Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Anti-Americanism?
FN Posted: Sun Mar 20 18:37:30 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I've had a discussion with some friends about this after seeing a documentary wrapping up the start of the "war on tewwewism" to now.

It had been a while since we had talked about it, but since it was mentioned again the subject was re-kindled.

What strikes me is that the only thing I've seen happening around me since it all started (and I'm not saying that it applies to me as well) is that people are really getting anti-american, some more extreme than others, and somehow seem to be delighted (in an I-told-you-so kind of way, to avoid any confusion) everytime some terrorist blows himself up and takes some americans with him.

People here didn't give a rat's ass about terrorism either before it, but now some of them seem to be somewhat concerned that Brussels might be a possible target, and the only one who gets blamed for it is America, and that they really understand where the terrorists are coming from, explained by a saying here: "if you stir the pot it can start to stink".


I was wondering how the Americans here feel about this (you care, or don't care, or something in between) and how the other non-Americans here percieve the public opinion around them.


 
FN Posted: Sun Mar 20 18:45:01 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  And an additional question out of curiousity: who do you think is "winning", America or the "tewwewists"?


 
Cherry_Moon Posted: Sun Mar 20 18:46:54 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I'm kind of biased Chris.

I am anti-american

I think there were sooo many things that should have gotten done the first year we were fighting the big bad saudi's or iraqi's or afgans or erm I can't keep track of who is the "bad" terrorists responsible for uh terror. With Bush at the helm of things have never been so swell and he has never failed to fail. . .


 
libra Posted: Sun Mar 20 18:48:02 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I care about other's opinions of america. Not because of some high school need to look good to others, but because we're in this together. The whole world is involved in this hurtling around the sun, and if we want to not be the cause of our own destruction, hating each other isn't going to help. What one country does affects everyone, and we're losing sight of this more and more, I think, even as globalism increases.

No matter what, no matter the ethnic, religious or societal differences, we have to be able to work together. I see that as the only way we're going to be able to keep the world a liveable place.


 
Cherry_Moon Posted: Sun Mar 20 18:48:06 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>And an additional question out of curiousity: who do you think is "winning", America or the "tewwewists"?

tewwewists. . .
Americans have more problems then we started with.



 
libra Posted: Sun Mar 20 18:51:27 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>And an additional question out of curiousity: who do you think is "winning", America or the "tewwewists"?

The terrorists...because of the huge rift in the US's social structure, the falling apart of our political system. I see these things as hugely related to this 'war on terror.' The fact that the war has been used as a distraction from a lot of problems within our country is a big deal.

They didn't win in the way they might have wanted to...or the way osama wanted to make us see that we shouldn't be affecting other cultures the way we are. But I really think they have won.


 
FN Posted: Sun Mar 20 18:55:18 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Cherry_Moon said:
>Americans have more problems then we started with.

That's what I see around me as well, the people here feel that America is the one who has brought terrorist threat to Europe/Brussels, not the terrorists themselves, and that if America had really wanted to go into Iraq without UN consent that they should have handled it by themselves completely instead of pulling others down with them.

Also, the Abu Ghraib thing, among others, really bad move. I think most people, although they don't say it in those words, in some ways have less sympathy for America than for the terrorists who they see as standing their ground and striking out because they got cornered.


 
Posted: Sun Mar 20 18:59:42 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  America's the fucking bollocks of the earth.


 
Cherry_Moon Posted: Sun Mar 20 19:05:39 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>America's the fucking bollocks of the earth.

Ditto


 
Aeon Posted: Sun Mar 20 19:22:04 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  First. Neither side is "winning". To win in this situation, one of the sides would have be losing ground considerably. Neither is. Sure, soldiers are dying, but so are terrorists.

Second. America is hardly the "bollocks" of the Earth. I think the "bollocks" of the Earth would have to be the rat infested third world countries controlled by dictators where NO ONE except said dictators has any money whatsoever... i.e. Somalia. And don't try to counter with, "Well, America is run by a corrupt government that has all the money and power." No. It's run by a government but the culture and all the money is invested in RAP MUSIC. Sad... but true. Now, I know Canada has been at the forefront of every major scientific and economic breakthrough for the last 100 years, but still :: sarcasm ::...

Third. Who gives a fuck, either way? People are gonna be scared of one thing or another. Terrorists, global warming, tsunamis, earthquakes... it doesn't matter. The world keeps spinning.


