Exploring Anti-Americanism by Khyron

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
But projection of military power wasn't what Geezer was talking about. He's saying that facts about spending and bases don't entail the belief that, to quote from above, "the US is all about military takeovers.... And he's right--it doesn't follow from the projection of military power alone that we are doing those things.

If a nation has projected its military power around the world, how does that NOT imply that it's about military takeovers?

What is the purpose of military power? It means that by defintion a nation is willing to impose its will, through force of arms, on others. The imposition may not necessarily be on the host, but on its neighbors or on the region.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 11:43 AM

Quick point on Liberalism/Conservatism:

Bruce Lee's personal style of Gung-Fu was considered liberal by the martial arts establishment back in the day, yet in actuality, it was quite conservative in it's approach....

Jackie Chan's style(s) were considered conservative in his training and earlier films, yet he emerged as quite the liberal martial artist.

Which is better?

Both are my heroes Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 12:06 PM

BATTLESTARMINNESOTIA

Here's my observation. Being Anti-American is simply a vacuous statement that fails to really MEAN anything. It's sort of like saying you're anti-weather, you know? "I hate gorgeous, crisp, blue skied saturday mornings in springtime here in Minnesota because Hurricaine Katrina killed thousands in Louisiana. Because its all "weather" don't ya know." And the fact is, culturally, Minnesota is as different from Louisiana as they both are from France. And they are as far apart geographically as France is from North Africa. So to be "anti-american" is so vague as to dilute any useful meaning. Detest the policies of the Bush administration--as I do--but detesting America makes no sense.

I am reminded of a story hero of mine--Richard Feynman--used to tell. Apparantly one day young Richard is out for a walk with is father and he is feeling rather blue because a schoolmate was bragging about how he could name every bird they see in the park. Richards father scoffed. "what good does it do if he knows the names of all the bird? See that bird up there? That's a redheaded thrush. But in german it will be called something else. As in French, chinese, and every other language. Knowing the name of something tells you nothing whatsoever about the thing itself."

I think a lot of people make that mistake in hating "america. Saying you hate america tells me nothing about what you are for, or against. Even if you tear out the heart of some bad organization--Enron say--you still get just a myriad variety of simply people, none perfect, some worse thatn others, but people just like everyone else anywhere.

BSG-38

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 12:17 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
If a nation has projected its military power around the world, how does that NOT imply that it's about military takeovers?

Not sure if you're going to be able to hear this, but it can't be all about military takeovers. If that were the case, we're doing a pretty crummy job in most countries where there's a U.S. military base--to my knowledge we've not yet executed a "military takeover" in Germany, Japan, or Italy (that is, in the post-WWII era, the only one when we've had long-term bases in those countries). It's a little simplistic to say that the only reason to project military power beyond a nation's borders is to execute "military takeovers." Maybe all the other purposes are just as nefarious, but that can't be all. Take, for instance, the Taiwan Relations Act which makes it a matter of nation U.S. National Policy to defend Taiwan against aggression. The projection of military force means that we can put teeth into our policy of defending a democratic nation. That seems fairly benevolent to me (though I'm sure you'll find a way to make it not be

Quote:
What is the purpose of military power? It means that by defintion a nation is willing to impose its will, through force of arms, on others. The imposition may not necessarily be on the host, but on its neighbors or on the region.

Well, I hate to get all technical on you, but I'm not sure that I agree that that is what military power is by definition. That may be part of the definition, or one of the uses to which military power is put, but that's not the sum total of what military power is for. Consider the use the French put their military power to from 1914 to 1918: they used it to defend their nation against the agression of Germany. Or the use to which military force was put by the Allies in the Second World War: stopping fascist states (one of which was exterminating millions of people). My point is not that the use of military force is always noble--just that it isn't always malicious, as you seem to suggest.

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 1:07 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Causal- not sure if you can hear ME. but when a military power is outside of national borders (which is what we're talking about, so I will not address armies w/in national borders) somebody, somewhere is being threatened. The line between "defense" and "offense" is not clearcut. For example let's assume that Venezuela, Cuba and Brazil are willing allies of China, and that China has a large naval base in Cuba, an airbase in Venezuela, an army base in Brazil, and radar installations in Mexico and Cuba for good measure. Are they defending their allies, threatening the USA or both?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 1:11 PM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Causal- not sure if you can hear ME. but when a military power is outside of national borders, somebody, somewhere is being threatened. The line between "defense" and "offense" is not clearcut. For example let's assume that Venezuela, Cuba and Brazil are willing allies of China, and that China has a large naval base in Cuba, an airbase in Venezuela, an army base in Brazil, and radar installations in Mexico and Cuba for good measure. Are they defending their allies, threatening the USA or both?

