anything else in the Middle East and in other Muslim countries is clear resolve and unwillingness to back down. This is exactly what President Bush has shown. The folks that are more anti-American are the leaders in the authoritarian Muslim governments and Islamic fascist organizations because they know that no longer will the US administrations just roll over and let them abuse and mistreat their populations while simultaneously being respected. The Islamic fascists are now being confronted and they are squealing like a stuck pig. Good, they should get used to it because they are only going to get more unless they change their ways, start treating their own people like human beings, not human bombs, and either unconditionally surrender their means of making war or they are killed. More and more Muslims, when allowed to speak outside of the control of Islamic facsists or authoritarian regimes, are increaing their affinity to the United Staes and values that respect individuals rights and capabilities. And the US mainstream media that loves totalitarians and authoritarians should get used to the fact that they will not be able to intimidate US adminstrations into supporting dictatorships and Islamic fascists. The jig is up. Human beings are born with the right to be free and no longer will US policy support the subordination of those G_d given rights.
As a Christian Palestinian raised in the best Quaker traditions of non-violence I deplore all violence including the much touted war on terror. A war which I find hard to understand its scope or its borders.
While it is true that hatred of the policies of the U S and the West is the real cause of terrorism. It is wrong to suggest that fanatism and fundamentalism are behind this hatred.
I am neither a fanatic nor a fundamentalist but I can hardly claim to harbour positive feelings towards the U S and other western governments policies in the Middle East. This attitude was learned in the English and American schools and universities which I attended. I have learned how the Arabs joined forces with the west to liberate the Middle East from the Ottomans with the subsequent betrayal and colonisation. Later this degenerated into pseudo independence with imposed indigenous dictators. Add to this the creation and continuous support of Israel. And now Iraq and the Lebanon is the latest tutorial in HATE 101
A spectre is haunting the Arab and the Moslem world, it has but one name RAGE. An Arab or a Moslem need not learn this in a Pakistani Madrassa he can learn it by reading a few courses in Middle Eastern history At Oxford...
To Bob on Paris Hilton. No! She must not go! Say yes also to Scarlett Johansson, Jessica Alba and Charlize Theron. Send Lindsay Lohan to Iraq to the insurgents in exchange for peace—also send Britney Spears and that blond woman, what the hell's her name? Ah yes, Jessica Simpson. Send Tom Cruise to Iraq as well, such a pretty face but a totally superficial man. Iraq might toughen him up some—make him more profound. But I doubt it....Actually keep Britney Spears and send that goofball who is her husband to Iraq—send him anywhere actually. But keep Paris Hilton, Scarlett Johansson, Jessica Alba and Charlize Theron.
Hello Chris. It is good to see you're still hanging around. As it has so often happened, I'm pretty much in agreement with 1-4. But, we have two immediate problems on our hands:
1. How do we get our butts out of Iraq minimizing post-departure slaughter and leaving it Al Quaeda unfriendly?
2. What do we do about Iran?
- make sure The Weather Channel shows Mexico and Canada painted in some color other than grey, so american viewers may realize those zones belong to the same Planet Earth as the U.S.;
- whenever you guys organize a world championship of any sport, please invite teams from other countries;
- move Labor Day to May 1st, so those workers who died at a Chicago factory may finally be honored in the U.S. as they are in the rest of the world;
- legalize the use of the metric system; if dumb people around the world can use it, why can't you?
Before listing the obvious causes of anti-Americanism - it is important to address that a seditious liberal Jewish enemy within America provides the rest of the world with ample fodder to go after us. It is a two-sided coin. Half the Jews are zionists that make our major liability overseas, support of Israel, politically impossible for Congress to fight through Jewish lobying clout. The other half of Jews, the classic Leftist-liberals that have always hated America, slime the country at any opportunity and give the Muslims more ammo with which to hate us - most of THAT stuff being unfair distortions.
The Jewish Sulzberger Family of the NYTimes, Nadine Stroesser's Jewish-funded and largely run by Jews ACLU, Kenneth Roth's Human Rights Watch. Morris Dees Southern poverty Law Center, NOW,Code Pink, National Lawyer's Guild, NARAL, Center of Constitutional Rights, People for the American Way, George Soros many agitprop organizations, all the post-communist party fronts that still survive, the Chomskyites. Many are motivated by a core loathing of America, others are just opportunists and manipulators that hate Bush with all their hearts just as their Daddies hated Nixon - and see sliming America as a useful method to "get Bush". And could care less about America, since patriotism and loyalty are missing as prt of their transnational sentiments. The Sulzbergers are the worst, allowing the NYTimes to be made into an attack vehicle against all things Bush, and most things American - driving the international press to follow believing what is said about America by an American leading newspaper must be true.
All Jewish run and funded or where liberal Jews have a disproportionate role - All dedicated to regular attacks on America as a horrible, racist, sexist, evil, homophobic, bigoted, too-white genocidal Oppressor State that kills any who are not rich Republicans. Along witb Jewish Hollywood organs and other media they control or heavily influence, from movies to TV shows dispensing anti-Americanism, hawking sleaze and purience as American virtues — no group has worked harder to damage America's image and reputation abroad over the last 40 years. Not even the Soviets or radical Islamists.
No group had worked harder over the years to damn America as an evil country - as the liberal Democrats have done. And Jews are the main financial backers, a disproportionate number of the main apparachniks and enabling lawyers, and a disproportionate number of elected liberals with strong America-bashing tendencies.
***************************
Before you even start on who hates America abroad over what issues, you have look at who those enemies within are. A case can be made that crony capitalist's policies made here on free trade and globalization have badly hurt feelings towards America overseas. Blacks in America by their unending blame of dysfunctionalism in their communities on American whites, Hispanics, Asians...Amoral multinationals...make a case that makes Muslims believe that we would oppress them like blacks claim they still are being "oppressed"....But I believe a case can be made that no group - by a long shot - approaches the corrosive sedition and sabotage of the American image in the eyes of Muslims more than the liberal Jew. While we all have free speech, it is not unconstitutional to take steps to hopefully diminish a harmful group with too much influence.
****************************
Overseas, we shouldn't be too concerned about the seething, raging, frothing at the mouth angry Muslims after they get all fired up at a Religion of Peace sermon session. They don't just hate America. They hate Indians, Jews, happily kill Swiss tourists when no Brits are handy, and kill fellow Muslims if not infidels are around. LOng before they got really pissed at Americans, they were slaughtering millions of other people in just the last 100 years, from Morocco to East Timor, in 80 different countries. Getting Muslims to "like us" is like asking the Chinese to like the Japs..It-just-won't-happen.
But they can respect us again, and the opinions of the rest of the world do matter. And we did screw up badly in several areas:
1. We were right on missile defense. 11 countries have now made inquiries on future use of our systems as ballistic missile technology proliferates. We were right on Kyoto, it was a badly flawed treaty for exempting the nations that emit half the carbon and who are supposed to emit far more by 2030 and account for 80%. But we were wrong to be so arrogant and dismissive in either case - and we should say so, as well as committ to working with the global community on Kyoto II.
2. We have wrongly been pinned by the world and by our own seditious enemy within for all the blame from what Transnational elites in over 30 countries have done to set up the free trade, globalization, and crony capitalist systems that have ravaged so many countries so far. This is something that we need to say goes far beyond America in it's pluses and minuses.
3. We did, under the neocons, go far too aggressively into delusional talk of empire and a series of unilateral wars, which everyone quickly figured out meant against the Muslim nations around Israel. I believe events in Iraq have ended the idea of America turning Iraq or any other nation into mini-Americas in "cakewalk" cheap and easy wars.
4. We have rotten outreach and communications other than what the liberal Jews represent America as being - to the rest of the world. We need to really get into educating the best American kids in culture and language skills we will need in future interactions in Asia, the Muslim world, and India. We need strategic communications and linguistic skills on the level we had with rivals, allies, and foes during WWII and the Cold War.
To those who claim that the US only defends when it is against Islam, I ask you to look at Kosovo and Bosnia
To those who say the US has always been some sterling character in the human rights arena, while that may have been our PR role, the reality is that we have sided with many governments with horrible human rights records if it served another of our interests. Nor has the US had the greatest of human rights records at home. If I remember the statistics properly, we have the second highest percentage of our population jailed for one offense or another (usually due to the bogus "war" on drugs) in the world. We've also gone through plenty of internal racist periods in addition to what most people think of as just against blacks. At one point employers would rather hire a black than an Irishman. Don't even think about what was done to the American Indians when the Europeans started overrunning their land and culture. The Japanese internments of WWII. The Chinese also suffered extensive legal bigotry in the mid to late 1800s and well into the 1900s.
