While your self-righteous outburst was droll, Rapier7, it was misbegotten. <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This bears the question, though: If the U.S. has bestowed great public goods upon the world, why are they so disliked? The dog that bites the hand that feeds it exists, but is the exception to the rule. Kindness does not beget hatred. So what causes the hatred?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I did not "deride [U.S.] American foreign policy," I asked why the magnificent benevolence of the U.S. leads to hatred. Clearly this is a very strange development that should be thoroughly researched and explained.
Edit: I must agree: The instant I saw the title of this thread, I knew that it was made of napalm and rocket fuel and would explode in white-hot flames at the merest spark.
<!--quoteo(post=1638404:date=Jul 11 2007, 07:31 AM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Jul 11 2007, 07:31 AM) [snapback]1638404[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I'm seeing a thread about the United States and the OP asking if the US is good or bad for the world. What I don't see is similar threads about foreign policy of countries like China, Russia, India, Brazil, Germany, UK, France, or any other nation for that matter. People have an <b>obsession</b> with America. And most topics created deal with the USA in some way, highlighting some negative feature or policy or historical misdeed that we've done. This obsession combined with the inability to see anything good about the USA is classified as <b>anti-American</b>, a consistent, unyielding, exclusive , and above all, <b>unrational</b> criticism of the USA. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it has something to do with the fact that the US in the world's superpower now. It also may have to do with the fact that America is involved in two wars. If you go to a pub anywhere in the world and start talking about France or India, noone is really interested, you'll draw blank stares. However I am sure if France creates a big coalition and invades the Ivory Coast then there will be talk about that. People are starting to talk more about Russia now because of emerging problems there.
I love America, I have cousins and friends over there, my girlfriend is American, like every other human being on earth bar one or two they have something to complain about, something they don't like about their country, I don't call them anti-American. Yet there are a few extremists who would call them just that.
I hear people like you put down the French over and over, I'm sure you've done it yourself a few times, so would that follow your definition of being anti-French? Is there such a phrase? if not why not? What about all those Americans who HATE the French yet complain about people from other countries being anti-American, wouldn't that make them hypocrites?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> In response to France lending material support to Americans in the Revolutionary War....guess what? Americans don't criticize or even <b>care</b> about French foreign policy, who are probably the most active after this country. Bush posthumously awarded the Marquis de Lafayette honorary American citizenship in recognition of his services to the US. To be honest, the whole freedom fries thing and people refusing to buy French wine (The Napa valley has better wine, anyways) is just an over-the-top display of jingoistic American patriotism. It dies down very quickly. We don't care about France, and we certainly don't criticize it on foreign policy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In general, Americans by and large don't really care what happens in the rest of the world, would anyone here like to refute that? Its not a criticism, its just a fact. I am scared to say these things here in case I get attacked by some redblooded internet patriot, yet when I am sat in a pub with some Americans they all just agree.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> There is nothing wrong with the criticism of American foreign policy. Americans are already at the forefront. But it's best to criticize what we're currently doing and how it affects all <b>relevant</b> parties involved. Bringing up the past is useless. So is disparaging our modern day culture and characterizing 300 million Americans as jingoistic, fat, lazy, greedy, violent people. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eh, you just brought up the past, World War 2, remember the big paragraph you just wrote? Who just characterized 300 million Americans as jingoistic, fat, lazy, greedy, violent people? I don't think anyone in here has?
Two excellent books written about perceptions of America written by non-Americans.
To be honest, I could look in this forum's archives and find tons of decidedly <b>anti-American</b> rants, as well as plenty of rational criticism of American foreign policy.
But to be frank, I'm too lazy. Thus ends my participation in this thread.
aeroripperJoin Date: 2005-02-25Member: 42471NS1 Playtester, Forum Moderators, Constellation
edited July 2007
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I'm seeing a thread about the United States and the OP asking if the US is good or bad for the world. What I don't see is similar threads about foreign policy of countries like China, Russia, India, Brazil, Germany, UK, France, or any other nation for that matter. People have an obsession with America. And most topics created deal with the USA in some way, highlighting some negative feature or policy or historical misdeed that we've done. This obsession combined with the inability to see anything good about the USA is classified as anti-American, a consistent, unyielding, exclusive , and above all, unrational criticism of the USA.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The reason the U.S. is discussed so much is because it carries large influence over world politics, so its natural that it would be discussed the most. Since the Soviet Union isn't around anymore, maybe people are uncomfortable with the idea of having one superpower dictating how the world should be run. Also, the fact that we invaded 2 countries and (hopefully not) a 3rd in the middle east, directly influencing international terrorism and global oil prices, I can see why people are critical of our foreign policy above these other countries.
Beyond the reasoning for these wars, you're going to generate a lot of criticism for doing so. These issues gather far more attention then say, giving 10,000 tons of food\medical supplies to a poor country, or resettling thousands of refugees from a distant civil war in the country. If you want to get some good PR for your country, convince these corporations that are developing the AIDS drugs to give it all away for free in South Africa. Even then, that will get far less coverage than something like the Iraq war. Who should we blame, the media or human nature?