If it's the case, as you say, that the line between offense and defense is not clear cut, than what justifies you in saying that anytime a military unit leaves the borders of its home nation, it is threatening someone? Seems like it can't be that muddled, if its also the case that every military deployment is a threat. Seems like things would have to be a deal clearer for you to make that assertion so confidently. Perhaps what you really think is something closer to the notion that there is no truly non-offensive use of the military?

________________________________________________________________________
- Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets
- Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

Vote for Firefly! http://richlabonte.net/tvvote/index.html

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 1:54 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
For example let's assume that Venezuela, Cuba and Brazil are willing allies of China, and that China has a large naval base in Cuba, an airbase in Venezuela, an army base in Brazil, and radar installations in Mexico and Cuba for good measure. Are they defending their allies, threatening the USA or both?

Depends on the situation. Is the US threatening to attack or invade Venezuela, Cuba, or Brazil at the time of your example? Are Venezuelan, Brazilian, and Chinese troops massing on the borders of Guyana, Suriname, and French Guiana? Are Chinese patrol boats based in Cuba stopping cruise ships passing between Cuba and Haiti? Without a frame of reference it's impossible to analyse the situation.

For example, American troops in Europe from the '50s to the '90s were there to defend against the Soviet Union, who had made it pretty clear they'd like to add the rest of the continent to the collective. In the '90s and early '00s they were part of NATO and UN peacekeeping missions in Kosovo, Macedonia, etc. Being NATO and the UN's major muscle, forward basing to perform NATO and UN missions was a lot more logical than having to deploy forces from the continental US every time someone needs peacekeepers. Admittedly, the unpopularity of the Iraq war has made it less likely we'd be asked to do normal peacekeeping any time soon, but if something serious enough to un-deadlock the UN flares up, I'd bet we get a call.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, April 27, 2007 2:28 PM

FREDGIBLET

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Admittedly, the unpopularity of the Iraq war has made it less likely we'd be asked to do normal peacekeeping any time soon

Hmmmm...I guess some good has come from this after all!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 3:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Are they defending their allies, threatening the USA or both?-Signy
Depends on the situation-Geezer

Okay, but this thread started out with anti-Americanism by people, not a cool-headed military assessment. So how do you suppose the American population would look at being ringed by Chinese forces? I think that it would create strong anti-Chinese sentiment.

Or how about American missiles in the Czech Republic. I suppose you'd probably argue that they're for "defensive" reasons and shouldn't be feared, but look at the crisis that was inspired by Russian missiles in Cuba. Same argument?

Geezer, I think you're demonstrating exactly why it is that so many people hate America. It seems constitutionally impossible for Americans to see anyone but themseleves and their own interests and viewpoints. Everything we do is "justified" by our puffed up view of ourselves as "peacekeppers" and "protectors" of the world. Nobody should fear us -despite the fact that we've outright invaded more nations than the USSR! We have positioned our troops, ships, planes, and prisons everywhere- Panama, Spain, Iceland, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Japan, Turkey, Italy www.libsci.sc.edu/bob/class/clis734/webguides/milbase.htm
and Africa:
www.afrol.com/articles/14269

As the intro the first link says The United States Military has maintained a strong presence throughout the world for decades, in times of war as well as in times of peace. Today, United States military personnel are stationed throughout this country and around the world

BTW, I wanted to answer your question about us maintaining a base where we were asked to leave by the government. We do. I'm going to leave it to you as an exercise in mental flexibility to figure out where that is.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 4:07 AM

You know it really gets my blood boiling when people talk trash about America. I'm proud to be an American and proud of what this country represents.

I have an idea, if all the rest of world hates us sooo much why don't they stop cashing our foreign aid checks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 4:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Ozzy- How many nations has the United States invaded in the last 100 years?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 4:11 AM

What are you getting at?

That we're war mongers?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 4:16 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, how many?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 4:23 AM

You know I don't come to the Firefly forums to debate politics.

But...

We've invaded quite a few countries.
Just to name a few....Germany, to stop Hitler from dominating the world....oh and stopping him from killing every Jew on the planet was just a plus.

Japan but hey they started it.

Vietnam, I gotta say maybe we should have left that one alone.

Korea, we should have followed through and finished what we started there.

Afganistan, I'm sure we have liberals screaming that this new invasion is illegal and we should have never gone to either Afganistan or Iraq. Let me just say that I'm glad we're fighting the enemy across the sea instead of in this country.
While we might not have found WMD's in Iraq saying it wasn't a threat is just incorrect.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 4:25 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

You missed a few. Google is your friend.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 4:44 AM

I said to name a few.
Would you like a complete list, sorry not gonna waste my saturday looking it all up and then posting it for you, I have some war mongering paintball to play soon.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 4:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ozzysun:

While we might not have found WMD's in Iraq saying it wasn't a threat is just incorrect.

