Exploring Anti-Americanism by Khyron

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
I think I can explain the anti-Americanism of the western democracies in two words: Iraq. Vietnam.

But Vietnam was 30 years ago. If the Soviet Union is no longer an issue, how can Vietnam be?

Quote:
And BTW- I didn't say that deploying troops is an "act of aggression",[/quote

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Any troops overseas are an act of aggression against somebody.

Okaaay.

Quote:
...so before you put those words into my mouth and then try to argue that argument, let me reiterate that my point is they would be perceived as a threat by the targeted population.

You keep reiterating this point, but provide no evidence to back it up. Do the Russians or Chinese citizens have more anti-American bias than the French or Germans? If your point is valid, you should be able to show that this is so. Otherwise you're just showing your own bias. Got any facts?

Quote:
However, not all American invasions and interventions are justified either.

Hey, I said that too. Great minds think alike. Now compare and contrast against interventions by other countries beginning, say, 1950. Don't forget Soviet and Cuban aid to insurgencies in Africa and South America, and Chinese aid in the invasions of South Korea, South Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.

Quote:
But the Soviet Union is not in power today.

This was in response to your "...we've outright invaded more nations than the USSR!" comment. I was contrasting the results of those invasions, and it's still a valid contrast, regardless of the state of the USSR. Please keep things in their original context.

Quote:
...if another nation had the power we do, had the military footprint that we do, and did what we're doing THEY would be feared and hated.

The only other two nations who might have ended up with the power and military footprint we now have would have been Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. I'll admit that in that case no one would express anti-Nazi or anti-Soviet sentiments (more than once, anyway) but I suspect that, with all the mistakes and misjudgements the US has made, the world is better off with us instead of them.

I expect Brian Keith, playing Teddy Roosevelt in the movie "The Wind and the Lion", stated the truth of it.

"We have no true friends - only enemies. Other countries may grow to respect us, even fear us, but they will never truly love us. For we have to much audacity and can be a little blind and reckless."

Audacious, a little blind and reckless, maybe. Hateful and evil, I don't think so.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:06 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Re-read my post. I edited it before you replied.

There are two things that support current anti-Americanism. The first is that we are in power. What we do or did is more pertinent by that fact. That Russia invaded Hungary or Afghanistan perhaps concerns Hungarians or Afghanis currently, but is not factored into predictions because Russia is not an ongoing concern. So people will look to our past more than the past of ... say,.. Estonia... because it is more important to them to figure out what we'll do.

The second is our history of intervention. Iraq is a potent example. If it were a unique example, we might get a "pass". but it's not.

We're the eqiuvalent of an elephant in schoolyard. It's not allowable for us to be "reckless". If we are, we will pay the price of cumulative suspicion and hosility.

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

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

Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:10 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SignyM,

I have to say you've got the patience of a saint, the stamina of a tri-athlete and the intellect of an Einstein. Since your argument was abundantly clear to me waaayyyy back at the beginning I don't think it's you.

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

Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:43 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
There are two things that support current anti-Americanism. The first is that we are in power. What we do or did is more pertinent by that fact.

So no matter what we do, people aren't going to like us just because we ended up with the power. That's just chance, as much as anything else. You'd think people might consider the other contenders for that power before they judge too harshly, but that's probably expecting too much.

Quote:
The second is our history of intervention. Iraq is a potent example. If it were a unique example, we might get a "pass". but it's not.

But lots of countries have a history of intervention. China and Cuba come to mind in recent times. France and Great Britan had massive colonial empires up till the 1950s. Must just be the power part.

So what it really boils down to is that people don't like us because we came out on top. There's a word for that. I'm thinking either jealousy or envy, but I'm not sure which.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:45 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
SignyM,

I have to say you've got the patience of a saint, the stamina of a tri-athlete and the intellect of an Einstein. Since your argument was abundantly clear to me waaayyyy back at the beginning I don't think it's you.

Preaching to the choir is always easy. Trying to convert us apostates is the problem.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, April 28, 2007 12:54 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

More flame-baiting.

Now since I didn't insult you, or Finn or anyone else, why would you insert an insult here? Oh, that's right. That's what you do.