I say the only people that are really 'anti-american', are the ones calling for its absolute destruction.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1638148:date=Jul 9 2007, 10:56 PM:name=Timmythemoonpig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Timmythemoonpig @ Jul 9 2007, 10:56 PM) [snapback]1638148[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> As I traveled around Europe, its almost hard to put into words how, just about everyone, unanimously loathes the Bush administration. Its almost over now, but its been like witnessing the school bully stomp around the yard stealing everyone's sweets, beating kids up, lying, stealing, then standing up in front of everyone and patronising them about morals and values.
I think people in the US will see a huge change in the world opinion of them once the Bush administration is gone and so long as he isn't replaced by some religious extremist who believes the Sun goes around the Earth then there is hope for the future. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's not just outside the US. I can only think of one person amongst my friends and acquaintances that doesn't want him impeached. Hell, most of them would feel ambivalent if he was assassinated.
I think it makes a lot of people here very depressed. I personally have to keep reminding myself that there have, in fact, been worse abuses in the history of the US (japanese internment, etc.) that we've bounced back from to just maintain a general sense of personal well-being.
This topic I think is too general to really debate though. How do you weigh creating the internet against destabilizing the middle east? I don't think any of us can really do that kind of math.
I think there's some rather poor and wild assumptions and such being thrown around here.
First, let's start with the time frame problem going on in here:
You guys are all over the place with your American revolution, Iran Contra and Monroe Doctrine. Your present view of the US cannot be defined that broadly, simply due to fluid the dynamics of politics, economics and social advancement. This is like responding to "How do you see Germany and its place in the world?" with "well, nazis are evil." Your taking an aspect of history and blanketing your entire subject matter with it; and as much as anyone would <i>like </i> to think, the US's diplomatic history does not solely consist of coups, wars and espionage. It's not necessarily relevant either, unless - when considering England you want to consider attempting to colonize Ireland, attacking Scotland and dastardly trying to take the French throne...You can't open the scope that far, both sides are just going to pull out inane, irrelevant arguments that really bare no relevance to the US and its "place in the world" <i>today</i>.
Unfortunately, since tjosan below is not only stuck in the Cold War, but also wants to bring up America's independence as the beginning of 'perpetual war', I need to bring up a bunch of historical stuff for that...
<!--QuoteBegin-tjosan+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tjosan)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The US I see right now is a US that opts out of agreements that pertain to limit the development and growth of nuclear, biological and chemical warfare arsenals. </b> A US that on a daily basis violates the integrity of other nations' territory and agressively tries to take and keep control of major natural resources. It is a US that stand for 50% of the worlds military budget (70% with NATO) and use these funds to maintain and deploy an offensive military force where ever they see fit.
<b>The US of the past is one built on war. War against the English, the Spanish, the Mexicans, the English again and meanwhile killing and driving off the native inhabitants of their continent.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> First let's start with the first bolded part here: The US has ceased development of all biological and chemical weapons; all development made presently is for defensive purposes and research. Unfortunately the disposal of previous stockpiles is done pretty poorly (...pile it in a destroyer and then sink it in the ocean...yeah, <i>that's safe</i>). As for the nuclear 'expansionism' you're talking about, I think you might be 40 years in the past, I'm not sure. Both Russian and American nuclear stockpiles have been shrinking in the last 20 years. The only Western nation that still performs nuclear tests is France.
And the unbolded part: Just like any other nation that starts a war; you cannot fault a nation for starting wars in the long term (every nation does it...except the Swiss and Sweden, I guess). One of the reason governments exist is to secure the resources that their population requires/demands. Unfortunately that impedes on the sovereignty of others, but don't get all mad at the US - war has been around for a long time. It's generally considered a legitimate argument that the US's technology sharing and blanket military alliance secures Europes economic and political stability.
Second bolded part: So is every other country. You know that whole 'Vietnam war' thing? Started by France. You know that whole 'war of 1812' thing? It was because independence wasn't being formally recognized (and also due to communication lag at the time, as the major complaint regarding the seizure of American shipping and sailors, had ended by the time the war started...coincidentally, it was donebecause England wanted more supplies for its wars...Funnily enough, the 'greatest' American victory happened after peace negotiations were concluded in Europe). I find it strange that both World Wars, the Korean War, the Barbary wars (etc.)...aren't mentioned...
Furthermore, British, French, Spanish and Portuguese imperialism is the reasoning for natives being killed/driven from their land, don't try to pin it as a solely American affair (as a counter point: Pennsylvania was one of the most Indian-accepting areas of the New World when William Penn was in control; so again, this isn't an American affair, this is 'European'). They were being killed by Europeans before New England even existed.