Iraq WAS a threat...but no more so than Iran, Syria, Korea, China, Venezuela....should we invade every country that poses a marginal threat?
I'm always a little sad to see a Browncoat buy into the felgercarb...but not all of us have time to realistically assess what's going on.
Oh well.

Make the world 'America' Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 4:57 AM

Was Iraq a huge threat?....Maybe, I'm sure a few terrorists got their start there.
That being said I'm all for putting a stop to dictators that do what they did to the Kurds for example.
I'm all for putting a stop to dictators that have a policy of taking people for supposed crimes and torturing them. I'm not talking putting underwear on someones head or sleep deprivation, I'm talking about making a father watch while his wife and daughters are repeadetely raped in front oh him. Or cutting off his hand till he tells you what he wants to know. If you talk to most of the troops in Iraq right now you'll find out that the Iraqi people like us alot, and that the only problems in Iraq are a few insurgents from Iran/Syria etc. When my brother left for Iraq he was steadfastedly opposed to the war, after just 1 month there his opinion was changed. The affection that the Iraqi's showed our soldiers touched his heart so. I know the "old" WMD's we found in Iraq don't count, but I still think Saddam should have been taken out.
That being said I think theres alot more countrys out there that have terrible dictators but we can't get them all at once.

Irregardless of how America is looked upon by certain countrys in the world I truly think we live in the best country in the world. I can walk the streets and not worry about the violence that goes on in most of the world. I can send my kids out to play and know that their not going to be killed by some extremist that is planning on killing innocents in the name of his god.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:09 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

So while Ozzy comes up with the complete answer, I'm going to comment on some of the points that lack of time prevented earlier:

CAUSAL-

Quote:
If it's the case, as you say, that the line between offense and defense is not clear cut, than what justifies you in saying that anytime a military unit leaves the borders of its home nation, it is threatening someone?

Because all those guns, tanks, missiles, shells, bombs, planes, and ships aren't exactly candy-stores. And since we're talking about how people- not governments or militaries- respond to our presence, my contention is that it's impossible for a population to ignore the fact that it may have several hundred thousand hostile troops near its border, all chock-o-block full or weaponry, no matter that we say its a forward defensive posture.

Quote:
Well, I hate to get all technical on you, but I'm not sure that I agree that that is what military power is by definition. That may be part of the definition, or one of the uses to which military power is put, but that's not the sum total of what military power is for. Consider the use the French put their military power to from 1914 to 1918: they used it to defend their nation against the agression of Germany.

Which is why I restricted my point to militaries outside of their borders

Quote:
Or the use to which military force was put by the Allies in the Second World War: stopping fascist states (one of which was exterminating millions of people). My point is not that the use of military force is always noble-just that it isn't always malicious, as you seem to suggest.

I didn't say or mean it was always malicious. But the Allied forces did threaten the Axis forces and nations. Militaries are, by definition, always about force and threat. Sometimes that use of force is justified, as in the defense of Europe and the UK. But is still force.
Also, I wanted to get back to the "rank ignorance" thing. It extends to more than just being unaware of other cultures and viewpoints. about half of the people in the USA are functionally illiterate. (I noticed that many English-speaking nations have literacy problems. It may be the difficulty of English spelling.) and we're way behind in science and math.

---------------
FREM- Corporate Personhood. I agree. That is the poison that is eating this nation away.
----------------------------
FINN

Quote:
I can remember sitting in a café in London next to a French woman who began to tell me what she thought about Americans, unaware evidently that I was one. She told me that Americans were dogs and they should all be treated like dogs. And as she said it she had one of those smirks that people get when they think they’ve said something clever and stylish. She really thought she was something because of what she had to say about Americans, but in reality, all she was doing was towing the Nazi line. And as she sat there, so proud of herself for her hatred, I thought to myself, thank god America is a strong nation, because if we weren’t, what would people like this woman do to us if she was in power?

Which is different from us and our "Freedom Fries" how? Also, anti-Americanism is not "Nazism". I can think of about 20 poitns of difference right offhand, so either she said more than you reported or you're amking a very biased connection. All I can say is: We reap what we sow. And knowing (even unconsciously) what we've sown we've every reason to be paranoid about other people in power.
-----------------------------
I think DTH said it best.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:12 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Ozzy- go paintball. That's what you're good for.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:13 AM

Yes the US has invaded many countries in the last 100 years, so what? How many of those countries remained independent or became independent with free governments follow US invasion?