On the issue of human rights, the rights listed in the Declaration of independence (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (the phrase back then for private property)) were neither granted by any group of people nor dependant on any group outside of our own borders to defend. They are inherent in the nature of humanity in order to live as humans (i.e. an intelligent, rational, educatable species, whether or not anyone actually acts in accordance with those potentiality in any given situation). The people of any other nation have the same basic human rights as we do, but we do NOT have the authority, legally or morally, to act as a government for those who do not live within the jurisdiction of our government in the defense of those rights.
Even more unfortunately, the actions of our government in pursuing its war on terror continue to eat away ever faster at those rights it was instituted to defend for its own people.
PS: Zoltan -
***Well, the word is that "A good Indian is a dead Indian" but it might be only cheap western movies. Anyway, that's the way many people see it. And your affirmation doesn't fit very well with south-america, where a lot of local Indians are part of the population: were they so much more robust ?***
The quote is from one particular President - Andrew Jackson and a sorrier bit of humanity rarely walks the Earth. As to the integration of the other races in South America, that is basically a matter of the difference between the way the Spanish and Portuguese colonized. The English commonly brought whole families while the Spanish and Portuguese were generally men who came over alone for several years at a time. Needless to say, the only female companionship they had available was from the indigent population, essentially having two "real" families. European diseases decimated the South Americans too, but those who survived were at least not penned away and reviled quite the way they were in the north.
PS: SB, Dallas,TX USA -
***As my mother used to say, "it takes two to fight", and if you stop bothering them, they won't bother you.***
If only this were true. It only takes one to throw the first punch and some people you can't make happy no matter what. They're generally called bullies and countries can act like bullies as well as individuals.
***but we have to understand that our support of Israel is based on Genesis 12:3.***
Not quite. It started as a massive attack of the guilts mainly from Europe. On the other hand the nations in the UN were pretty sure that Israel couldn't survive for long anyhow so it made for a nice mea culpa - and then Israel went and survived. We also support it because America loves the underdog.
I don't think there is any truly equitable solution for the Middle East as it stands now. Both sides have had genuine wrongs done to them. On one hand the Palestinians did have their land unjustly taken from them (remember the right to private property - the Pursuit of Happiness). On the other hand most of the currently living Israelis have their properties by secondary or tertiary or even longer chains of formal ownership since it was originally taken
Let me ask a question - If someone robbed a bank and the residuals of that theft helped the thief's great grandchildren to buy a car, should that money be taken from them and somehow try to find a way to proportionally distribute it between everyone that was ever harmed on some way by the original crime. At what point does the original source become moot? How far back do you go? I doubt if there's a single human being on the face of the Earth who does not have ancestors that were enslaved or otherwise ripped off as well as having ancestors who owned slaves or did the stealing.
Readers’ Responses to Our Question (222)
http://DrugsHome.com
August 31, 2007 9:51 AM | Report Offensive Comments
http://BuyTramadolOnline.ws/
August 28, 2007 10:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
While the administration speaks easily of needing years to "win" over terrorism, it is reluctant to use years to approach causes by diplomacy. Fear may work to sustain acceptance of a war footing in American, it only stimulates hostility abroad among friends and foes alike.
September 14, 2006 8:38 PM | Report Offensive Comments
While the administration speaks easily of needing years to "win" over terrorism, it is reluctant to use years to approach causes by diplomacy. Fear may work to sustain acceptance of a war footing in American, it only stimulates hostility abroad among friends and foes alike.
September 14, 2006 8:37 PM | Report Offensive Comments
One of the most critical mistakes of US Foreign Policy is this question. I live in a majority Muslim country which is run by Muslim leaders who back US policies in the region and the world but I can safely say that almost 95% of the populace believes US is the biggest threat to international peace and harboring a specific enmity against Muslims to make its Israeli friendly policies. They don't see US as a enemy but US leaders as a biased supporter of Israel (who in their opinion is their biggest foe). In addition, by attacking a sovereign state of Iraq on a wrong premise of WMDs and now admitting that Saddam had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda, it has lost its position as a mediator in any conflict. Now the only reason to attack Iraq seems to be protecting Israel and getting a hold of oil reserves and none of these two go well with ordinary muslims around the world. Afghanistan is suffering on a daily basis, with drugs infiltrating the whole country as well as neighboring countries of Iran and Pakistan. During Taliban there was a tight leash on drugs spreading. Lebanon has also been a good case in view where muslims saw US again supporting Israel and ensuring their interests at the cost of innocent lives both in Israel and Lebanon.
Going back, I believe all these hostilities should be stopped to make US appear as a viable partner in any peace deal. If one party (e.g. Palestinians) believe that US is blindly backing Israel, there is a remote possibility of any mediator role. First step that would ultimately assist US towards ending hostilities in these countries would be to show its fair dissidence towards Israel. There has to be one area where US should stand up and say that Israel is wrong. It is one of the main tools for religious organizations to recruit new blood when they refer to innocent brothers and sisters being massacred in Palestine and US vetoing all resolutions condemning these actions at a forum like UN General Assembly and Security Council. In addition, US should take responsibility and apologize for thousands and hundreds of thousands of innocent lives of people in Afghanistan and specially Iraq. US and western world can mourn for a couple of thousand people who died in WTC on 9/11 but what about hundreds of thousands who have been wrongly killed by US and Allied Forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine and Lebanon. If Iraq was a case in point for an attack, why can't the US attack North Korea which has openly defied all UN and US pressure and resolutions. People in muslim world think it is a double standard as North Korea is not a muslim country. These are some of the points that should be considered to ease up the rhetoric in muslim world against USA.
September 12, 2006 6:46 AM | Report Offensive Comments
The US can be more sensitive, but so much of anti-Americanism is irrational that there is little America can do. I am especially disturbed the the confluence of anti-Americanism and antisemitism. It permeates much of the world now and no, and end to the occupation will not end it.
In the minds of far too many Muslims and Arabs, America is controlled by Jews, the Mossad caused 9/11, the Holocaust never happened and The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a fact. It's not just limited to Arabs and Muslims. The BBC host of World Update cannot mention American Jews without a reference to "the powerful Jewish lobby." The Guardian and the Independent are filled with exaggeration of American Jewish power and influence.
I am an American, a Jew, and a Zionist. This makes me a trifecta of evil. Arab and Muslim leaders have to stop using Jews as scapegoats for whatever is wrong in the Middle East.
September 10, 2006 1:18 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Posted at September 2, 2006 11:10 PM
jvd70, Amsterdam, NL:
The Monroe Doctrine started out as an innocuous (although not magnanimous, but very selfish) principle. There have been so many amendments and corollary to that Doctrine. As daniel, Arlington, VA states, one has to really not only read "between the lines," but also understand the evolution of the Doctrine to suit the current "parochial" political goals. Furthermore, the Monroe Doctrine has spawned the likes of Manifest Destiny, which obvious is still being followed; American Exceptionalism (this goes to show our moral superiority, resulting in our "perceived" "holier than thou" attitude and many feel that it parallels European Imperialism); etc. This is where my term "expediency" (i. e., we seek to solve problem with only the short-term benefits, without due consideration of long-term, adverse consequences, in view) comes in.
By the way, thank you for pointing me to the link to Karen Hughes' "The Mission of Public Diplomacy" on the U. S. State Department's website. I agree with almost all of what Ms. Hughes has enunciated.
Hmmm...., I wonder where she is these days?! I especially liked the 4E's - Engagement, Exchanges, Education and Empowerment. Perhaps, we should ask the Washington Post to let her write an Op-Ed piece.
Posted at September 3, 2006 09:37 AM
daniel, Arlington VA, USA
As much as I hate saying this, I agree with you on Iran 100%. I say let Iran enrich whatever it wants to do. Why are we (the U. S.) letting Pakistan and Abdul Qadeer Khan (Founder of the Pakistani Nuclear Research, AKA the Father of the Islamic Bomb) off the hook, despite the fact they spread nuclear technology to Iran and North Korea? Personally, I very strongly believe that we should be concerned significantly more about the biological and chemical weapons as weapons of mass destruction than nuclear weapons, because the the technologies are already out and these two are very, very difficult to detect. Imagine someone's engineering a mutation of a virus that is extremely resistant to drugs and spreading it through a carrier (birds, humans, food, etc.). We will not even know about these pathogens until it is too late. Also, these two technolgies are already widespread and easily attainable (if not already attained) by nation-states and rogue groups.
Posted at September 3, 2006 03:19 PM
Nancy K, NYS, USA
To Srikanth Raghunathan, Wash. DC
A few years ago, NYC recruited math teachers from Austria. Program that replicate that might be a good way to start also.