<!--QuoteBegin-Tomekki+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tomekki)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-rapier7+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rapier7)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That doesn't mean we don't occasionally screw things up, but as always, when something bad happens, people don't look to the UK, France, Russia, China, India, or Germany to get things right. They look at the US.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
actually, when something gets screwed up people look at the one who is to blame. youre right about people looking at the u.s. more often than not in those cases, but in the light of the preceding sentence what does that really say about your nation? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That tells me that people like to blame someone, even if it's not necessarily the right person. A better way of putting "actually, when something gets screwed up people look at the one who is to blame" would be "when something get's screwed up people look for someone to blame". In historical and contemporary terms the wrong nation is blamed all the time for international fiascos (or the blame shifts between numerous countries), and it's not a valid assumption to think that 'whoever is blamed is blamed correctly'.
War of independence yes, but the point remains: the US was created through war and it hasn't ever stopped being at war. This has nothing to do with English or French or Russian or Portuguese imperialism, it's about American imperialism and my view of the US. These events are all strung together into one long row of wars; one war ends and the next begins, as though the country NEEDS to be at war, NEEDS to be afraid of something to continue its existance.
You can rationalise the wars any way you want, but in the end the fact remains - the US has never been at peace during it's entire existance. This is bad. War is bad.
<!--quoteo(post=1638623:date=Jul 12 2007, 01:21 PM:name=UltimaGecko)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(UltimaGecko @ Jul 12 2007, 01:21 PM) [snapback]1638623[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> US's diplomatic history does not solely consist of coups, wars and espionage. It's not necessarily relevant either, unless - when considering England you want to consider attempting to colonize Ireland, attacking Scotland and dastardly trying to take the French throne...You can't open the scope that far, both sides are just going to pull out inane, irrelevant arguments that really bare no relevance to the US and its "place in the world" today. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For my part in this discussion I was just countering someone else's alternative view of the 20th Century.
Its always refreshing to read a passive non-aggressive opinion on the matter though.
locallyunsceneFeeder of TrollsJoin Date: 2002-12-25Member: 11528Members, Constellation
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> And here's the thing: when you bring up ultimately irrelevant information (our refusal to sign bans on landmines, for example) to criticize the USA, that's anti-American. Criticizing our Iraq policy because it's ineffective and may have increased the likelihood of a terrorist attack isn't, that's rational criticism.
Talking about our funding of Greeks who didn't want a communist government is irrelevant and anti-American. Discussing the impacts of American led globalization and reduction of tariffs and their potential economic impact (whether positive or negative) is not, it's rational.
Anti-Americanism is a consistent and almost ideological opposition to the USA, and people who are anti-American jump on anything to criticize the USA while ignoring the vast amount of good we have done.
I'll be the first to admit that our foreign policy isn't perfect, that it certainly has very grey areas. That we have inadvertantly killed millions of people. But we have saved millions more. The USA is a net good in the world. That doesn't mean everything we do is rainbows and caisies. It just means that the good outweighs the bad we do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think most people missed this bit from Rapier's posts. Anti-American is a dumb word but this is what he meant by it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Any criticism no matter how harsh or <b>irrational</b> is not necessarily anti-American.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Emphasis mine: I think irrational criticism <i>is</i> exactly the issue here. We are looking at whether the good outweighs the bad or vice versa. I think plenty of valid and invalid points have been made. It might be better if we could confine this large topic to a few points: economic power and use thereof for aiding/hindering economic development, military power and use thereof for 'policing the world'/providing stability, economic power with respect to the environment, economic power with respect to social freedoms/globalization of culture.
In short I don't think a list of UN resolutions is terribly germane, but the fact that the US refuses to sign a land mine ban because it has bases in many countries is. I don't really see that as a valid excuse to continue using land mines because if that country really wants you there, you don't need landmines.
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1638634:date=Jul 12 2007, 03:00 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tjosan @ Jul 12 2007, 03:00 PM) [snapback]1638634[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You can rationalise the wars any way you want, but in the end the fact remains - the US has never been at peace during it's entire existance. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This seems rather, um, <i>false</i> to me.
<!--quoteo(post=1638634:date=Jul 12 2007, 03:00 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tjosan @ Jul 12 2007, 03:00 PM) [snapback]1638634[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> War of independence yes, but the point remains: the US was created through war and it hasn't ever stopped being at war. This has nothing to do with English or French or Russian or Portuguese imperialism, it's about American imperialism and my view of the US. These events are all strung together into one long row of wars; one war ends and the next begins, as though the country NEEDS to be at war, NEEDS to be afraid of something to continue its existance.
You can rationalise the wars any way you want, but in the end the fact remains - the US has never been at peace during it's entire existance. This is bad. War is bad. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again I'm forced to break out the history <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
I'm not here to necessarily defend or attack the use of war as a diplomatic envoy, however, your belief of the US as 'perpetual perpetrator of war' is an unfair assessment. I hate to resort specifically to the potential unreliability of Wikipedia, but:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_britain" target="_blank">The Military History of Britain</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States" target="_blank">The Military History of the United States</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_france" target="_blank">The Military History of France</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Japan" target="_blank">The Military History of Japan</a> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Soviet_Union_%281927-1953%29" target="_blank">A Partial Military History of Russia</a> (since there's just no good organization showing Russian plotted coups and small wars)
Something you'll notice here is the 'seemingly present peace' during the mid 19th and late 19th century inside Europe, when everyone was busy attacking places in Africa and Southeast Asia and didn't have time to make war every year, so they just toned it down to about once per decade. Most of the more prevalent stuff is <i>only</i> imperialism, and we all know how natives love being overpowered and forced from their homes, because only the US did it...