Korea? Result of US invasions/occupation: South Korea is a free prosperous democratic nation, unlike North Korea, that the US was unsuccessful in holding, which remains an oppressive Stalinist state with a starving population.

Germany? Result of US invasions/occupation: West Germany was a free prosperous democratic nation, unlike East Germany (that went to the Soviets), until 1990 reunification, which was an oppressive Stalinist state.

Japan? Result of US invasions/occupation: Japan is a free prosperous democratic nation.

Vietnam? US failed to occupy. The US completely cut off all assistance to the region. Vietnam continues to be an oppressive regime.

Afghanistan/Iraq? Result of US invasions/occupation: Both countries have free democratic governments and increasingly prosperous economies. Insurgencies remain a problem in both cases. Whether these countries become free and prosperous probably depends a lot on how long the US is willing to provide assistance them.

There are others, but none of them were every acquired, unlike the Soviets.

Let’s look at some of the countries that the USSR invaded or acquired though military action in the last 100 years. All of these countries lost their independent governments, none of them could have been called free or prosperous and some of them lost or almost lost their cultural identity to Soviet oppression. None of them found their independence until the 1989 collapse of the Soviet Empire. None of them have achieved the liberty or prosperity of Japan, Germany or even South Korea. This does not include about a dozen or so others which the USSR toppled using clandestine operations.

Aremenia
Azerbaijan
Byelorussian
Estonian
Kazakhstan
Georgian
Latvian
Lithuanian
Moldavian
Ukraine

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Ozzysun:
Was Iraq a huge threat?....Maybe,

Nope. Not to us. More to their own peeps, yeah.

Quote:
I'm sure a few terrorists got their start there.

Nope. Saddam had little use for them.

Quote:

That being said I'm all for putting a stop to dictators that do what they did to the Kurds for example.

I'd like 'em all put on ice, but all-out invasion is silly, unless you're in a position to reap a profit from it...

Quote:

I'm all for putting a stop to dictators that have a policy of taking people for supposed crimes and torturing them. I'm not talking putting underwear on someones head or sleep deprivation, I'm talking about making a father watch while his wife(etc.)

He was a creep and then some, we get that, but look at other places in the world; Iraq was just not that pressing- look at Darfur for example!

Quote:
If you talk to most of the troops in Iraq right now you'll find out that the Iraqi people like us alot,

And if you talk to Iraqui PEEPS right now you'll find MANY long for the relatively peaceful days of Saddam.

Quote:
When my brother left for Iraq he was steadfastedly opposed to the war, after just 1 month there his opinion was changed.

I'm truly glad he thinks we're making a positive contribution to world peace, there are positive aspects to the Iraqi invasion...I can't think of MANY right this moment...well, Sadam's gone, I guess...

Quote:

That being said I think theres alot more countrys out there that have terrible dictators but we can't get them all at once.

So, we take 'em out in order of how much profit we can make off 'em? That seem kinda heartless...

Quote:

Irregardless of how America is looked upon by certain countrys in the world I truly think we live in the best country in the world. I can walk the streets and not worry about the violence that goes on in most of the world. I can send my kids out to play and know that their not going to be killed by some extremist that is planning on killing innocents in the name of his god.

Had to end it with a patriotic speech, eh? Like there's peeps here that hate their country or something? Justifying something to yourself? Jeeze, we KNOW we have it good (GREAT) here compared to Africa or the Middle East.

The answerman Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Which is different from us and our "Freedom Fries" how? Also, anti-Americanism is not "Nazism".

To the extent that some use it to hate an entire ethnic (or national) group of people, it shares some similarities. She reminded me of Nazis talking about Jews. That was my impression, yes.

And you can't tell the difference between calling an entire national group “dogs” and renaming a fried vegetable? That’s funny.

Or sad, now that I think about it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:24 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Yes, there are others: Panama, Grenada, Puerto Rico, Phillipines, the various island protectorates that we acquired in WWII, and the miscellaneous banana republics that we supported, not counting the times we sent in small numbers of troops and agents to internally interfere with democractic processes abroad.
www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/blum.htm

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Yes the US has invaded many countries in the last 100 years, so what? How many of those countries remained independent or became independent with free governments follow US invasion?

What about Nicaragua? Panama? Your case sounds good, Finn, but our invasions don't always end up rosy. Besides, invasions are becoming more and more motivated by whims as opposed to long term planning, but that's the corporate way, satisfy your immediate superior above all else. Even reason.

Flower child Chrisisall

EDIT: sorry, we didn't invade Nicaragua, we just illegally funded the bad guys- my bad.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:31 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
To the extent that some use it to hate an entire ethnic (or national) group of people, it shares some similarities. She reminded me of Nazis talking about Jews. That was my impression, yes. And you can't tell the difference between calling an entire national group “dogs” and renaming a fried vegetable? That’s funny.Or sad, now that I think about it.