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

Saturday, April 28, 2007 1:07 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Oz, here's a novel idea, how bout we stop *sending* those checks - the resta the world got on without us, they can manage without us just fine or maybe even better, considering the scum we finance, you know, guys like Saddam, The Shah, Noriega, Papa Doc Duvalier, Pinochet, Osama Bin Laden, and a whole collective of real dickheads we propped up to support our interests at the expense of their own people, gee, that's not likely to piss anyone off now, is it ?

As for army bases where they ain't wanted, ask the Okinawans how they feel about our base, and our troops, given their behavior.

We ain't the worlds police, and we sure as hell ain't their mommy, and it's about time we quit trying to be... and as for so-called 'threats' ?

When someone lands an invasion force on our shores with intent to occupy and control, then maybe, maybe, *IF* they even make it to the nearest walmart before we chop em to bits, I might consider them a threat.

Mostly they're just bullshit boogymen of the Emmanuel Goldstein stripe, in order to scare us into handing over our money and rights, something we've done too much of already.

Of course, fanatic idealism trumps logic and reason every time, so I don't expect it'll do any good, but there you have it.

And FYI - might not be able to discuss so much for a lil while, my laptop gave it's all this morning with a lot of heat and smoke, and found it's way to valhalla, so imma doin this on a teeny tiny little IBM thinkpad that shoulda been scrapped many a year ago, and it's NOT easy, so dun expect much, ok?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

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

Saturday, April 28, 2007 1:17 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

SignyM,

I was thinking about expressed v silent anti-Americanism.

If the US should ever need help, to whom would it turn? Let's say China decided to call in it's debt* and the US economy took a dive. Who would help out? Or would you see anti-Americanism in full force as the countries who previously felt inhibited suddenly faced no more repercussions?

My sense is that the US would be swarmed - figuratively speaking - by countries getting in whatever licks they could.

I think that would be the prediction of most people. And that is a tacit acknowledgement that the US isn't envied. B/c if the US were to suddenly become, say, destitute, there would be no more envy and so no more anti-Americanism.

* Not that it's doing that, my understanding is the Chinese are actively buying things w/ US dollars as a way to dump dollars

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

Saturday, April 28, 2007 1:25 PM

SIGNYM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
So what it really boils down to is that people don't like us because we came out on top. There's a word for that. I'm thinking either jealousy or envy, but I'm not sure which.

GAWD Geezer, you ARE thick! The word is fear.

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

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

Saturday, April 28, 2007 1:42 PM

Fear is a vast oversimplification. You might be able to make the case that some countries have reason to fear us. Syria, North Korea, Iran maybe. But even in those cases, I don’t think fear is as big as motivator as you're making it out to be. Even after Iraq and Afghanistan most countries that pose a threat to the US don’t really expect to be invaded by the US. But most countries don’t pose a threat, like France which has one of the largest anti-American populations? French people don’t fear the US. Neither do Germans or Canadians or the Brits or the Irish. And you will find considerable anti-Americanism in all of these countries. Envy is a better explanation.

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 1:48 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

The US has imposed its economic agenda all around the globe - including on France, Germany, the UK and Canada. While the US doesn't threaten them in the traditional military sense (at present)*, there is anger that isn't expressed. It's not envy.

* Of course the US is planning to deploy its anti-missile 'shield' around the globe, which many countries feel will MAKE them into nuclear targets through an action not of their choice. So, yes, the US is generating military fear in W Europe.

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

Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:00 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
The US has imposed its economic agenda all around the globe - including on France, Germany, the UK and Canada. While the US doesn't threaten them in the traditional military sense (at present)*, there is anger that isn't expressed. It's not envy.

Yeah, I don’t think so. I don’t see the US imposing any kind of economic agenda on any of these countries that would promote fear. That sounds kind of dumb, actually.

And Western Europe is as much a nuclear target without interceptors as with, so that doesn’t work either.

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

Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:20 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Do you know why Europe formed the EU?