My point here is not that it's invalid to view these things as bad; you'd be hard-pressed to find someone sane willing to argue that slave trade, war and brutal imperialism are good things; but the point is that war is a natural part of a powerful country's 'diplomatic' options. It is biased and ultimately unfair to view the United States more negatively than other countries, since every nation in a seat of power has done the same thing.
You'll hear the phrase 'Pax Americana' muttered sometimes (or the lack of it, I suppose), but the 'Pax Romana' wasn't as utterly peaceful as you might like to think. War is a constant of humanity, not a constant of the United States. To believe that Europe (or anywhere else) is some magical bastion of peace is not only a fallacy, it's nonsense - with or without the US around. The US is far from what I would call altruistic or even benevolent, but it's not malevolent, either.
What's the point of all this? <!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> War of independence yes, but the point remains: the US was created through war and it hasn't ever stopped being at war.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> So has almost every other country in the world, and it's not a valid reason for universally shunting the US as 'bad, all bad!'
Yarrr, small history lesson ahead...
The period from 1918 to 1940 was essentially brutally pacifistic, even retracting the Monroe Doctrine in effect. You want messed up: China didn't declare war on Japan in the 1930s because the US neutrality policy would have prevented them from selling weapons to declared combatants...same for the Japanese, who wanted our oil (remember that the Middle Eastern oil fields weren't discovered yet)...you want even weirder (in retrospect, anyway): a Gallup poll in 1939 found that far more than a majority of Americans thought involvement in 'the Great War' was wrong.
While you also may want to argue that there was perpetual war from 1815 to 1865 (and beyond) the Texas-Mexican war could ultimately be determined to not be an American war (...especially since Texas was its own country for 9 years). A majority of the Indian conflicts, while small and horrific, are also very sporadic and not constant throughout the period, with almost no effect on the US military's troop deployment - the US at the time often considered the Indians squatters and much of the 'war' to simply be the reclimation of sovereign US soil (stolen or not, I guess).
<!--quoteo(post=1638695:date=Jul 12 2007, 08:09 PM:name=tjosan)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tjosan @ Jul 12 2007, 08:09 PM) [snapback]1638695[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> I haven't shared my views on Britain, or Japan, or China or any other country for that matter in this thread. This is about the US. <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is about <!--QuoteBegin-aeroripper - the opening post+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aeroripper - the opening post)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the United States and its place in the world<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->. It's relatively hard to criticize (or celebrate) something if you've got nothing to compare it to.
Describe the flavor of an apple to me, but don't use any flavors or anything edible in the description...
For all effects and purposes it doesn't matter what your views on those countries are: they are a sampling on the broad political spectrum and US's general equivalence with former and current world powers. To dismiss the US as bad unilaterally based on its foreign policy is to effectively dismiss the entire world as bad - which can be your perogative.
Also, thank you for completely disregarding my responses to your assertions that: the US is stockpiling chemical, biological and nuclear weapons; the US is perpetually at war; and, the US is a permanent harborer of imperialist tendencies.
If George Friedman and Stratfor are credible, then every move by the United States in the Middle East is part of its grand maneuvering to destroy Al Qaeda. Every base is placed for maneuvering, and every occupied country is meant to leverage U.S. power. In particular, Friedman claims that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was designed to put pressure on nations in the area--especially Saudi Arabia--to risk themselves to root out Al Qaeda in their own territories. The invasion was partially intended to prove U.S. battle prowess, since most Islamic nations see recent operations like Desert Storm and Afghanistan to be half-hearted victories or even failures. That intelligence reports returned talking about WMD also encouraged war, as well as the general knowledge that Saddam Hussein was a genocidal maniac, but both of these were secondary to the show of force and the leveraged power in the area. Iraqi oil fields could also be used to bring down the price of oil: not drastically enough to make any savings in the U.S., but enough to put the squeeze on the House of Saud.
I read Friedman's book, but books are funny things. You can publish them and be almost certain that responses to them will be weak or nonexistent. Even if they do exist, most readers will never find them. That, combined with the fact that you can't really cite your sources in the intelligence and covert ops businesses, makes one wonder if any or all of it is outright false.
schkorpioI can mspaintJoin Date: 2003-05-23Member: 16635Members
edited July 2007
The US is the laughing stock of entire world thanks to the likes of Bush, and all of the other corrupt politicians before him - Its got nothing to do with good or bad, its all about money and power - Polticians just exploit the stupidity of the poor and the sheepishness of the religious to make them think it is all about good and evil, and perhaps some "good" does come out as a bi product, but at the end of the day, its who goes home with the most cash.
Yes a lot of good things comes from the states - technology wise anyways - but if they are going to stick their fingers in other peoples pies then they should be prepared for the repercussions.
EDIT : The FBI is probably going to arrest me now <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> even "we" have freedom of speech, you aren't actually allowed to say what you think, funny hey ...