 
Aeon Posted: Sun Mar 20 19:33:01 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>Christophe said:
>>And an additional question out of curiousity: who do you think is "winning", America or the "tewwewists"?
>
>The terrorists...because of the huge rift in the US's social structure, the falling apart of our political system. I see these things as hugely related to this 'war on terror.' The fact that the war has been used as a distraction from a lot of problems within our country is a big deal.
>
>They didn't win in the way they might have wanted to...or the way osama wanted to make us see that we shouldn't be affecting other cultures the way we are. But I really think they have won.

Well... I don't believe our political system is falling apart, Libra. If George Bush had the Senate and House blown up and declared himself President for Life... then it might be falling apart. Fact is, the guy has 4 more years. He'll probably do a lot of stupid things and then that's that. We can only hope the next guy is good at cleaning shit up. The thing is, the real GOAL of the terrorists is to get America out of the Middle East. It's not really to scare us. They want our withdrawl from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and various other outposts of debauchery. Until we leave. They haven't won. For us to win every terrorist has to be destroyed and seeing as how there is no "race" of terrorists and pretty much ANYONE can be a terrorist... we can only win when every human on Earth is dead... and we're working on that.


 
Aeon Posted: Sun Mar 20 19:39:37 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Cherry_Moon said:
>I'm kind of biased Chris.
>
>I am anti-american
>
>I think there were sooo many things that should have gotten done the first year we were fighting the big bad saudi's or iraqi's or afgans or erm I can't keep track of who is the "bad" terrorists responsible for uh terror. With Bush at the helm of things have never been so swell and he has never failed to fail. . .

When were we ever really fighting the Saudi's? We've been kissing their ass for years.

Now, I don't think America is the greatest country in the world but I certainly don't think it's the worst. The way you look at it, it's all perspective. Why do you hate America when it's the people who are running it that are fucking it up. Half the time when they get elected it's on false promises, so you can't really take that as "the will of the people". It's like hating a guy whose body and head did seperate things. His head bites people, but his body helps poor orphans. Sure, he talks alot of shit... but he doesn't really want to hurt anyone... that much.


 
Cherry_Moon Posted: Sun Mar 20 20:50:48 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Aeon said:
>When were we ever really fighting the Saudi's? We've been kissing their ass for years.

The whole Osma bidness. . .maybe. . .

>Now, I don't think America is the greatest country in the world but I certainly don't think it's the worst.The way you look at it, it's all perspective.


Sure. It certainly can and could be worse but it wouldn't be typical of my brat-like american sterotype if I didn't bitch about the preseident buy Big Macs and drive through a congested City with my big-ass Hummmer2. Hey just filling the stero type ;P


Why do you hate America

*gasp* I hate America? OMG! I HATE AMERICA!? STOP THE THREAD!!

I don't "hate" America I just have an incredible distaste for American politics and govenment. I'd like to think I'm a rare breed. I have all of the distaste and distrust in the American system as everybody else in the world.

when it's the people who are running it that are fucking it up.

Half the time when they get elected it's on false promises, so you can't really take that as "the will of the people".

Yeah problem is that the dumb fucks that show up at the polls and vote for the false promises should have their voting preivileges revoked. There are people that I know who are very serious about politics and voed for who they wanted from an educated stand point. 80% of the American voters couldn't tell red from blue. . . *rips hair out in frustration*

It's like hating a guy whose body and head did seperate things. His head bites people, but his body helps poor orphans. Sure, he talks alot of shit... but he doesn't really want to hurt anyone... that much.

I would possibly the only person capable of that feat.


 
kurohyou Posted: Sun Mar 20 22:57:30 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Not sure if this follows the thread...but my two cents...

I think that terrorism, the war on terrorism and what have you are convient headlines for mass hystria and control. For a long time the attacks in Iraq, the war on terrorism and every time something blew up on that side of the world would make the breaking news report. Apparently, US Troops fired on, and killed, a leading general of the new Iraqi army as he headed for home after curfew. A pretty big event, but an event which received 3rd billing on the major news outlets I check on the web. It came in behind the hearings on steroids and baseball, and congresses attempts to deep Terri Sheirvo (sp) alive.

I agree with Aeon, I don't think anyone is winning this war, in part because its a vague war. And as time goes on I don't think its a matter of america winning the war, I get the sense that america is forgetting about the war. Other interests are creeping in, baseball players are taking steroids and this is demanding the attention of our government.