You are absolutely correct. Please see Karen Hughes' 4E's (http://www.state.gov/r/us/2005/49967.htm), thanks to jvd70, Amsterdam, NL.
General:
I really liked the idea of exchanging our views, although many of them disagreed and were different from mine. Most of the posters were rational and sensible. Alas, like all good things, this has to end, too! Perhaps, we can continue our discussion on a different board? Let me know of your thoughts. Thanks!
Remember, America, despite all of its faults, faux pas, and flaws, is still the best country on earth - there is no doubt in my mind. Can we improve it and make it better? Absolutely, but it takes the strength and unity provided by the diversity of her peoples.
September 8, 2006 4:11 PM | Report Offensive Comments
In Israel contracts for 690— SIX HUNDRED AND NINTY— new houses in the West Bank are being let. Pure theft of land. That must be the
policy Bush okayed when Olmert was in DC, the "withdrawal" that wasn't from Gaza for something on the west bank. Now, friends and countrymen, that's how to have hatred compound on America. Not to mention the obscene injustice of it.
September 4, 2006 3:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
What gets me most about the whole Iranian nuclear "crisis" is that there's no proof that they're making any weapons!!!!
I mean, lets face it- nuclear weapons are scary. While I don't believe that the United States or a group of nations in the UN has a right to dictate another state's arsenal (unless of course everybody agreed to a ban), I can certainly sympathize with people who do, because they are terrifying weapons. But even for people who DO think we can dictate who can and can't have nuclear weapons, the fact of the matter is, there's no proof they're making any!!
Five years ago, maybe I'd be a little more skeptical... but right now the same people are saying there's no evidence they're working on nukes that said Saddam wasn't working on nukes, and the same people who say that they ARE working on nukes are the ones who said that Saddam was!!! And you all remember how that turned out. Who do you really think the world should believe this time?
One thing I would say is that Iran has not conformed to international standards of transparency in its nuclear industry, and I will say that is a concern for me. I'd be patient with them, because I know it probably seems like a threatening formality for them, given the US's rhetoric, but eventually we need inspectors, and disclosure, and cooperation with the IAEA. It would be unfair to the Iranians that have to live next to those enrichment facilities and reactors not to impress upon Ahmadinejad how important it is to be more transparent about that work. But barring that condition, they should go full steam ahead.
September 4, 2006 8:58 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Daniel of Arlington
"The effect of pre-emption is that it also creates reciprocating fears, but it has the effect of ENCOURAGING military confrontation.
thats not a doctrine that any military should operate from."
Puuurrrrfect....wish I had thought of putting it that way.
Now, somebody posed a practical example where maybe we would pre-empt after all (this thread has gotten to big for my measely dial up connection). I will recognize that when it comes to conventional combat there is a case to be made for pre-emption. But not nuclear, ever, for the reason Daniel expressed so succinctly.
My thought Daniel is Yes, let them enrich uranium. If anyone says that amounts to appeasement, I want to know where we get the authority to prohibit another state from enriching uranium. How did we ever get ourselves into this rediculous position anyway?
September 3, 2006 4:34 PM | Report Offensive Comments
To Srikanth Raghunathan, Wash. DC
Thanks for the kind words. Any program, like the Peace Corps, would be a very good start. Perhaps we also should acknowledge that the US could use a few volunteers from other countries to teach us a few things. A few years ago, NYC recruited math teachers from Austria. Program that replicate that might be a good way to start also.
September 3, 2006 3:19 PM | Report Offensive Comments
OK, I know this is old news, but I want to stir the pot a little. Here's a suggestion for how to reduce anti-Americanism (in some parts of the world at least).
- Let Iran enrich uranium.
thoughts?
September 3, 2006 9:37 AM | Report Offensive Comments
to: jvd70
RE:
"Good point, Srikanth; even though democratic nations can act in self interest I think the Monroe doctrine was formulated more as an anticolonialist (and partially anti Spanish) doctrine than as a colonial policy;"
———
well... I mean, its nice to quote the text of the doctrine, but you have to read between the lines as well.
Was it anti-colonialist in the sense that it was against the 17th century version of colonialism? Absolutely.
But it ushered in a new kind of colonialism or imperialism that we are still practicing today... especially in the middle east, as Srikanth Raghunathan points out. Its more of a "spheres of influence", economic domination sort of imperialism, rather than the direct colonial control practiced by Britain and Spain back then.
Plus, its important to note that just because the Monroe Doctrine introduced a NEW kind of colonialism, that doesn't mean the US didn't ALSO continue to practice the old colonialism of the 17th century. We continued to conquer the western united states, Hawaii, Puerto Rico, etc. (again as Srikanth Raghunathan points out) in the old-fashioned colonial style.
September 3, 2006 9:26 AM | Report Offensive Comments
To: jvd70, Amsterdam, NL | Permalink
RE:
Daniel, the historical development of capitalism and democracy is not a roadmap for other countries to follow, a country like Kenia does not need to move through stages of industrialization, protectionism and then gradual liberalization to arrive at becoming a liberal democracy. It cannot compete industrially even if it were to enforce vast tariff barriers, it simply can't keep the Nokias and Toyotas out.
———-
Yes, I believe that was the point of my post... that there is not one solution to the problem of industrialization. However, there is one path that has NEVER worked to industrialize a country, to my knowledge, and that is immediate democratization and immediate liberalization of markets. I'd be very curious if there is a single successful instance of this (I'm probably wrong- there's probably one or two... but the point is, even if there's not one path, there are several basic patterns that we see pop up over and over again).
RE:
Globalization is a thoroughly new paradigm that doesn't fit most of the previous modes of socioeconomic thinking. It does rely very heavily on liberalism because Nokia will deliver you a new phone under warranty most liberally even if you live in Iran.
—-
well put, and heartily granted.
RE:
I believe that at this time in history, under peaceful circumstances (which we've by and large enjoyed since the fall of the Soviet Union) societies will naturally evolve towards liberal, capitalist democracies because people want to own items like cellphones, cars and land.
——————-
How do you figure that we've by and large enjoyed peaceful circumstances in the time since the fall of the Soviet Union? I may be way off base, but my understanding is that its been a violent decade and a half (perhaps a brief calm in the early nineties). Again, as I said before, I think the world probably will evolve towards liberal capitalist democracies. But I'm not sure they'll all be identical, I'm not sure it will be quick, and I'm not sure they'll last (although I applaud their arrival)
RE:
I think that has become evident in a great many nations (including China) where civil (ownership) rights and democracy have been strengthening. Since the cold war, ideological reasons behind inhibiting the growth of a middle class no longer can be effectively (forcefully) maintained. Once middle classes gain a critical mass they create demand for services and institutions common to democracies (eg institutions defining and regulating ownership rights). Totalitarian government at that point can only try to use a nationalist or religious ideology to stop the growth of the middle classes and to keep the wealth from spreading.
——————
hmmmm.... I started this paragraph agreeing with you, but now I'm not so sure. Inequality has been growing since the late seventies in the US, and I believe in most western democracies as well. I'm also not sure its always in the interest of totalitarian governments to stop the growth of the middle class... Saddam Hussein's Iraq I think is a good example. I hadn't traveled there, but I understand there was a (comparatively) robust middle class there. I guess I just don't see why its a necessity- why would totalitarians not want a middle class any more than communists or democrats?
RE:
In totalitarian nations where elites control strategic natural resources (oil), the elites are now so buoyed by high oil prices that they can perpetuate their ideological myths with the force of public spending (Russia, Iran, Venezuela). In some other nations (Syria, North Korea), fear is force enough.
——————-
I don't know- some nations use oil wealth wisely, some don't. I don't think we can put them all in the same grouping. FYI- The Economist had a great article last week on state owned oil companies.
RE:
Perhaps from your perspective I am 'waxing poetic' applies,I am both a progressive and a conservative. The science of economic theory relies on the science of politics to fill in gaps on why South Korea (for example) did not become a democracy until recently. Economics could not quantify the effective influence of North Korea, China and the Soviet Union on for example the South Korean trade unions and in how the cold war was reflected in labour relations in South Korea.
———-
hmmmm.... by saying that I'm studying economists, did I seem to slight other social sciences or suggest that economics could stand on its own? I'm not sure how it came out that way... everything above is agreed to.
RE:
Daniel, think outside the box a little. Ask yourself why you felt the need to tell me about your academic credentials when that is not germane to the chat we are having as free and equal citizens of western democracies?