Okay then, how about "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", George Will's comment on retreat as "an exercise for which France has often refined its savoir-faire since 1870", "Iraq first, France next!", and "First Iraq, then Chirac!". The fact that you don't acknowledge our strong anti-French sentiment is intellectually dishonest at best, and yet another example why people hate Americans: our rather strong aversion to honest self-examination. Or maybe I should just call it what it is: hypocracy.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
What about Nicaragua? Panama? Your case sounds good, Finn, but our invasions don't always end up rosy. Besides, invasions are becoming more and more motivated by whims as opposed to long term planning, but that's the corporate way, satisfy your immediate superior above all else. Even reason.

The US didn’t invade Nicaragua. And what about Panama? Noriega suspended democratic elections in Panama and declared war on the US threatening the US interest including thousands of US citizens and the Canal which was, by treaty, neutral. The US returned free elections to Panama, and the US never occupied Panama, only the Canal, and it wouldn’t have done that if Panama hadn’t have declared war on the US. Invasions never end up rosy, Chris. That’s not my point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:52 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
So how do you suppose the American population would look at being ringed by Chinese forces? I think that it would create strong anti-Chinese sentiment.

Not if the Chinese were helping protect us from the Venezualans. It really does depend on the frame of reference.

Quote:
Geezer, I think you're demonstrating exactly why it is that so many people hate America. It seems constitutionally impossible for Americans to see anyone but themseleves and their own interests and viewpoints.

Where did I say that? I said that opinion should be based on the situation, not just "Oh, gosh, there's troops overseas, aren't we evil?"

Quote:
Nobody should fear us -despite the fact that we've outright invaded more nations than the USSR!

So the invasion of France in WWII was a bad thing? Frame of reference, SignyM.

Quote:
We have positioned our troops, ships, planes, and prisons everywhere- Panama, Spain, Iceland, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Japan, Turkey, Italy and Africa

So? The Soviet Union did the same thing, but they'd take over the entire country first. Which would you prefer? Frame of reference.

Quote:
BTW, I wanted to answer your question about us maintaining a base where we were asked to leave by the government. We do. I'm going to leave it to you as an exercise in mental flexibility to figure out where that is.

You got nothin', huh? Khyron came up with Cuba in a few minutes. Sorry, if you can't defend your own assertions, I'm sure not going to do it for you.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Okay then, how about "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", George Will's comment on retreat as "an exercise for which France has often refined its savoir-faire since 1870", "Iraq first, France next!", and "First Iraq, then Chirac!". The fact that you don't acknowledge our strong anti-French sentiment is intellectually dishonest at best, and yet another example why people hate Americans: our rather strong aversion to honest self-examination. Or maybe I should just call it what it is: hypocracy.

I don’t use that kind of language when speaking about the French, and I don’t condone it. I’m a little sick of haters like you accusing me of doing what I don’t do, because you decided that since you found a few Americans who aren’t completely perfect and angelic, that means I’m an asshole for being an American. Well, you can take your bigoted bullshit and shove it in your ear, Siggy. You're, evidently, no different then that woman I spoke with in London.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:55 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Manuel Antonio Noriega Moreno (born February 11, 1938) is a Panamanian general, and was the de facto leader and military dictator of Panama from 1983 to 1989, despite never being the official President of Panama. He was initially a strong ally of the United States and worked for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) from the late 1950s to 1986 . By the late 1980s, relations had turned extremely tense between Noriega and the United States government, and in 1989 the general was overthrown and captured in the United States invasion of Panama....

In October 1984, Noriega allowed the first presidential elections in 16 years. When the initial results showed former president Arnulfo Arias on his way to a landslide victory, Noriega halted the count. After brazenly manipulating the results, the government announced that the PRD's candidate, Nicolás Ardito Barletta, had won by a slim margin of 1,713 votes. Independent estimates suggested that Arias would have won by as many as 50,000 votes had the election been conducted fairly. Barletta, who later became known as "Fraudito", was a former student of United States Secretary of State George Schultz at the University of Chicago, home of the Chicago Boys (los muchachos de Chicago)...

Díaz Herrera, a former member of Noriega's inner circle, told Panama's main opposition newspaper, La Prensa, that Noriega was behind Spadafora's murder and many other killings as well. Nonetheless, he retained U.S. support until February 5, 1988...

The U.S. imposed harsh economic sanctions, and in the months that followed; a tense standoff went on between the U.S. military forces (stationed in the canal area) and Noriega's troops. The U.S. forces conducted regular maneuvers and operations, which some feel were a violation of the Panama Canal Treaty.[citation needed] On the other hand, Noriega's forces engaged in routine harassment of U.S. troops and civilians. On December 15, 1989, the PRD-dominated legislature declared war on the United States...