I don't pretend to get it, but its the typical ebb and flow of the attention span of humans. The next time a distraction is needed, a tape ordering a jihad against america will surface, maybe another kidnapping, who really knows...

This was not very organized, and slightly incoherant. My appologies.

For what its worth...



 
Silentmind Posted: Mon Mar 21 00:12:36 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The "War on Terror" is a nebulous idea. "terror" has been around since the start of recorded modern history, and there is no way to "beat" it. It's kind of like the "War on Drugs". This "war" is a pretty good political play by the white house to give a warless president a war. And America is ill-equipped to even fight such a war. Their intelligence has declined since the cold war, and its military is designed to fight a COUNTRY, not terrorist organizations or insurgant forces. Which, if you look at it, is kind of like America fighting for independance. Or any group for that matter. They were insurgants and in a way terrorists as well.


 
Cherry_Moon Posted: Mon Mar 21 00:36:27 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Silentmind said:
>The "War on Terror" is a nebulous idea. "terror" has been around since the start of recorded modern history, and there is no way to "beat" it. It's kind of like the "War on Drugs". This "war" is a pretty good political play by the white house to give a warless president a war. And America is ill-equipped to even fight such a war. Their intelligence has declined since the cold war, and its military is designed to fight a COUNTRY, not terrorist organizations or insurgant forces. Which, if you look at it, is kind of like America fighting for independance. Or any group for that matter. They were insurgants and in a way terrorists as well.

Preach! The ignorant must KNOW th truth

Gotta turn before you burn.


 
DanSRose Posted: Mon Mar 21 01:31:37 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The War on Terrorism is like the mentioned War on Drugs and the War on Poverty and the War on Alcohol (that's what it was called during Prohibition), etc. It's unwinnable by it's very approach.
It's also unwinnable when it's being done the most foolish way possible, because You! *points at the White House* are just creating martyrs and not deploying and funding things the right way, and You! *points at tewwiwwists* are fighting in a way that has never worked, and the 2 times guerilla warefare and terrorism has worked, there has been so much infighting that it lasted for a few weeks. Gandhi and the like did it the right way and, hey!, look it worked.


 
DanSRose Posted: Mon Mar 21 01:32:26 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe, What film was it that sparked this conversation?


 
Dancer Posted: Mon Mar 21 03:17:09 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>I've had a discussion with some friends about this after seeing a documentary wrapping up the start of the "war on tewwewism" to now.
>
>It had been a while since we had talked about it, but since it was mentioned again the subject was re-kindled.
>
>What strikes me is that the only thing I've seen happening around me since it all started (and I'm not saying that it applies to me as well) is that people are really getting anti-american,

It is same here in singapore. i have a couple friends who are really anti war and america is definitely not as highly regarded as before, eversince the war, some even anti americanism esp after watching farenheit 911, we all think the whole war is all starting to look like a major business decision. here in singapore, terrorism is a very real threat, esp after the raid 2 years back that exposed terrorists planning to blow up a part of our island aimed at the american navy. everybody here started to sit up and avoid going to places where alot of americans hang out especially in pubs. Some of my friends working in AIA were abit worried about bombings at their workplace since it's one of those american properties. Of course, i'm not putting all the blame on america, terrorism is a global problem, but we understand it was all started due to US policies in the middle east, correct me if i;m wrong. and after the 911, terrorism never cease, instead it became even more frequent till you don;t really consider bombing casualties less than a hundred people news anymore, which is really sad. And because the situation never improved, people affected by terrorism will start to point the finger at america. No one is winning this war, it is a lose-lose situation from the start.




 
Mark Posted: Mon Mar 21 09:45:04 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I myself am not anti-US, but no pro-US either. No country / person is perfect, but what the US does has impact on the entire world. Imho they shouldn't think so light about everything as they seem to do now. Standing firm behind your believes is one thing, but forcing them upon others (as that's what they are doing imho) goes a bit to far.

Around me the opinions are devided, so are more pro, some more against and some just don't care. Most are against the war in Iraq, but that doesn't make them anti-US.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Mar 21 10:19:36 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Seems kind of odd to me that no one is blaming the terrorists for terrorism.
Kind of stupid if you ask me. . .


 
libra Posted: Mon Mar 21 11:56:10 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  I bet one could make a good argument for the fact that America has also participated in it's own terrorist acts, as well as many other 'upstanding' countries.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Mar 21 13:09:50 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  libra said:
>I bet one could make a good argument for the fact that America has also participated in it's own terrorist acts, as well as many other 'upstanding' countries.
>
You mean "acts of terrorism" such as those committed by the Palestinians or Syria or Libya ?
I doubt it.