—————————-
haha. Well, you seemed to think you had firm command of the operation of free market economies. I knew I was going to respond with some stuff that most people outside of the discipline find to be unusual or wrong, so I guess I felt that I had to have some credentials behind me. Plus, I thought I was thinking outside the box!!! All I was trying to say was that when it comes to economies, one size doesn't fit all. I sang the praises of liberalization and democracy! I pointed out that industrial policy and protection are good too and are still relevant for today (I'm not convinced that SOME of these policies aren't relevant for Kenya). Not sure how much more out of the box or open minded I could be... I basically said that some of these solutions work some of the time in some places, and sometimes they don't.
What you should really be criticizing me for is not committing to one answer.
September 3, 2006 9:10 AM | Report Offensive Comments
To: Cayambe, Philo CA
RE:
Daniel, we probably would not disagree in our personal opinions, or even in the formation of a ìnational opinionî. But this is largely a product of our common culture. What I balk at is the notion that one culture has authority to supplant another.
—————-
I agree 100% with this... still not sure where we diverge...
also RE:
Actually I donít want to define acceptable and unacceptable pre-emption. That is the problem, it is essentially indefinable and therefore, off with its head. Before you can respond, you have to take a hit. Then, and only then, can you take the gloves off. I donít care much for rules that require assessment and judgment when facts will do.
———
of course, and that was the point of my thought experiment. There is no acceptable pre-emption. Its like a perverse version of the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. Mutually assured destruction depended on reciprocated fears, and the result was that no one launched nuclear missles. The effect of pre-emption is that it also creates reciprocating fears, but it has the effect of ENCOURAGING military confrontation.
thats not a doctrine that any military should operate from.
September 3, 2006 8:50 AM | Report Offensive Comments
to: Zoltan
RE:
"this strangely contradicts you saying that USA is diverse. A "nation" is rather compact and uniform, a community of nations is diverse, but how can a nation be both a nation and yet very diverse ?"
——————-
And this quote demonstrates that you may not know america as well as you think. Very few americans would describe our country as, or even want it to be "compact and uniform". Most nations may not be diverse, but ours is, and we like it that way. With the exception of a few xenophobes, we take pride in the term "melting pot", and "nation of immigrants". Lyndon Johnson said that the US "is not a nation, but a nation of nations." It's been a long hard road to make it work- our struggles for universal civil rights in the past have proved that... but the very fact that we've struggled for it shows that for America, a diverse population is desired, and that diverse people can still achieve some degree of unity.
September 3, 2006 8:46 AM | Report Offensive Comments
to Felixe:
RE:
"Daniel, there's one of you on every chat room. In fact you've undoubtedly used different names on most of them. A big- deal- know it- all who "educates" everyone on everything, pretending to be neutral. Shall you return to your pro Israel think tank tonight and think you've put it over on all us unwashed? And perhaps ask your leader if anti-semitism has "disappeared and become unhip in the last 61 years", or whether it it is rampant and growing, perhaps at it's apex in the world now. Never so much as upon the Israeli rampage in Lebanon just now. Your type would be interesting if it weren't so omnipresent. And so obvious.
————————
Now I'm very confused.... have you even been reading my posts? I've been criticizing Israel's activities the ENTIRE TIME. Excuse me for pointing out some anti-semitism when I see it. I think Israel has much more blood on their hands than the Palestinians or the Lebanese... but I'm still not going to tolerate racism. Plus, this is the first time I've posted on a blog in years. Although your detailed description of the blog know-it-all certainly sounds like you have some personal experience with it.
September 3, 2006 8:38 AM | Report Offensive Comments
The appearance, not the historical evidence, is against the US.
Srikanth Raghunathan, Washington, D. C. wrote:
You may want to consider the "Monroe Doctrine." It is alive and well, although under a different name with modifications to suit our expediency. Does the same not apply to the Middle-Eastern nations? You may also want to consider the acquisition of Hawaii, annexation of Texas, Puerto Rico, Panama (and later relinquishment). History is replete with such examples. You are absolutely correct that we should NOT revisit history for the sake of rewriting it, but to learn what NOT to do. Let us look forward and see what can be done for the betterment of everyone's.
Good point, Srikanth; even though democratic nations can act in self interest I think the Monroe doctrine was formulated more as an anticolonialist (and partially anti Spanish) doctrine than as a colonial policy; "... the American continents, by the free and independent condition which they have assumed and maintain, are henceforth not to be considered as subjects for future colonization by any European Power." Teddy Roosevelt strengthened it in response to European bombardment of Venezuelan ports. Considering the belligerence of European nations at the time, roughly a decade before world war 1, it's again hard to claim it was for imperial purposes, explicitly the policy was anti-imperialist.
So much depends on how you look at things, if the actions and lobby of companies like United Fruit strongly paint ones perception of US foreign policy then imperialism seems unmistakable but commercial imperialism can be the policy of a multinational company and of a fraction of society without being advocated or endorsed by the majority. Even the most absolute dictatorships cannot control the actions of all members of society, in fact absolute dictatorships seem to make corruption by highly placed bureaucrats only more prevalent, and then it can be difficult for any company, US multinational or otherwise, not to exploit such relationships. At the very least the US has stronger moral guidelines and trade boycots with nations that flaunt human rights than most European nations.
It's terribly easy to see an imperialist, dominating intent behind the actions of the 'only superpower'. To poster Shiloh the mere semantics of being 'only superpower' makes imperialsm all but guaranteed which says more about the machiavellian nature of his thought process than anything about the validity of it.
The appearance, not the historical evidence, is against the US. What can be done really to repair the damage? A greater attempt to get the message out is required, I remember the Bush administration sending out Karen Hughes who at this time is undersecretary for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, she spelled out her views at her confirmation hearing http://www.state.gov/r/us/2005/49967.htm and perhaps she should do an op ed for the post.
September 2, 2006 11:10 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Nancy Kirk, NYC, NY:
Your points are well-said and well-taken. Especially,
"We also should strengthen the governmental and private institutions and groups that promote non-partisan examples of our culture: libraries, cultural exchange programs, student exchanges and the like. Attention to these worked very well in the past and should work now. We're a good people. Let others know."
It is funny that just the other day I was thinking about Peace Corps-type program. Would that not be a good start?
September 2, 2006 6:51 PM | Report Offensive Comments
CHAD, ET AL....
As much as it galls me...and it DOES, please let me refer you to an Israeli newspaper article...Haaretz, August 15th, article by Daniel Levy. The straight stuff. The real story on the war in Iraq... and
how we are being bullied and fooled into an Iranian conflagration. The skinny on all of it. It amazed me, not the facts which I know to be true, but because of where and how it appeared.Be interested to hear what you all think...
September 2, 2006 5:55 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Re DM - Albany...
***but we have to understand that our support of Israel is based on Genesis 12:3.***
>>Not quite. It started as a massive attack of the guilts mainly from Europe. On the other hand the nations in the UN were pretty sure that Israel couldn't survive for long anyhow so it made for a nice mea culpa - and then Israel went and survived. We also support it because America loves the underdog.>>
>>I don't think there is any truly equitable solution for the Middle East as it stands now. Both sides have had genuine wrongs done to them. On one hand the Palestinians did have their land unjustly taken from them (remember the right to private property - the Pursuit of Happiness). On the other hand most of the currently living Israelis have their properties by secondary or tertiary or even longer chains of formal ownership since it was originally taken>>
If you look at the Christian zionists, it is the Genesis 12:3 promise that they fear. "I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you". This is a favorite line for TV preachers as a reason to support Israel (as well as preach a false gospel of "this is how you get God to bless you" - the "prosperity gospel"). If money wasn't driving so many, you surely wouldn't see the likes of Benny Hinn et al living in luxury when Christ said he didn't have a place to rest His head. Greed and fear are two things we learn - it's got nothing to do with instinct.
As for the "underdog", you are correct - we naturally like rooting for the runt of the litter, and why? I don't know - maybe it's David and Golliath syndrome.
In terms of the Jews having been wronged - you are correct and won't get any argument from me. The problem with this is that it's not allowing the Jewish race to move on when all you do is hold onto tragedy. You have to let go in order to heal, and too many refuse. I think this refusal to let go has spawned the "anti-semitic" cry that's overused. I'm not saying there aren't cases of hate out there, but this is being played like the race card used to be, and that's degrading to both sides.
Lastly, in regards to the bullies? Well, give that this administration sees a bully behind every tree, around every corner and under every rock...it sure throws a lot of expensive punches. You can't handle everyone that simply, but it's a start - and this administration's problem is it doesn't want to stop throwing punches. It's acting like a cheap, drunken honky tonk crowd on "fifty cent beer" night. A lot can be solved if they would just sober up instead of the morning after going back for a taste of the "dog that bit 'em" the night before.