In response, U.S. President George H.W. Bush launched an invasion of Panama, though this military action had obviously been planned out months in advance. This move was thought by some critics to be ironic since, during his tenure as Director of the CIA, Bush had personally arranged annual payments to Noriega in the initial amount of $110,000

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_Noriega

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 6:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
Invasions never end up rosy, Chris. That’s not my point.

Okay, dumb word choice on my part...I think the main place we don't see eye-to-eye here is that a level of internal conflict of intrest and/or downright corruption will be a part of every major military decision from the top...and the difficulties associated with achieving the percieved objective that have to be overcome ("We go with the army we have...") are both givens to you (Am I right- don't wanna put words in your mouth), while I am infuriated that this is all played like some grand poker game, loaded with cards up the sleeve, and a hogleg in the boot just in case.

It may just be a case of you being the realist, and me being the naieve one...I have to think more on this....

Not always right Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 6:07 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Because all those guns, tanks, missiles, shells, bombs, planes, and ships aren't exactly candy-stores. And since we're talking about how people- not governments or militaries- respond to our presence, my contention is that it's impossible for a population to ignore the fact that it may have several hundred thousand hostile troops near its border, all chock-o-block full or weaponry, no matter that we say its a forward defensive posture.

Aside from Iraq and Afghanistan, there are about 180,000 civilian and uniformed military employees outside the US, so "several hundred thousand" is pretty much impossible. I'd also question the use of the word "hostile". Are we planning on taking over Germany, Japan, South Korea, Belgium, England, Kuwait, etc.? We're generally there due to treaty obligations.

Quote:
about half of the people in the USA are functionally illiterate. (I noticed that many English-speaking nations have literacy problems. It may be the difficulty of English spelling.) and we're way behind in science and math.

Most of us, however, know to capitalize the first word in a sentence.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 6:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
This move was thought by some critics to be ironic since, during his tenure as Director of the CIA, Bush had personally arranged annual payments to Noriega in the initial amount of $110,000

Yeah, he was our boy...until he wasn't.

But could this all be a game that MUST be played?
Just askin', not turnin' to the Dark Side or anything...
Really, is it even possible to always do the right thing in a world this complicated?

Posing the question Chrisisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 6:14 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Not if the Chinese were helping protect us from the Venezualans. It really does depend on the frame of reference.

Um... as I recall (and you do not) I posited that Venzuela, Cuba, and Brazil were willing allies of the Chinese. Since you're misleading the discussion, let me also specify that we're not willing allies of the Chinese. Now, having re-stated the scenario to bring it back to where I started, would most Americans not consider being ringed by Chinese forces with some alarm?

Quote:
Where did I say that? I said that opinion should be based on the situation, not just "Oh, gosh, there's troops overseas, aren't we evil?

I'm actually trying to place this in context, but as per your previous example you seem to be avoiding it.

Quote:
So the invasion of France in WWII was a bad thing? Frame of reference, SignyM.

There were many more invasions than what occurred in WWII. But if you narrow your vision to exclude the ones that you're less comfortable with, then of course you'll never understand what people might be responding to because you refuse to look. Defensiveness and self-justification inhibit understanding.

Quote:
You got nothin', huh? Khyron came up with Cuba in a few minutes. Sorry, if you can't defend your own assertions, I'm sure not going to do it for you.

No, I was thinking of Cuba, I just hadn't read the thread far back enough to see Khyron's post. But I have to say Geezer that if you're feeling it necessary to take cheap shots then you must be feeling uncomfortable.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 6:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
It may just be a case of you being the realist, and me being the naieve one...I have to think more on this....

Well, I wouldn’t use the word naïve, I would use the word idealist, if possible. And yes, it is likely that we aren’t going to see eye-to-eye on all of this, but that’s allowed. I’m of the mind to believe that you need both the realists and the idealists to form a complete strategic picture. Sometimes there is a 38th parallel that you don’t want to cross, and people like me sometimes need reminding of that.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 6:21 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

FINN: Let's say that we both agree that generically name-calling other nationalities is a bad thing and get to the substance of the discusison, which is whether or not other peoples are justified in hating or being afraid of America.

I had listed a number of USA invasions of other nations, outside of the context of WWI, WWII,and Korea. I could come up with probbaly tne times that number of the instances in which the USA provided troops, agents, and funding to depose democratically-elected governments. Perhaps we should look at one or two of thsoe in detail, and then you can tell me how it was justified.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 6:22 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Okay then, how about "cheese-eating surrender monkeys", George Will's comment on retreat as "an exercise for which France has often refined its savoir-faire since 1870", "Iraq first, France next!", and "First Iraq, then Chirac!".