 
FN Posted: Mon Mar 21 14:25:26 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Seems kind of odd to me that no one is blaming the terrorists for terrorism.

They blame them for bringing it here.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Mar 21 15:01:03 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Seems kind of odd to me that no one is blaming the terrorists for terrorism.
>
>They blame them for bringing it here.
>
And still not blaming the terrorists for terrorism.
Typical . . .
Why not fix the fucking problem (in this case it would be terrorists) instead of looking to place blame.
Americans don't waste a lot of breath blaming Europe for allowing terrorists to exist within their borders.


 
libra Posted: Mon Mar 21 17:00:15 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>And still not blaming the terrorists for terrorism.
>Typical . . .
>Why not fix the fucking problem (in this case it would be terrorists) instead of looking to place blame.

and what the hell are you doing in these two statements? you're completely contradicting yourself



 
FN Posted: Mon Mar 21 17:38:31 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>Why not fix the fucking problem (in this case it would be terrorists) instead of looking to place blame.

Tell me how "you"'ve fixed it, hif.

If you ask the majority of the people here, 80% of what the problem is now is what America has created by meddling with stuff outside of their own bussines.

>Americans don't waste a lot of breath blaming Europe for allowing terrorists to exist within their borders.

You wouldn't have a leg to stand on either if you did. (don't know if that saying exists there but I assume it explains itself)

Europeans don't feel like they are the ones who invaded Afghanistan/Iraq/basicly pissed off the whole Middle East except Saudi-Arabia (which they fiend a bit hard to understand, keeping in mind that the 9/11 guys were from that country), and don't like anybody infringing on privacy laws with some "patriot act", and don't think that they should pay the price for cleaning up the shit America is throwing around. (to quote a friend of mine)

Except maybe America's bitch Britain, dunnow.


Also, I think it's funny that Israel isn't one of the "willing".


 
casper Posted: Mon Mar 21 18:24:32 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  the newest quote in the GT Database:
I make little distinction betwee those who commit evil and those who stand by and do nothing.
David Gemmell


but you are right...there was no reason at all to invade iraq. but i'm not going to argue that. i am going to argue that you cannot complain about invading afghan because we did have worldwide support for that. don't you remember the taliban refusing to turn over bin laden (and yes...he was there)? it amazes me how quickly people forget...

and how did we bring the terrorists to europe? they have been there forever and they will continue to be there long after we here are dead and gone. all america did was make terrorism more noticed...instead of just an article in a few local papers now it's world news.

i have more to say but it's time for me to go home and i'm gonna miss the bus :)



 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Mar 21 19:10:50 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Why not fix the fucking problem (in this case it would be terrorists) instead of looking to place blame.
>
>Tell me how "you"'ve fixed it, hif.
>
>If you ask the majority of the people here, 80% of what the problem is now is what America has created by meddling with stuff outside of their own bussines.
>
>>Americans don't waste a lot of breath blaming Europe for allowing terrorists to exist within their borders.
>
>You wouldn't have a leg to stand on either if you did. (don't know if that saying exists there but I assume it explains itself)
>
>Europeans don't feel like they are the ones who invaded Afghanistan/Iraq/basicly pissed off the whole Middle East except Saudi-Arabia (which they fiend a bit hard to understand, keeping in mind that the 9/11 guys were from that country), and don't like anybody infringing on privacy laws with some "patriot act", and don't think that they should pay the price for cleaning up the shit America is throwing around. (to quote a friend of mine)
>
>Except maybe America's bitch Britain, dunnow.
>
>
>Also, I think it's funny that Israel isn't one of the "willing".
>
We haven't "fixed it", but we are fixing it. If Europe doesn't want to help, so be it, but don't bitch about it either. Europe has a history of appeasing aggressors and then suffering the consequences. We don't.
So far, we have seen free elections in Afghanistan and Iraq. We have seen Libya cowtow and open her borders to inspectors. We have seen semi free elections in Saudi Arabia and Egypt. We're seeing Syria pull out of Lebanon and the seeds of freedom beginning in both Lebanon and Syria. We are seeing the democracy movement in Iran getting bolder and stronger every day. There has never been anything like this before in the Arab world. Even the Palestinians are coming around.
And if you had any concept of the politics in the Middle East, you would know why Israel is not involved, and it is surely not because they are not willing.
Of course I'm sure you see nothing positive in any of this because it was done mostly by America and that cannot possibly be good.