What is happening to your country! practically everyday I read stuff like this, its depressing..
"John P. Walters, President Bush's drug czar, said the people who plant and tend the gardens are terrorists who wouldn't hesitate to help other terrorists get into the country with the aim of causing mass casualties. Walters made the comments at a Thursday press conference that provided an update on the "Operation Alesia" marijuana-eradication effort.
"Don't buy drugs. They fund violence and terror," he said.
After touring gardens raided this week in Shasta County, Walters said the officers who are destroying the gardens are performing hard, dangerous work in rough terrain. He said growers have been known to have weapons, including assault rifles.
"These people are armed; they're dangerous," he said. He called them "violent criminal terrorists.""
<!--quoteo(post=1638704:date=Jul 12 2007, 08:57 PM:name=UltimaGecko)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(UltimaGecko @ Jul 12 2007, 08:57 PM) [snapback]1638704[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Describe the flavor of an apple to me, but don't use any flavors or anything edible in the description... For all effects and purposes it doesn't matter what your views on those countries are: they are a sampling on the broad political spectrum and US's general equivalence with former and current world powers. To dismiss the US as bad unilaterally based on its foreign policy is to effectively dismiss the entire world as bad - which can be your perogative.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
every empire (or superpower as theyre now called apparently) has obviously been built and maintained with war, the u.s. is no exception.
most old imperialistic powers have ceased to practice their old habits, but the u.s. has only relatively recently started to put effort into building an "empire". the point is that you'd <i>think</i> american leaders would learn from the mistakes of others, but apparently thats not the case.
Comments
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This bears the question, though: If the U.S. has bestowed great public goods upon the world, why are they so disliked? The dog that bites the hand that feeds it exists, but is the exception to the rule. Kindness does not beget hatred. So what causes the hatred?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I did not "deride [U.S.] American foreign policy," I asked why the magnificent benevolence of the U.S. leads to hatred. Clearly this is a very strange development that should be thoroughly researched and explained.
Edit: I must agree: The instant I saw the title of this thread, I knew that it was made of napalm and rocket fuel and would explode in white-hot flames at the merest spark.
I'm seeing a thread about the United States and the OP asking if the US is good or bad for the world. What I don't see is similar threads about foreign policy of countries like China, Russia, India, Brazil, Germany, UK, France, or any other nation for that matter. People have an <b>obsession</b> with America. And most topics created deal with the USA in some way, highlighting some negative feature or policy or historical misdeed that we've done. This obsession combined with the inability to see anything good about the USA is classified as <b>anti-American</b>, a consistent, unyielding, exclusive , and above all, <b>unrational</b> criticism of the USA.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it has something to do with the fact that the US in the world's superpower now. It also may have to do with the fact that America is involved in two wars. If you go to a pub anywhere in the world and start talking about France or India, noone is really interested, you'll draw blank stares. However I am sure if France creates a big coalition and invades the Ivory Coast then there will be talk about that. People are starting to talk more about Russia now because of emerging problems there.
I love America, I have cousins and friends over there, my girlfriend is American, like every other human being on earth bar one or two they have something to complain about, something they don't like about their country, I don't call them anti-American. Yet there are a few extremists who would call them just that.
I hear people like you put down the French over and over, I'm sure you've done it yourself a few times, so would that follow your definition of being anti-French? Is there such a phrase? if not why not? What about all those Americans who HATE the French yet complain about people from other countries being anti-American, wouldn't that make them hypocrites?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
In response to France lending material support to Americans in the Revolutionary War....guess what? Americans don't criticize or even <b>care</b> about French foreign policy, who are probably the most active after this country. Bush posthumously awarded the Marquis de Lafayette honorary American citizenship in recognition of his services to the US. To be honest, the whole freedom fries thing and people refusing to buy French wine (The Napa valley has better wine, anyways) is just an over-the-top display of jingoistic American patriotism. It dies down very quickly. We don't care about France, and we certainly don't criticize it on foreign policy.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In general, Americans by and large don't really care what happens in the rest of the world, would anyone here like to refute that? Its not a criticism, its just a fact. I am scared to say these things here in case I get attacked by some redblooded internet patriot, yet when I am sat in a pub with some Americans they all just agree.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
There is nothing wrong with the criticism of American foreign policy. Americans are already at the forefront. But it's best to criticize what we're currently doing and how it affects all <b>relevant</b> parties involved. Bringing up the past is useless. So is disparaging our modern day culture and characterizing 300 million Americans as jingoistic, fat, lazy, greedy, violent people.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eh, you just brought up the past, World War 2, remember the big paragraph you just wrote? Who just characterized 300 million Americans as jingoistic, fat, lazy, greedy, violent people? I don't think anyone in here has?
<i>Uberpower</i> - Josef Joffe
Two excellent books written about perceptions of America written by non-Americans.
To be honest, I could look in this forum's archives and find tons of decidedly <b>anti-American</b> rants, as well as plenty of rational criticism of American foreign policy.
But to be frank, I'm too lazy. Thus ends my participation in this thread.