Otherwise, I noticed you didn't have much negativity on my post, so I must be flying fairly close to the target. LOL :)
September 2, 2006 5:21 PM | Report Offensive Comments
The United States government should not let its foreign policy be guided by of the policy's popularity either abroad or at home.
But the actions of our government, our businesses, our large-scale philanthropy and, perhaps most important, our arbiters and merchants of culture should be guided by the Preamble to the U.S. Constitution. As each sector acts in its best interests, it should consider the effect of those activities on U.S. prestige, power and, maneuverability. There would be no better criteria for all of us to follow than those in the preamble of the U.S. Constitution: establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity. These principles translate well into a global environment. But they present the same problems we struggled with during the years that we developed as a nation.
One question for businesses which export inferior products to other nations ought to be: is the profit realized actually worth the damage done to the general Welfare of the recipients? Does it affect the reputation of the business and the country? Recently, Andrew Young's comment about inferior products sold to African-Americans by the owners of small grocery stores cost Young his job. The statements he made, while astonishingly undiplomatic for a public spokesman, had small grains of truth in them. Was the profit worth the hostility created?
The government might do well to ask if the votes garnered domestically by exporting our views on population control, for instance, are worth the hostility generated among the leaders of countries which do not share those views? Does the withholding of funds for birth control education, or even education for women insure the Tranquility, or stability, of the countries affected?
Does philanthropy, international aid and US aid promote the general Welfare? This is a very difficult line to judge, but for the sake of the goodwill we can generate, it's crucial to be thoughtful and deliberate in our choices.
The tastemakers and merchants of American culture bear heavy responsibility in this area and they can't be told often enough that money isn't everything. They must begin to understand that the American First Amendment can cause millions of people to develop hostile opinions about us and be susceptible to their political leaders' need to use us as an external threat.
We also should strengthen the governmental and private institutions and groups that promote non-partisan examples of our culture: libraries, cultural exchange programs, student exchanges and the like. Attention to these worked very well in the past and should work now. We're a good people. Let others know.
September 2, 2006 2:06 PM | Report Offensive Comments
Re: Post at September 2, 2006 02:44 AM
ª Chris Ford, Chevy Chase, USA |
Hello Chris,
So the problem is the liberal jews from the left and the neocons and
zionist from the right in the US. I guess your solution is simple as your problem is.
Since all talented big liers build up their big lie from pieces of truth and from pieces of pseudo-truth, no wonder you do the same.
Your personal big lie is — in my humble opinion— in the putting forward the idea that most muslims (due to the teachings of their koran, perpetual jihad mood) and europeans (due to their nationalism, racism, envy, snobism of universal scale, superiority complex on ethnic and continental level) would have no reason for and expression of hostility toward a jewless America — while a person of your intellect must know from history and pure reading of contemporary events that it's ain't so.
September 2, 2006 1:24 PM | Report Offensive Comments
If the United States does what it can to quell anti-Americanism then it would be violating all of the rights it sets out for its own people. If Bush's desire is to bring"freedom" to so many countries, he is essentially saying that he wants to have freedom (including freedom of expression, press, etc) then he has no right to try and quell anti-Americanism.
September 2, 2006 12:57 PM | Report Offensive Comments
The west should stop the 'Cold hollocaust' it has launched upon the palestinains since 1948, I urge western people to visit the west bank and see for themselves how the jewish fascists who you call settlers treat the palestinains in palestine, see the only aparthied democracy in the middle east at work. I went to Hebron/west bank a year ago, a settler kid came up to me while I was walking and he spit at me, I wanted to hold the kid by his hand take him to his parents to tell them about his manners, if you think I could do that, think again, becasue the second I lay a hand on him, Israeli terror forces would have shot me to death.
imagine living among paestinains wher settler kids slap you around in the streets, take over you neigbours' home because 'God gave them the right to', through trash at them, all this and the palestinains cant do anything, if they try to fight back the west calls them terrorists. That is how you drive them to be suicide bombers.
peace is the fruit of justice, make israel go back to 1967 borders.
Stop the ethnic cleansing of palestinains if you dare or are you worried about being labled anti-semites.
September 2, 2006 12:49 PM | Report Offensive Comments
It's strange ... but getting people to stop hating you isn't a secret. Not only that, it's not that hard once you recognize - and this is the key - that what you're doing and saying is creating the problem. It could be that the Bush Administration hasn't recognized that what its attitude, and what it's doing and saying doesn't make the rest of the world very happy. (In much of the Islam world, the response is more visceral.) It's also likely the Bush Administration doesn't care. They've always been more interested in making their political base happy than the rest of the world. It's sad, but true. Mr. Bush never left the country before he became President. He's fundamentally, incurably incurious and uninterested in anything outside the United States. I could go on, but most of you understand this guy and the people he surrounds himself with.
So, more to the question, assuming Bush actually wanted to make amends and stop doing and saying things that engender hatred in others, he would:
1) Publically, acknowledge the situation and promise to change things.
2) Demand and receive the resignations of everyone in his administration who has been involved in foreign policy. I mean everyone: Rice, Cheney (yes Cheney), Rumsfeld, every member and advisor to the White House, etc.
3) The vacated posts would be filled with people with real experience in international relations and those who have a track record for building good relationships with other countries. Doesn't matter what party they're from.
4) Set a new course, actually talk to governments the Bush doesn't like. Engage them. Ask for support from your friend. Don't dictate. Drop the absolutist speech.
I think this would be achievable. But not likely ... about as likely as getting 450,000 troops to stablize Iraq. And that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
September 2, 2006 12:26 PM | Report Offensive Comments
It's strange ... but getting people to stop hating you isn't a secret. Not only that, it's not that hard once you recognize - and this is the key - that what you're doing and saying is creating the problem. It could be that the Bush Administration hasn't recognized that what its attitude, and what it's doing and saying doesn't make the rest of the world very happy. (In much of the Islam world, the response is more visceral.) It's also likely the Bush Administration doesn't care. They've always been more interested in making their political base happy than the rest of the world. It's sad, but true. Mr. Bush never left the country before he became President. He's fundamentally, incurably incurious and uninterested in anything outside the United States. I could go on, but most of you understand this guy and the people he surrounds himself with.
So, more to the question, assuming Bush actually wanted to make amends and stop doing and saying things that engender hatred in others, he would:
1) Publically, acknowledge the situation and promise to change things.
2) Demand and receive the resignations of everyone in his administration who has been involved in foreign policy. I mean everyone: Rice, Cheney (yes Cheney), Rumsfeld, every member and advisor to the White House, etc.
3) The vacated posts would be filled with people with real experience in international relations and those who have a track record for building good relationships with other countries. Doesn't matter what party they're from.
4) Set a new course, actually talk to governments the Bush doesn't like. Engage them. Ask for support from your friend. Don't dictate. Drop the absolutist speech.
I think this would be achievable. But not likely ... about as likely as getting 450,000 troops to stablize Iraq. And that isn't going to happen anytime soon.
September 2, 2006 12:22 PM | Report Offensive Comments
One way to stop anti-Americanism is to eliminate the bullying rah-rah flag-waving macho-jock idiocy that has come to signify America over the last 6 years. Another way would be to stop dabbling with the fates of other nations. Yet another way would be to remember that charity begins at home, and to stop sending our wealth and our jobs across the globe. Some folks claim that CNN is an ambassador of fear-mongering, but others can plainly see that FoxNews Channel has become the ambassador of paranoid ideation with its constant "alerts". All of the American cable news channels don't bring the viewer enough actual news, opting instead for the sound of bickering voices shouting to be heard over one another, often deliberately pairing know-nothing pundits of the left and right in order to provoke, much in the manner of a bloodless cockfight. Some visible proof of what have so far been many empty claims from our Supreme-Court-appointed administration couldn't hurt. A shift from the push to Armageddon towards one of desiring peace on earth would help. A nation as powerful as this one doesn't have to fear appearing weak in its desire for world peace. War is over, if you want it. Ceasing to label religions other than Christian ones as "fascists" might go a long way towards the creation of a more acceptable image of the USA. And self-labeled Christians might try acting like Christians for once, instead of selfish, End-Times lunatics. Letting the world see that America can actually hold an honest presidential election would be impressive, too.
September 2, 2006 11:07 AM | Report Offensive Comments
One way to improve the image of the U.S. would be to curb the international, irrational CNN fear mongering. The inane, stupid things I've seen and heard on that international network do more harm than good to the cultural vector presented as the USA.