SignyM. Even the French don't like the French.

Quote:
PARIS (Reuters) - The French dislike themselves even more than the Americans dislike them, according to an opinion poll published on Friday.

The survey of six nations, carried out for the International Herald Tribune daily and France 24 TV station, said 44 percent of French people thought badly of themselves against 38 percent of U.S. respondents who had a negative view of the French.

Only 14 percent of Germans, 25 percent of Italians, 29 percent of Spaniards and 33 percent of Britons had a negative view of the French, according to the Harris/Novatris poll, which questioned more than 1,000 people in each country.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUKL2626428720070427

And if only 38% of Americans have a negative view of France, we don't all, or even mostly, hate them, do we? Sorry to bust your bubble of hatred. (Not really)

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 6:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I had listed a number of USA invasions of other nations, outside of the context of WWI, WWII,and Korea. I could come up with probbaly tne times that number of the instances in which the USA provided troops, agents, and funding to depose democratically-elected governments. Perhaps we should look at one or two of thsoe in detail, and then you can tell me how it was justified.

I’m sure you would enjoy that since cherry-picking the details and hiding behind spurious arguments of policy is how anti-Americanism is justified, and in reality how all forms of bigotry are justified. But disagreeing with a specific American action, individual or policy is not anti-Americanism. I disagree with many specific American actions, individuals and policies. No matter how much someone disagrees with certain American actions, a fair minded person would probably find many America actions that they agreed with. So you’re proposal doesn’t serve the debate at all.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 6:37 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
Aside from Iraq and Afghanistan, there are about 180,000 civilian and uniformed military employees outside the US, so "several hundred thousand" is pretty much impossible. I'd also question the use of the word "hostile". Are we planning on taking over Germany, Japan, South Korea, Belgium, England, Kuwait, etc.?

Aside from Iraq and Afghanistan... that's a pretty big exception Geezer, and I'm not willing to "except" it because it's a perfect example of why the USA is feared and hated. In addition to all the usual susepcts - Iraq, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Pakistan, Djibouti - the USA also has military installations in Uzbekistan and Kyrgystan, and perhaps in Tajikistan and Georgia as well. This is not exactly un-noticed by Russia, China, and the rest of Asia, since our forces ring Russia and China.

www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF10Ak01.html

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 6:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer- You're just being snide.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 6:49 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I’m sure you would enjoy that since cherry-picking the details and hiding behind spurious arguments of policy is how anti-Americanism is justified, and in reality how all forms of bigotry are justified. But disagreeing with a specific American action, individual or policy is not anti-Americanism. I disagree with many specific American actions, individuals and policies. No matter how much someone disagrees with certain American actions, a fair minded person would probably find many America actions that they agreed with. So you’re proposal doesn’t serve the debate at all.

No, you just don't like the fact that someone is actually debating. I don't cherry-pick, Finn. And I'm definitely not justifying bigotry. I intend to look at substantive facts.

For example, I can fully understand other nations' resentment of our large military presence in the Middle East, which has prevented other nations from establishing concessions, contracts, pipelines, and ports with oil producers. In addition, we have a fairly long history of interfering in South and Central America, very much to the detriment of the people. If they hate us there's a lot of reasons why. And I can understand many people reacting with fear towards our invasion of Iraq and IMHO nothing breeds hatred like fear.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 6:55 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Um... as I recall (and you do not) I posited that Venzuela, Cuba, and Brazil were willing allies of the Chinese. Since you're misleading the discussion, let me also specify that we're not willing allies of the Chinese. Now, having re-stated the scenario to bring it back to where I started, would most Americans not consider being ringed by Chinese forces with some alarm?

Well, now that you've placed it in that frame of reference, I would say that, despite the fact that Chinese troops in Venezula, Brazil, and Cuba wouldn't actually "ring" the US, we might view that with some alarm. I'm still not sure how this might apply to French anti-Americanism, but lead on.

Quote:
"Where did I say that? I said that opinion should be based on the situation, not just "Oh, gosh, there's troops overseas, aren't we evil?"" I'm actually trying to place this in context, but as per your previous example you seem to be avoiding it.

Far from it. All your posts have pretty much said that any troops overseas are an act of aggression, and it doesn't matter if that aggression is justified by events.

Quote:
"So the invasion of France in WWII was a bad thing? Frame of reference, SignyM."
There were many more invasions than what occurred in WWII. But if you narrow your vision to exclude the ones that you're less comfortable with, then of course you'll never understand what people might be responding to because you refuse to look.