The reason the U.S. is discussed so much is because it carries large influence over world politics, so its natural that it would be discussed the most. Since the Soviet Union isn't around anymore, maybe people are uncomfortable with the idea of having one superpower dictating how the world should be run. Also, the fact that we invaded 2 countries and (hopefully not) a 3rd in the middle east, directly influencing international terrorism and global oil prices, I can see why people are critical of our foreign policy above these other countries.
Beyond the reasoning for these wars, you're going to generate a lot of criticism for doing so. These issues gather far more attention then say, giving 10,000 tons of food\medical supplies to a poor country, or resettling thousands of refugees from a distant civil war in the country. If you want to get some good PR for your country, convince these corporations that are developing the AIDS drugs to give it all away for free in South Africa. Even then, that will get far less coverage than something like the Iraq war. Who should we blame, the media or human nature?
I say the only people that are really 'anti-american', are the ones calling for its absolute destruction.
As I traveled around Europe, its almost hard to put into words how, just about everyone, unanimously loathes the Bush administration. Its almost over now, but its been like witnessing the school bully stomp around the yard stealing everyone's sweets, beating kids up, lying, stealing, then standing up in front of everyone and patronising them about morals and values.
I think people in the US will see a huge change in the world opinion of them once the Bush administration is gone and so long as he isn't replaced by some religious extremist who believes the Sun goes around the Earth then there is hope for the future.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's not just outside the US. I can only think of one person amongst my friends and acquaintances that doesn't want him impeached. Hell, most of them would feel ambivalent if he was assassinated.
I think it makes a lot of people here very depressed. I personally have to keep reminding myself that there have, in fact, been worse abuses in the history of the US (japanese internment, etc.) that we've bounced back from to just maintain a general sense of personal well-being.
This topic I think is too general to really debate though. How do you weigh creating the internet against destabilizing the middle east? I don't think any of us can really do that kind of math.
First, let's start with the time frame problem going on in here:
You guys are all over the place with your American revolution, Iran Contra and Monroe Doctrine. Your present view of the US cannot be defined that broadly, simply due to fluid the dynamics of politics, economics and social advancement. This is like responding to "How do you see Germany and its place in the world?" with "well, nazis are evil." Your taking an aspect of history and blanketing your entire subject matter with it; and as much as anyone would <i>like </i> to think, the US's diplomatic history does not solely consist of coups, wars and espionage. It's not necessarily relevant either, unless - when considering England you want to consider attempting to colonize Ireland, attacking Scotland and dastardly trying to take the French throne...You can't open the scope that far, both sides are just going to pull out inane, irrelevant arguments that really bare no relevance to the US and its "place in the world" <i>today</i>.
Unfortunately, since tjosan below is not only stuck in the Cold War, but also wants to bring up America's independence as the beginning of 'perpetual war', I need to bring up a bunch of historical stuff for that...
<!--QuoteBegin-tjosan+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tjosan)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin--><b>The US I see right now is a US that opts out of agreements that pertain to limit the development and growth of nuclear, biological and chemical warfare arsenals. </b> A US that on a daily basis violates the integrity of other nations' territory and agressively tries to take and keep control of major natural resources. It is a US that stand for 50% of the worlds military budget (70% with NATO) and use these funds to maintain and deploy an offensive military force where ever they see fit.
<b>The US of the past is one built on war. War against the English, the Spanish, the Mexicans, the English again and meanwhile killing and driving off the native inhabitants of their continent.</b> <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
First let's start with the first bolded part here:
The US has ceased development of all biological and chemical weapons; all development made presently is for defensive purposes and research. Unfortunately the disposal of previous stockpiles is done pretty poorly (...pile it in a destroyer and then sink it in the ocean...yeah, <i>that's safe</i>). As for the nuclear 'expansionism' you're talking about, I think you might be 40 years in the past, I'm not sure. Both Russian and American nuclear stockpiles have been shrinking in the last 20 years. The only Western nation that still performs nuclear tests is France.
And the unbolded part:
Just like any other nation that starts a war; you cannot fault a nation for starting wars in the long term (every nation does it...except the Swiss and Sweden, I guess). One of the reason governments exist is to secure the resources that their population requires/demands. Unfortunately that impedes on the sovereignty of others, but don't get all mad at the US - war has been around for a long time. It's generally considered a legitimate argument that the US's technology sharing and blanket military alliance secures Europes economic and political stability.
Second bolded part:
So is every other country. You know that whole 'Vietnam war' thing? Started by France. You know that whole 'war of 1812' thing? It was because independence wasn't being formally recognized (and also due to communication lag at the time, as the major complaint regarding the seizure of American shipping and sailors, had ended by the time the war started...coincidentally, it was donebecause England wanted more supplies for its wars...Funnily enough, the 'greatest' American victory happened after peace negotiations were concluded in Europe). I find it strange that both World Wars, the Korean War, the Barbary wars (etc.)...aren't mentioned...