September 2, 2006 10:42 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Anti American sentiments?
if we arrested and prosecuted the Executive Branch and Complicit Congress......
for foisting PNAC upon the electorate, as a hidden agendae
and actually worked for resolution, rather than making a couple of people,
not all of them Americans, but all of them riche/elitists
the kind that when you go to third world countries, you see living in compounds surrounded by peasants....just getting by.......
why would Americans want to return to _that_ way of life, or force it on others?
.
September 2, 2006 10:39 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Brian Torri, Arlington Heights, IL, USA sayz:
"
I look upon anti-Americanism as a fact of life for generations to come.
"
Hello Brian, you write better than most of your fellowe NeoConArtistes......
but the shallowness of your thought processes are the same tepid dirty water.
America doesn't represent Americans right now,
it represents, a small, grayish-yellow, portion of Americans
it represents the AntiChrist driven "christians," those that preach hatred and power over as a way of maintaining their hold on America
what the world sees as "America in action," is the Executive Branch and Complicit Congress...a very few people,
that the world sees as American attitudes in Iraq are the result of foisting the PNAC agendae on Americans as_if it were the correct response, and somehow.........just because it's not working, that the whole world is incorrect in their response to it.......
the key players have all known each other for decades, and are family and not really representative of America, nor do they want to be
you might as well be a Limbaugh, a Chris Ford, or some other low level diatriber, making up garbage about why we must "support das furher" because they the unbelievers are "das weaklings!" und must be eliminated!.
well I suggest to you, that you're the weakling, weak mind, weak morals and weak resolve. European movies are disturbing to many Americans because they don't usually have the patent _good_guys_ and _bad_guys_ and "cars blowing up," isn't the main plot line.......
to simple people with comic book mentalities, it always boils down to one thing....."WHO DO I NEED TO KILL,"
why do we need to kill anyone? how is that relevant?
the first step in dealing with a world situation is not to choose a side and eliminate the enemy........what childish none sense.
working through something in a fashion that actually delivers a solution, rather than using the Military Industrial Complex Mindset that, or should I say kneejerk mentality has
every world situation defined as a "war," whether we know it or not
or
"when all you have is a screwdriver, then all the solutions seem like a screw........"
the world would move into alternative patterns, but since the current regime was moving to federalize as a way of stopping intervention by it's own people....rewriting law, making a monkey head of a world government..."the decider," ook ook ook
and little deciders out beating the bushes getting out that "terrorist," party line......
the Executive Branch and Complicit Congress are using _this_ simplistic reasoning to manipulate the situation...
and quite frankly dean, you're helping them.
.
September 2, 2006 10:22 AM | Report Offensive Comments
As neither the American military, nor their leaders have any desire to stay in Iraq, perhaps another lesson in democracy for all parties involved in this conflict is about due. It has been several months or more since Iraqi people have been asked their opinions at the ballot box. So now is as good a time as earlier that Iraq should be brought to the polls again.
America and its allies should once again assist in the process of putting democracy first. Even in the face of insecurity. It took the founding fathers of The USA many years to get the process right; so a few more exercises at the ballot box, lessons on civil democracy are worth the effort.
The Iraqi government, Sadr, the UN, the American government, the American people, let them all do their part; let world opinion be heard standing behind democracy; let's hear the people of Iraq again ............... "We the people of Iraq want to speak, in this referendum... "We the people ask ... the Americans to a) stay and defend Iraqi freedom, b)....hang it up.
Keep the language plain and simple.
People in free societies vote. And the easisest way for the American to exit this conflict is to be told by the people they are supposedly fighting for. Iraq needs to step up to the plate and speak.
By all means vote the Americans out, send them home, send them packing with a lesson in democracy.
September 2, 2006 10:21 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Until US foreign policy reflects respect for other people and governments, it will be rejected by the rest of the world, now that the avarice and greed behind it have been revealed by the policies of George W. Bush. The most basic tenet of democracy is self-rule, that means the governed choose their government. Remember? That means even if we don't like their choices, we have an obligation to respcet them. Thus far, we have adopted the attitude that we know what is best for everyone and that means forcing "democracy" on an unwilling people or forcing our version of democracy onto them despite their having made a different choice than what we want. The fact that we are willing to kill innocent civilians to bring democracy to people proves to them that it isn't a good thing. When will the US understand that better business is not the driving force behind everyone? Some of us value human life, good food grown on farms where people are allowed to raise their families in peace and a dream of a future in which those precious things are protected and respected? This is certainly not something anyone in the world would associate with US policy, domestic or foreign. Kristina
September 2, 2006 10:19 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Millersville, MD:
I like and agree with your comments. (I am sure that you have heard the expression "Ugly American." That is what we are in the eyes of international people.) Zoltan's comments reinforce that this "holier than thou" attitude is certainly not uniquely our problem. What a great analogy between "old money" and our attitudes!
September 2, 2006 9:56 AM | Report Offensive Comments
To Daniel: Yup, we agree. I was lamenting about Zoltan's first thought which was stop thinking we're superior. This was a valid point. Our nation does act like it thinks it is superior and/or better then anywhere else on the planet. Pride in one's country is one thing, but constantly telling the world we're better then everyone else is really bad for foreign policy and American image overseas. Had Zoltan stopped after his original thought I would have been impressed, but he didn't. He then fell into the same trap many in this country have fallen into: telling others how to live their lives by how to act and think. Anyway, I was thinking Zoltan not only wrote like an American he reasoned like one? Zoltan are you really a New Yorker?
The United States emerged from WWII in an unnatural position of power the world has never seen before. While Britian, France, Russia, China, Japan, Italy etc., etc., had been decimated by the war the United States was barely scratched. Not only did we come out of WWII with only minor fatalies in relationship to the countries listed above but our infrasturcture was also intact. Our manufacturing capabilities were actually considerably greater by the end of the war. Let us not forget we were the only country who could make and deliver nuclear weapons. Militarily, we were invincible by the end of WWII. I only bring this up because that was only 61 years ago America became the modern days first superpower.
I ask the Zoltan's what they expect from the ,"new powerful?" Much like new money vs. old money power has many of the same characteristics. New money is usually arrogant, conspicuous and garish. Old money is more reserved, thoughtful and handled with taste. America simply hasn't learned how to handle it's power with grace. We're still arrogant, conspicuous and garish with our power. Hence, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq. All 3 conflicts have 2 things in common. First, not one of these countries posed a security risk to the United States. Second, not one of these conflicts have been fought on US soil. For the last 61 years it has always been America sending troops around the globe with very little thought as to why or what the consequences would be. This isn't a judicious use of power.
When America learns to use her power and resources with prudence and grace we will be respected.
September 2, 2006 9:50 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Cayambe, Philo CA:
First, I must say that it is really nice to have a rational perspective from a rational person. (Some of the posters here resort to ad hominem atatcks and vilifation of dissenters defeating the puprose of a "discussion.")
You are correct that what is currently happening to Palestinians at the hands of hard-line Israelis is only just a prelude to what is in the offing. (I stand corrected for misapplying the term "holocuast," at this stage. However, what I meant was that "holocaust-like" treatment would be the lasts steps in the progression of the events in the Middle-East.)
I completely agree with your statement: "I?ve yet to persuade myself that our civilizations are somehow intrinsically better, or vice versa. There is no reason why one should impose upon the other; when in Rome, do as the Romans do works for me."
"mike, Glendale, Arizona
Americans need to realize that 15 years from now,there will be a new superpower. it is the C word.
China, India and russia are the only countries that benefit from the NeoCons policy of fighting muslims.
I have a clear vision for the future which many americans lack, in 2020 we will be saying God bless china, so I recommend that we dont act as bullys becasue one day, after 15 years, we will pay for what we are doing."
This is exactly what I have been saying; we must reprioritze our goals and act on them, immediately. I would not be entirely suprised, if we (the U. S.) were to become a second-world, or even third-world country, by 2050, or 2060. There are many posts on my blog (http://nanomat.blogspot.com)
"daniel, Arlington VA, USA
China has a lot going for it, but nobody seriously believes that its current growth rate is sustainable.
In five years, when fuel is oppresively expensive and no alternatives have been implemented (especially in China and the US), see how China is doing then. It has a lot of potential, but it doesn't currently have the institutions or the staying power to guarantee a superpower role. Japan provides a good example of where China is headed- China will definitely be a more prominent player fifteen from now, but its not going to maintain the growth we're seeing today. At some point, the party is going to end there.
My biggest concern is Russia. They have massive energy deposits that will help them weather the storm of higher fuel prices until alternative fuels become readily available. Putin is finally putting a stop to the free-for-all looting of Russian society by rogue businessmen- this will be important for future growth.