But let's take a look specifically at W European anti-Americanism. When did it become prominent? Certainly not during Clinton's administration. And after 9/11 the US had the hearts of people all over the globe, including W Europe. Iraq changed that. So, no, I don't think the US has done anything in that time to generate envy. In the case of W Europe, it comes down to Iraq.
-------------------

W Europe without interceptors is a better traditional military target as there is a lot to be gained from the territory. W Europe as a nuclear target makes no sense, unless it poses a nuclear threat. You also have to remember the interceptors are not close to being ready. Should one get through (and the chances are most would get through) Europe - which is a relatively small land mass with concentrated populations - would be decimated. Europe doesn't want to become the sacrifical target in US defense.

But that is beside the point. Europe does not WANT them. The US WILL install them with or without European cooperation. Can you see how that would engender a certain amount of anti-Americanism?

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

Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:36 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Do you know why Europe formed the EU?

Not because of fear.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But let's take a look specifically at W European anti-Americanism. When did it become prominent? Certainly not during Clinton's administration. And after 9/11 the US had the hearts of people all over the globe, including W Europe. Iraq changed that. So, no, I don't think the US has done anything in that time to generate envy. In the case of W Europe, it comes down to Iraq.

Iraq is a big sticking point, but anti-Americanism existed in Europe even during the Clinton years.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
W Europe without interceptors is a better traditional military target as there is a lot to be gained from the territory. W Europe as a nuclear target makes no sense, unless it poses a nuclear threat. You also have to remember the interceptors are not close to being ready. Should one get through (and the chances are most would get through) Europe - which is a relatively small land mass with concentrated populations - would be decimated. Europe doesn't want to become the sacrifical target in US defense.

No, rue. There’s no way that true. What is a good nuclear target, anyway? In any event, interceptors are not nuclear armed. They pose no nuclear threat and they pose little to no conventional threat to traditional militaries at all. Their only service is against a ballistic missile. In other words, if someone wanted to invade Europe with a traditional military, BM interceptors would provide no advantage AT ALL to Europe. They could possibly provide protection from ballistic nuclear missiles, which might discourage the use of such missiles against Europe. Meaning that the presents of interceptors in Europe would actually make Europe a better traditional military target, to use your phrasing.

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

Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:58 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Europe formed the EU to have more economic leverage vis-a-vis the US. There was some fear and a lot of resentment.

I don't think low-level background anti-whatever is what we're discussing. The French don't like the Germans, the Germans don't like the British, the Italians don't like the Spanish, and everyone makes fun of the Poles. So what? ... But even given a low level of anti-American sentiment, people all over the globe put it aside after 9/11. Iraq was not just a sticking-point for W Europe, it was the sticking point.

As for the interceptors, if they have any capacity to reduce Russia's first-strike capability against the US they will be a target, nuclear or not. And if they are in hardened bunkers, nuclear weapons will be used against them. In for a penny, in for a pound.

I'll be off now, I have to get some things done. I hope to see you on the flip-side.

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

Saturday, April 28, 2007 3:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Europe formed the EU to have more economic leverage vis-a-vis the US. There was some fear and a lot of resentment.

They formed the EU for economic leverage, true. There’s nothing wrong with that. All economies, if it’s worth the paper it’s printed on, will leverage its assets for greatest profit. And that’s all the EU has done. To say that they did it because the people of Europe fear the US is nonsense. They did for their own profit, not out of fear of the US.

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As for the interceptors, if they have any capacity to reduce Russia's first-strike capability against the US they will be a target, nuclear or not. And if they are in hardened bunkers, nuclear weapons will be used against them. In for a penny, in for a pound.

Still doesn’t work. France is a nuclear power. The UK is a nuclear power. NATO forces are concentrated in Germany and Italy. If the Russians, for some unknown reason, decided to launch a nuclear first strike, Western Europe is still on the short list. It doesn’t make any difference where the interceptors are, except that if they’re in Europe, Western Europe might have a much better chance of surviving such a first strike.

And I’m done for a while too. I’ve got to go sit with my elderly grandmother tonight.

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

Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:31 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
More flame-baiting.

Now since I didn't insult you, or Finn or anyone else, why would you insert an insult here? Oh, that's right. That's what you do.

"Preaching to the choir is always easy. Trying to convert us apostates is the problem."