Furthermore, British, French, Spanish and Portuguese imperialism is the reasoning for natives being killed/driven from their land, don't try to pin it as a solely American affair (as a counter point: Pennsylvania was one of the most Indian-accepting areas of the New World when William Penn was in control; so again, this isn't an American affair, this is 'European'). They were being killed by Europeans before New England even existed.
<!--QuoteBegin-Tomekki+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Tomekki)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-rapier7+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(rapier7)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That doesn't mean we don't occasionally screw things up, but as always, when something bad happens, people don't look to the UK, France, Russia, China, India, or Germany to get things right. They look at the US.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
actually, when something gets screwed up people look at the one who is to blame. youre right about people looking at the u.s. more often than not in those cases, but in the light of the preceding sentence what does that really say about your nation? <!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That tells me that people like to blame someone, even if it's not necessarily the right person. A better way of putting "actually, when something gets screwed up people look at the one who is to blame" would be "when something get's screwed up people look for someone to blame". In historical and contemporary terms the wrong nation is blamed all the time for international fiascos (or the blame shifts between numerous countries), and it's not a valid assumption to think that 'whoever is blamed is blamed correctly'.
You can rationalise the wars any way you want, but in the end the fact remains - the US has never been at peace during it's entire existance. This is bad. War is bad.
US's diplomatic history does not solely consist of coups, wars and espionage. It's not necessarily relevant either, unless - when considering England you want to consider attempting to colonize Ireland, attacking Scotland and dastardly trying to take the French throne...You can't open the scope that far, both sides are just going to pull out inane, irrelevant arguments that really bare no relevance to the US and its "place in the world" today.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
For my part in this discussion I was just countering someone else's alternative view of the 20th Century.
Its always refreshing to read a passive non-aggressive opinion on the matter though.
Talking about our funding of Greeks who didn't want a communist government is irrelevant and anti-American. Discussing the impacts of American led globalization and reduction of tariffs and their potential economic impact (whether positive or negative) is not, it's rational.
Anti-Americanism is a consistent and almost ideological opposition to the USA, and people who are anti-American jump on anything to criticize the USA while ignoring the vast amount of good we have done.
I'll be the first to admit that our foreign policy isn't perfect, that it certainly has very grey areas. That we have inadvertantly killed millions of people. But we have saved millions more. The USA is a net good in the world. That doesn't mean everything we do is rainbows and caisies. It just means that the good outweighs the bad we do.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think most people missed this bit from Rapier's posts. Anti-American is a dumb word but this is what he meant by it.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--> Any criticism no matter how harsh or <b>irrational</b> is not necessarily anti-American.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Emphasis mine: I think irrational criticism <i>is</i> exactly the issue here. We are looking at whether the good outweighs the bad or vice versa. I think plenty of valid and invalid points have been made. It might be better if we could confine this large topic to a few points: economic power and use thereof for aiding/hindering economic development, military power and use thereof for 'policing the world'/providing stability, economic power with respect to the environment, economic power with respect to social freedoms/globalization of culture.
In short I don't think a list of UN resolutions is terribly germane, but the fact that the US refuses to sign a land mine ban because it has bases in many countries is. I don't really see that as a valid excuse to continue using land mines because if that country really wants you there, you don't need landmines.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This seems rather, um, <i>false</i> to me.
War of independence yes, but the point remains: the US was created through war and it hasn't ever stopped being at war. This has nothing to do with English or French or Russian or Portuguese imperialism, it's about American imperialism and my view of the US. These events are all strung together into one long row of wars; one war ends and the next begins, as though the country NEEDS to be at war, NEEDS to be afraid of something to continue its existance.
You can rationalise the wars any way you want, but in the end the fact remains - the US has never been at peace during it's entire existance. This is bad. War is bad.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again I'm forced to break out the history <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />
I'm not here to necessarily defend or attack the use of war as a diplomatic envoy, however, your belief of the US as 'perpetual perpetrator of war' is an unfair assessment. I hate to resort specifically to the potential unreliability of Wikipedia, but:
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_britain" target="_blank">The Military History of Britain</a>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_the_United_States" target="_blank">The Military History of the United States</a>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_france" target="_blank">The Military History of France</a>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Japan" target="_blank">The Military History of Japan</a>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Soviet_Union_%281927-1953%29" target="_blank">A Partial Military History of Russia</a> (since there's just no good organization showing Russian plotted coups and small wars)
Something you'll notice here is the 'seemingly present peace' during the mid 19th and late 19th century inside Europe, when everyone was busy attacking places in Africa and Southeast Asia and didn't have time to make war every year, so they just toned it down to about once per decade. Most of the more prevalent stuff is <i>only</i> imperialism, and we all know how natives love being overpowered and forced from their homes, because only the US did it...
My point here is not that it's invalid to view these things as bad; you'd be hard-pressed to find someone sane willing to argue that slave trade, war and brutal imperialism are good things; but the point is that war is a natural part of a powerful country's 'diplomatic' options. It is biased and ultimately unfair to view the United States more negatively than other countries, since every nation in a seat of power has done the same thing.