The only chance the US has is to get off their oil addiction, pour investment into alternative fuel, and reinvigorate our industrial base. We can do this by diverting money away from our military and away from our pseudo-colonial adventures abroad."
Daniel, China is investing quite a bit on alternative energy sources (solar, wind, hydro, and tidal). This does not even include the nuclear power plants that are being commissioned! I agree with you that China needs to slow down its rate of growth to more manageable levels. However, China and India have massive middle-class poplulations, which could potentially dampen the ill-effects of rapid growth. Furthermore, those two cultures emphasize education, above all (at least, for now).
Chris Ford, Chevy Chase, USA
You are denigrating an entire class of people by attributing all of our (the U. S.) political problems to the Jewish population. Yes, they, in general, are much better off than most average middle-class popluation. Perhaps, it is time for the rest of us to learn from the "Jewish" people how to be successful?! I have many Jewish and Mulsim friends who are "best of buddies."
I agree with you on this statement (please see my previous posts): "We need to really get into educating the best American kids in culture and language skills we will need in future interactions in Asia, the Muslim world, and India. We need strategic communications and linguistic skills on the level we had with rivals, allies, and foes during WWII and the Cold War."
September 2, 2006 9:48 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Mr. Bakshi.
Will you and your associates analyze and formulate a
condensed review and conclusions after reviewing all comments to your question under this post global discussion?
September 2, 2006 9:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Maybe if we roll over and drop dead. Europeans seem to have lost any faith whatsoever in their ability to see rightly and then act rightly as a result of savaging themselves in two wars, the second of which really involved the whole world. WWI involved only Europe and the Mediterranean, as I recall. It was in WWI, though, that they managed to blow up 1 million men in just two battles in one year, at the Somme and Verdun. They are nearly wholly spineless and feckless as proven in their inability to fully staff the UN Resolution authorizing the newest peacekeeping force to southern Lebanon. They can be counted on to get irritated by us because we still at least believe in ourselves and our ability to act, however misguided. They will offer little if any constructive criticism because they are so superior to us, we are too stupid to understand, let alone take their advise. Never mind that the U.S. is ages better than they are in integrating Muslims into general society, which is totally pathetic when you consider the sort of cultural cold-war going on here over their Muslim status. Europe is beyond what is essential in today's geopolitical climate, a good grasp of religion and an innate sense of the innate worthiness of any individual to have a democratic government responsive to their needs. MENA may be a largely tribal region, due to the many empires that have ruled over it. Nevertheless, much can be had from engaging those fires into a productive furnace of popular expression.
Which brings me to my next point: Much of the MENA region has got to get over themselves. Basically, their everpresent, a priori condition of humiliation, which is so pervasive and all-powerful that it always seems to be felt above and beyond any other consideration, like having a future or treating the religious minorities in the MENA region, especially Christians, like something other than garbage. Keep in mind, these are **native** Christians, most of whom predate Islam because Christianity predates Islam; they are as native as native gets, but given the abhorrent conflation of nationalism and national identity with being Muslim, they are a priori not truly citizens of the nations they live in and whose existence their community predates. In the end, the hostility in MENA to the U.S. has only something to do with the even-handedness we need in our foreign policy in the region; it has much more to do with their ominpresent feeling of humiliation, of which Israel is only a more prominent factor, not a determinative one. Golda Meir said it best when she said that Israel would not roll over and drop dead so that a beautiful eulogy may be said of it. Neither should the other MENA countries bear such a demand. They should take it upon themselves to shed their humiliation, as we in the West are powerless to do anything at all about it.
Basically, the anti-Americansim in Europe is fashionable due to their overwhelming sense of arrogant superiority to us, not to mention their condescending point of view of the MENA region. Anti-Americanism in MENA is largely due to their humiliation at being left so far behind due to an ancient arrogance of superiority to the West, appropriate at the time, but which led to the inward focus of the Ottoman Empire, starting with the naval loss at Lepanto/Navpaktos and accelerating through the defeat at Vienna. Now, in an irony of history, they feel we in America and Europe look down on them and disregard all of their ambitions. We do not, but we can never prove it.
I look upon anti-Americanism as a fact of life for generations to come. We are an easy whipping boy, fashionable to blame and whose money alone is sought. We are almost a fetish of freedom and unrestrained power (and sexuality, for that matter) to a world which seems only too happy to blame us for just about everything. Wonder what happens when we tire of it. Does anyone at all care a whit about that possibility? I can almost see a day in which the American public gets fed up with trying to win anyone's approval and withdraws from virtually all global institutions, relying instead on a series of bilateral and multilateral agreements to get things done. Hope the Swiss like the U.N., because it'll get shipped back to them in short order, becoming what it already seems to be acting like again, the League of Nations II. Hope you're happy with that.
September 2, 2006 8:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
The statement that US policies have caused an increase in Muslim anti-Americanism is not only wrong, but it shows why the pro-authoritarian newspapers like the Washington Post are part of the problem. The logical extension from the basis of your question is that Muslims would be less anti-American if we went back to the policies of Clinton, and Bush 41, that supported authoritarian dictatorships in Muslim countries. The foolishness of that speaks for itself. Now, it could be the the Islamic facsists are more anti-American than they were before President Bush decided to stand up to them, but I do not even think that is true. In fact, it is common knowledge that what is respected more than anything else in the Middle East and in other Muslim countries is clear resolve and unwillingness to back down. This is exactly what President Bush has shown. The folks that are more anti-American are the leaders in the authoritarian Muslim governments and Islamic fascist organizations because they know that no longer will the US administrations just roll over and let them abuse and mistreat their populations while simultaneously being respected. The Islamic fascists are now being confronted and they are squealing like a stuck pig. Good, they should get used to it because they are only going to get more unless they change their ways, start treating their own people like human beings, not human bombs, and either unconditionally surrender their means of making war or they are killed. More and more Muslims, when allowed to speak outside of the control of Islamic facsists or authoritarian regimes, are increaing their affinity to the United Staes and values that respect individuals rights and capabilities. And the US mainstream media that loves totalitarians and authoritarians should get used to the fact that they will not be able to intimidate US adminstrations into supporting dictatorships and Islamic fascists. The jig is up. Human beings are born with the right to be free and no longer will US policy support the subordination of those G_d given rights.
September 2, 2006 8:10 AM | Report Offensive Comments
As a Christian Palestinian raised in the best Quaker traditions of non-violence I deplore all violence including the much touted war on terror. A war which I find hard to understand its scope or its borders.
While it is true that hatred of the policies of the U S and the West is the real cause of terrorism. It is wrong to suggest that fanatism and fundamentalism are behind this hatred.
I am neither a fanatic nor a fundamentalist but I can hardly claim to harbour positive feelings towards the U S and other western governments policies in the Middle East. This attitude was learned in the English and American schools and universities which I attended. I have learned how the Arabs joined forces with the west to liberate the Middle East from the Ottomans with the subsequent betrayal and colonisation. Later this degenerated into pseudo independence with imposed indigenous dictators. Add to this the creation and continuous support of Israel. And now Iraq and the Lebanon is the latest tutorial in HATE 101
A spectre is haunting the Arab and the Moslem world, it has but one name RAGE. An Arab or a Moslem need not learn this in a Pakistani Madrassa he can learn it by reading a few courses in Middle Eastern history At Oxford...
Sadik Hanna
Astros Greece
September 2, 2006 5:44 AM | Report Offensive Comments
To Bob on Paris Hilton. No! She must not go! Say yes also to Scarlett Johansson, Jessica Alba and Charlize Theron. Send Lindsay Lohan to Iraq to the insurgents in exchange for peace—also send Britney Spears and that blond woman, what the hell's her name? Ah yes, Jessica Simpson. Send Tom Cruise to Iraq as well, such a pretty face but a totally superficial man. Iraq might toughen him up some—make him more profound. But I doubt it....Actually keep Britney Spears and send that goofball who is her husband to Iraq—send him anywhere actually. But keep Paris Hilton, Scarlett Johansson, Jessica Alba and Charlize Theron.
September 2, 2006 5:09 AM | Report Offensive Comments
The televised banishment of Paris Hilton might be a good start.
September 2, 2006 4:36 AM | Report Offensive Comments
To: Chris Ford, Chevy Chase, USA
Hello Chris. It is good to see you're still hanging around. As it has so often happened, I'm pretty much in agreement with 1-4. But, we have two immediate problems on our hands:
1. How do we get our butts out of Iraq minimizing post-departure slaughter and leaving it Al Quaeda unfriendly?
2. What do we do about Iran?
Best Regards.......