Please explain to me how this is flame-baiting. If you already agree with SignyM, and you state you agree with SignyM, that's a classic example of SignyM preaching to the choir, i.e. convincing someone who's already convinced. Is it flame-baiting to note this event?

Where SignyM is having a problem is converting 'apostates' such as myself, Finn, and Causal, to Signym's point of view. This is also a true fact. Hardly flame-baiting.

Your posts, on the other hand...

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:40 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
As for the interceptors, if they have any capacity to reduce Russia's first-strike capability against the US they will be a target, nuclear or not. And if they are in hardened bunkers, nuclear weapons will be used against them. In for a penny, in for a pound.

Do a little research. Anti-ballistic missles are used to intercept nukes on their downward trajectory. The 10 interceptors in Poland could only be used to stop missles aimed at Europe.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:48 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But let's take a look specifically at W European anti-Americanism. When did it become prominent?

To quote from the BBC article which is the starter for this thread,

"Anti-Americanism was born in France. And here's a fascinating fact: it was born well before the United States existed. It was not caused by Coca-Cola, or McDonald's, or Hollywood or George W Bush.

The prevailing view among French academics throughout the 18th Century was that the New World was ghastly. It stank, it was too humid for life to prosper. And, as one European biologist put it: "Everything found there is degenerate or monstrous."

And,

"But such balance is, according to Levy, missing in the French political debate on American power and American life. He describes a process whereby this antagonism to the fundamentals of the USA - to the kind of democracy that celebrates and encourages ordinariness - migrates hither and thither in the French body politic.

It began on the right but now in the shape of Jose Bove (the anti-McDonald's campaigner, and presidential candidate) and other luminaries of the left, it lives on.

And this is not a recent migration brought on by Mr Bush. In May 1944 (just weeks before American GIs landed on the beaches of Normandy), Hubert Beuve-Mery, the founder of Le Monde newspaper - certainly no mouthpiece of the right - wrote this: "The Americans represent a real danger for France, different from the one posed by Germany or the one with which the Russians may - in time - threaten us. The Americans may have preserved a cult of Liberty but they do not feel the need to liberate themselves from the servitude which their capitalism has created. "

So we got over 200 years of French attitude. They're Western European.

G'night, all.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

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

Saturday, April 28, 2007 5:53 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Hello ...

... anyone home?

Well, anyway, one last post before I shut down till Tuesday:

"They formed the EU for economic leverage, true." But they were loathe to do it (see who hates who, above). To put this into perspective, Europeans have been defining themselves as separate peoples 10x longer than the US has been in existence. So the Italians would have been more than happy to keep their lire, the French their small family farms, and so on. The EU wasn't (and isn't) a happy marriage, it was more like a shotgun wedding driven by fear (and hatred) of US influence. That sparked a lot of resentment. Clinton was beginning to ease the tensions by being a positive and helpful influence in Europe - with the Irish peace process and intervention in Kosovo. And 9/11 happened early in Bush's appointment by the Supreme Court. Based on the thawing of European/ US relations under Clinton and the wave of sympathy for the US, the US should have been in a position to lead the world into great accomplishments. I have to say, Bush blew it, big-time. And engendered the wave of anti-American sentiment you currently see in Europe.

As for France and Britain being nuclear powers - they have a limited number of warheads each that they carry principally on submarines. In terms of range and numbers, they pose no major threat to Russia.

Interceptors OTOH are an extension of US nuclear capability (even though they themselves aren't nuclear they are part of the nuclear game) and would change the nuclear balance between the US and Russia. The fact that they are on European soil doesn't mean that it's between Russia and Europe. Should an exchange start between the US and Russia, Europe would be unfortunate collateral damage.

Europeans know they are not targets and would prefer to stay that way. The fact that the US intends to install interceptors on THEIR soil in ITS OWN defense is what pisses them off. (BTW I think the Europeans are well aware of the capabilities - or lack thereof - of the interceptors.)

----------
edit

Oh, and before I forget, I hope your grandmother is doing well and you are merely keeping her company so that, you know, she won't be bored and lonely.

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

Sunday, April 29, 2007 5:01 PM