What Allied invasions during WWII do you think I'd be uncomfortable with? Which ones are you uncomfortable with?

Quote:
No, I was thinking of Cuba, I just hadn't read the thread far back enough to see Khyron's post. But I have to say Geezer that if you're feeling it necessary to take cheap shots then you must be feeling uncomfortable.

Hardly a cheap shot. You made a statement then tried to finesse your way out of backing it up. I called you on it. You've left a lot of questions unanswered in this thread.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 7:05 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 7:05 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
I'm still not sure how this might apply to French anti-Americanism, but lead on.

I'm just pointing out that we've established a similar situation with Russia and China and that we pretty much occupy the Middle East, and this would be viewed with some resentment and alarm by those nations and others in the region. I linked Asia Times, which should give you some indication of how we're viewed there and why.

Quote:
Far from it. All your posts have pretty much said that any troops overseas are an act of aggression, and it doesn't matter if that aggression is justified by events.

Any troops overseas are an act of aggression against somebody. Sometimes it's justified sometimes it's not. But I've said that already- with examples (the Axis powers)- so I'm not going to repeat it after this.

Quote:
What Allied invasions during WWII do you think I'd be uncomfortable with? Which ones are you uncomfortable with?

You misread, or I misphrased. Let me re-phrase my comment: The United States has invaded many other nations besides the invasions that were associated with WWII. But you keep referencing WWII (and for the sake of completeness since I don't want to get into the kind of quibbly argument that you specialize in: Korea and Vietnam) and seem unwilling to look beyond them. In other words, you seem unwilling to discuss some of our actions in detail because they appear to make you uncomfortable, possibly because even YOU think they were unjustified.

Quote:
You made a statement then tried to finesse your way out of backing it up. I called you on it.

First of all I didn't make a statement, YOU made the challenge. And yes, I was thinking of Guantanamo. But since you think you're a mind reader: QUICK GEEZER! Tell me what I'm thinking!

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 7:44 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No, you just don't like the fact that someone is actually debating. I don't cherry-pick, Finn. And I'm definitely not justifying bigotry. I intend to look at substantive facts.

For example, I can fully understand other nations' resentment of our large military presence in the Middle East, which has prevented other nations from establishing concessions, contracts, pipelines, and ports with oil producers. In addition, we have a fairly long history of interfering in South and Central America, very much to the detriment of the people. If they hate us there's a lot of reasons why. And I can understand many people reacting with fear towards our invasion of Iraq and IMHO nothing breeds hatred like fear.

It’s a typical one-sided argument, cherry picking details and hiding behind policy. What you want to discuss are the specific American actions that you believe have contributed to hating America. There are many American actions that have adverse affects on US image in some localized region, but that’s the case with all countries. So how does the US get single out? France for instance has many in Africa that disagree with its many military incursions, does this justify hating the French? There are many actions that the US has taken that should be considered as positive influences. The US fought to defend Muslim populations in the Balkans? The US provides the international security needed to maintain the Neutrality Treaty. The US has brought considerable prosperity and freedom to many nations. In order to understand Anti-Americanism, where it draws from American action, you must be willing to examine all of it, not just what you believe has contributed to fearing America. And the sum total of Ameica’s influence on the world, even today, is far more positive then negative. A great deal of anti-Americanism draws, not on fearing America, but on not fearing America. Anti-US propaganda is often disseminated by the oppressive governments of many nations, in order to misdirected anger towards the policies of the local government towards the US. This occurs because the people in those countries have no reason to fear the US, but every reason to fear their own government. Much of it arises from envy; this is particularly the case in Europe. That’s also another facet you’ll ignore. Anti-Americanism is often drawn from shallow or misguided understanding of the issues and broad generalizations. As is already clear from this discussion so far. Anti-Americanism is a more complex phenomenon than you appear prepared to discuss.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 7:54 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
It’s a typical one-sided argument, cherry picking details and hiding behind policy. What you want to discuss are the specific American actions that you believe have contributed to hating America. There are many American actions that have adverse affects on US image in some localized region, but that’s the case with all countries. So how does the US get single out

Because we spend more money on the military than the rest of the world combined. Because we have over 800 military installations throughtout the world Because we ring China and Russia. Because we occupy the MIddle East. Because we invaded Iraq and made a complete effing mess of it. Because we've interfered in just about every nation in Central and South Amercia, the Western Pacific, SE Asia and Indonesia in the recent past. Because we nuked two cities. Because we ARE the biggest and most powerful. And what I think scares people the most: Because we seem to think that every action is justified no matter how blatantly self serving- and we have the power to do it
---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 8:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ozzy- go paintball. That's what you're good for.

Let me pour you some more Koolaid.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, April 28, 2007 8:51 AM