You'll hear the phrase 'Pax Americana' muttered sometimes (or the lack of it, I suppose), but the 'Pax Romana' wasn't as utterly peaceful as you might like to think. War is a constant of humanity, not a constant of the United States. To believe that Europe (or anywhere else) is some magical bastion of peace is not only a fallacy, it's nonsense - with or without the US around. The US is far from what I would call altruistic or even benevolent, but it's not malevolent, either.
What's the point of all this?
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
War of independence yes, but the point remains: the US was created through war and it hasn't ever stopped being at war.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So has almost every other country in the world, and it's not a valid reason for universally shunting the US as 'bad, all bad!'
Yarrr, small history lesson ahead...
The period from 1918 to 1940 was essentially brutally pacifistic, even retracting the Monroe Doctrine in effect. You want messed up: China didn't declare war on Japan in the 1930s because the US neutrality policy would have prevented them from selling weapons to declared combatants...same for the Japanese, who wanted our oil (remember that the Middle Eastern oil fields weren't discovered yet)...you want even weirder (in retrospect, anyway): a Gallup poll in 1939 found that far more than a majority of Americans thought involvement in 'the Great War' was wrong.
While you also may want to argue that there was perpetual war from 1815 to 1865 (and beyond) the Texas-Mexican war could ultimately be determined to not be an American war (...especially since Texas was its own country for 9 years). A majority of the Indian conflicts, while small and horrific, are also very sporadic and not constant throughout the period, with almost no effect on the US military's troop deployment - the US at the time often considered the Indians squatters and much of the 'war' to simply be the reclimation of sovereign US soil (stolen or not, I guess).
I haven't shared my views on Britain, or Japan, or China or any other country for that matter in this thread. This is about the US.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is about <!--QuoteBegin-aeroripper - the opening post+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aeroripper - the opening post)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->the United States and its place in the world<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->. It's relatively hard to criticize (or celebrate) something if you've got nothing to compare it to.
Describe the flavor of an apple to me, but don't use any flavors or anything edible in the description...
For all effects and purposes it doesn't matter what your views on those countries are: they are a sampling on the broad political spectrum and US's general equivalence with former and current world powers. To dismiss the US as bad unilaterally based on its foreign policy is to effectively dismiss the entire world as bad - which can be your perogative.
Also, thank you for completely disregarding my responses to your assertions that: the US is stockpiling chemical, biological and nuclear weapons; the US is perpetually at war; and, the US is a permanent harborer of imperialist tendencies.
If George Friedman and Stratfor are credible, then every move by the United States in the Middle East is part of its grand maneuvering to destroy Al Qaeda. Every base is placed for maneuvering, and every occupied country is meant to leverage U.S. power. In particular, Friedman claims that the U.S. invasion of Iraq was designed to put pressure on nations in the area--especially Saudi Arabia--to risk themselves to root out Al Qaeda in their own territories. The invasion was partially intended to prove U.S. battle prowess, since most Islamic nations see recent operations like Desert Storm and Afghanistan to be half-hearted victories or even failures. That intelligence reports returned talking about WMD also encouraged war, as well as the general knowledge that Saddam Hussein was a genocidal maniac, but both of these were secondary to the show of force and the leveraged power in the area. Iraqi oil fields could also be used to bring down the price of oil: not drastically enough to make any savings in the U.S., but enough to put the squeeze on the House of Saud.
I read Friedman's book, but books are funny things. You can publish them and be almost certain that responses to them will be weak or nonexistent. Even if they do exist, most readers will never find them. That, combined with the fact that you can't really cite your sources in the intelligence and covert ops businesses, makes one wonder if any or all of it is outright false.
Yes a lot of good things comes from the states - technology wise anyways - but if they are going to stick their fingers in other peoples pies then they should be prepared for the repercussions.
EDIT : The FBI is probably going to arrest me now <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" /> even "we" have freedom of speech, you aren't actually allowed to say what you think, funny hey ...
"John P. Walters, President Bush's drug czar, said the people who plant and tend the gardens are terrorists who wouldn't hesitate to help other terrorists get into the country with the aim of causing mass casualties. Walters made the comments at a Thursday press conference that provided an update on the "Operation Alesia" marijuana-eradication effort.
"Don't buy drugs. They fund violence and terror," he said.
After touring gardens raided this week in Shasta County, Walters said the officers who are destroying the gardens are performing hard, dangerous work in rough terrain. He said growers have been known to have weapons, including assault rifles.
"These people are armed; they're dangerous," he said. He called them "violent criminal terrorists.""
Describe the flavor of an apple to me, but don't use any flavors or anything edible in the description...
For all effects and purposes it doesn't matter what your views on those countries are: they are a sampling on the broad political spectrum and US's general equivalence with former and current world powers. To dismiss the US as bad unilaterally based on its foreign policy is to effectively dismiss the entire world as bad - which can be your perogative.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
every empire (or superpower as theyre now called apparently) has obviously been built and maintained with war, the u.s. is no exception.
most old imperialistic powers have ceased to practice their old habits, but the u.s. has only relatively recently started to put effort into building an "empire". the point is that you'd <i>think</i> american leaders would learn from the mistakes of others, but apparently thats not the case.