September 2, 2006 3:41 AM | Report Offensive Comments
A few dumb ideas for reducing anti-americanism:
- make sure The Weather Channel shows Mexico and Canada painted in some color other than grey, so american viewers may realize those zones belong to the same Planet Earth as the U.S.;
- whenever you guys organize a world championship of any sport, please invite teams from other countries;
- move Labor Day to May 1st, so those workers who died at a Chicago factory may finally be honored in the U.S. as they are in the rest of the world;
- legalize the use of the metric system; if dumb people around the world can use it, why can't you?
September 2, 2006 3:32 AM | Report Offensive Comments
Before listing the obvious causes of anti-Americanism - it is important to address that a seditious liberal Jewish enemy within America provides the rest of the world with ample fodder to go after us. It is a two-sided coin. Half the Jews are zionists that make our major liability overseas, support of Israel, politically impossible for Congress to fight through Jewish lobying clout. The other half of Jews, the classic Leftist-liberals that have always hated America, slime the country at any opportunity and give the Muslims more ammo with which to hate us - most of THAT stuff being unfair distortions.
The Jewish Sulzberger Family of the NYTimes, Nadine Stroesser's Jewish-funded and largely run by Jews ACLU, Kenneth Roth's Human Rights Watch. Morris Dees Southern poverty Law Center, NOW,Code Pink, National Lawyer's Guild, NARAL, Center of Constitutional Rights, People for the American Way, George Soros many agitprop organizations, all the post-communist party fronts that still survive, the Chomskyites. Many are motivated by a core loathing of America, others are just opportunists and manipulators that hate Bush with all their hearts just as their Daddies hated Nixon - and see sliming America as a useful method to "get Bush". And could care less about America, since patriotism and loyalty are missing as prt of their transnational sentiments. The Sulzbergers are the worst, allowing the NYTimes to be made into an attack vehicle against all things Bush, and most things American - driving the international press to follow believing what is said about America by an American leading newspaper must be true.
All Jewish run and funded or where liberal Jews have a disproportionate role - All dedicated to regular attacks on America as a horrible, racist, sexist, evil, homophobic, bigoted, too-white genocidal Oppressor State that kills any who are not rich Republicans. Along witb Jewish Hollywood organs and other media they control or heavily influence, from movies to TV shows dispensing anti-Americanism, hawking sleaze and purience as American virtues — no group has worked harder to damage America's image and reputation abroad over the last 40 years. Not even the Soviets or radical Islamists.
No group had worked harder over the years to damn America as an evil country - as the liberal Democrats have done. And Jews are the main financial backers, a disproportionate number of the main apparachniks and enabling lawyers, and a disproportionate number of elected liberals with strong America-bashing tendencies.
***************************
Before you even start on who hates America abroad over what issues, you have look at who those enemies within are. A case can be made that crony capitalist's policies made here on free trade and globalization have badly hurt feelings towards America overseas. Blacks in America by their unending blame of dysfunctionalism in their communities on American whites, Hispanics, Asians...Amoral multinationals...make a case that makes Muslims believe that we would oppress them like blacks claim they still are being "oppressed"....But I believe a case can be made that no group - by a long shot - approaches the corrosive sedition and sabotage of the American image in the eyes of Muslims more than the liberal Jew. While we all have free speech, it is not unconstitutional to take steps to hopefully diminish a harmful group with too much influence.
****************************
Overseas, we shouldn't be too concerned about the seething, raging, frothing at the mouth angry Muslims after they get all fired up at a Religion of Peace sermon session. They don't just hate America. They hate Indians, Jews, happily kill Swiss tourists when no Brits are handy, and kill fellow Muslims if not infidels are around. LOng before they got really pissed at Americans, they were slaughtering millions of other people in just the last 100 years, from Morocco to East Timor, in 80 different countries. Getting Muslims to "like us" is like asking the Chinese to like the Japs..It-just-won't-happen.
But they can respect us again, and the opinions of the rest of the world do matter. And we did screw up badly in several areas:
1. We were right on missile defense. 11 countries have now made inquiries on future use of our systems as ballistic missile technology proliferates. We were right on Kyoto, it was a badly flawed treaty for exempting the nations that emit half the carbon and who are supposed to emit far more by 2030 and account for 80%. But we were wrong to be so arrogant and dismissive in either case - and we should say so, as well as committ to working with the global community on Kyoto II.
2. We have wrongly been pinned by the world and by our own seditious enemy within for all the blame from what Transnational elites in over 30 countries have done to set up the free trade, globalization, and crony capitalist systems that have ravaged so many countries so far. This is something that we need to say goes far beyond America in it's pluses and minuses.
3. We did, under the neocons, go far too aggressively into delusional talk of empire and a series of unilateral wars, which everyone quickly figured out meant against the Muslim nations around Israel. I believe events in Iraq have ended the idea of America turning Iraq or any other nation into mini-Americas in "cakewalk" cheap and easy wars.
4. We have rotten outreach and communications other than what the liberal Jews represent America as being - to the rest of the world. We need to really get into educating the best American kids in culture and language skills we will need in future interactions in Asia, the Muslim world, and India. We need strategic communications and linguistic skills on the level we had with rivals, allies, and foes during WWII and the Cold War.
September 2, 2006 2:44 AM | Report Offensive Comments
To those who claim that the US only defends when it is against Islam, I ask you to look at Kosovo and Bosnia
To those who say the US has always been some sterling character in the human rights arena, while that may have been our PR role, the reality is that we have sided with many governments with horrible human rights records if it served another of our interests. Nor has the US had the greatest of human rights records at home. If I remember the statistics properly, we have the second highest percentage of our population jailed for one offense or another (usually due to the bogus "war" on drugs) in the world. We've also gone through plenty of internal racist periods in addition to what most people think of as just against blacks. At one point employers would rather hire a black than an Irishman. Don't even think about what was done to the American Indians when the Europeans started overrunning their land and culture. The Japanese internments of WWII. The Chinese also suffered extensive legal bigotry in the mid to late 1800s and well into the 1900s.
On the issue of human rights, the rights listed in the Declaration of independence (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (the phrase back then for private property)) were neither granted by any group of people nor dependant on any group outside of our own borders to defend. They are inherent in the nature of humanity in order to live as humans (i.e. an intelligent, rational, educatable species, whether or not anyone actually acts in accordance with those potentiality in any given situation). The people of any other nation have the same basic human rights as we do, but we do NOT have the authority, legally or morally, to act as a government for those who do not live within the jurisdiction of our government in the defense of those rights.
Even more unfortunately, the actions of our government in pursuing its war on terror continue to eat away ever faster at those rights it was instituted to defend for its own people.
PS: Zoltan -
***Well, the word is that "A good Indian is a dead Indian" but it might be only cheap western movies. Anyway, that's the way many people see it. And your affirmation doesn't fit very well with south-america, where a lot of local Indians are part of the population: were they so much more robust ?***
The quote is from one particular President - Andrew Jackson and a sorrier bit of humanity rarely walks the Earth. As to the integration of the other races in South America, that is basically a matter of the difference between the way the Spanish and Portuguese colonized. The English commonly brought whole families while the Spanish and Portuguese were generally men who came over alone for several years at a time. Needless to say, the only female companionship they had available was from the indigent population, essentially having two "real" families. European diseases decimated the South Americans too, but those who survived were at least not penned away and reviled quite the way they were in the north.
PS: SB, Dallas,TX USA -
***As my mother used to say, "it takes two to fight", and if you stop bothering them, they won't bother you.***
If only this were true. It only takes one to throw the first punch and some people you can't make happy no matter what. They're generally called bullies and countries can act like bullies as well as individuals.
***but we have to understand that our support of Israel is based on Genesis 12:3.***
Not quite. It started as a massive attack of the guilts mainly from Europe. On the other hand the nations in the UN were pretty sure that Israel couldn't survive for long anyhow so it made for a nice mea culpa - and then Israel went and survived. We also support it because America loves the underdog.
I don't think there is any truly equitable solution for the Middle East as it stands now. Both sides have had genuine wrongs done to them. On one hand the Palestinians did have their land unjustly taken from them (remember the right to private property - the Pursuit of Happiness). On the other hand most of the currently living Israelis have their properties by secondary or tertiary or even longer chains of formal ownership since it was originally taken
Let me ask a question - If someone robbed a bank and the residuals of that theft helped the thief's great grandchildren to buy a car, should that money be taken from them and somehow try to find a way to proportionally distribute it between everyone that was ever harmed on some way by the original crime. At what point does the original source become moot? How far back do you go? I doubt if there's a single human being on the face of the Earth who does not have ancestors that were enslaved or otherwise ripped off as well as having ancestors who owned slaves or did the stealing.
PS: Cayambe, Philo, CA-USA