 
FN Posted: Mon Mar 21 19:28:16 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  If you are going to use that quote in this arguement, I can throw some stuff right back at "you" pretty easily. I sem to remember a few events where America wasn't that eager to intervene either.


Anyway, even if you drop Afghanistan, the arguement still stands.

And I'm (or anybody here) not saying that America brought terrorists to Europe, they do argue however that America unnecesarily poured fuel on the fire and made Europe into a target too by pulling others along with them.

Keep in mind that a lot of Europeans don't agree with what Britain is doing under the influence of the US, but Britain is a member of the EU, thus making the EU as a whole a valid target.

America is also disliked for trying to divide Europe (wether it was meant this way is a different question, but that is how it was percieved)(old/new europe, anybody?), and I do think that when those terms were launched America underestimated the "patriotism" if you will for Europe it's subnations have already developed, and it didn't come across very well, I can tell you that.

You'd be surprised how little people forget.


 
FN Posted: Mon Mar 21 19:30:44 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>And if you had any concept of the politics in the Middle East, you would know why Israel is not involved, and it is surely not because they are not willing.

You underestimate me, hif.


Are you saying it's ok for other nations to become a terrorist target, as long as nobody gets pissed off (more) at Israel, so Israel can stay clear?


 
Zacq Posted: Mon Mar 21 20:24:26 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  ifihadahif said:
>We have seen Libya cowtow and open her borders to inspectors.

If you're saying as many have that Libya did that because of the Iraq War then no. If you mean the general effort against terrorism then sure, because it was economic sanctions that did it.

I'm not against the war on terror (though it shouldn't be called that). I just think that a trained monkey.. wait, my comparison requires someone less intelligent... A, uh, mentally unstable lemming could have handled the war better than Red America's current president.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Mar 21 21:22:06 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>We have seen Libya cowtow and open her borders to inspectors.
>
>If you're saying as many have that Libya did that because of the Iraq War then no. If you mean the general effort against terrorism then sure, because it was economic sanctions that did it.
>
It doesn't matter whether it was guns or diplomacy, the result is the same, and it was the Bush administraton that did it.
>
>I'm not against the war on terror (though it shouldn't be called that).
>
Why not call it exactly what it is, the war on terror?
>
I just think that a trained monkey.. wait, my comparison requires someone less intelligent... A, uh, mentally unstable lemming could have handled the war better than Red America's current president.
>
Really ?
Based on what evidence ?
Tell me all about your military expertise.
And then, tell me about any war we've been in that was done better, more efficiently, and with less loss of life.


 
casper Posted: Mon Mar 21 21:25:47 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>If you are going to use that quote in this arguement, I can throw some stuff right back at "you" pretty easily. I sem to remember a few events where America wasn't that eager to intervene either.
>
>
yeah and we got nagged for that too. damned if you do and damned if you don't. what's with the "you" in quotation marks anyways?


>Anyway, even if you drop Afghanistan, the arguement still stands.
>
the arguement never stood to begin with :)


>And I'm (or anybody here) not saying that America brought terrorists to Europe, they do argue however that America unnecesarily poured fuel on the fire and made Europe into a target too by pulling others along with them.
>
Christophe said:
>ifihadahif said:
>>Seems kind of odd to me that no one is blaming the terrorists for terrorism.
>
sorry...must have misinterpreted that...
unecesarily poured fuel on the fire hm? out of curiosity how would you have handled the 9/11 attack? sent a strong memo to the kids who did that to please stop throwing rocks at your windows?



>They blame them for bringing it here.

isn't this a contradiction to what you just said?


>Keep in mind that a lot of Europeans don't agree with what Britain is doing under the influence of the US, but Britain is a member of the EU, thus making the EU as a whole a valid target.
>

under the influence of america? like we are a drug? because britain refused to bow down to the almighty wisdom of the rest of the european nations that have such a glorious history of standing up for what's right?




>America is also disliked for trying to divide Europe (wether it was meant this way is a different question, but that is how it was percieved)(old/new europe, anybody?), and I do think that when those terms were launched America underestimated the "patriotism" if you will for Europe it's subnations have already developed, and it didn't come across very well, I can tell you that.
>

ok...i'm not well versed in the history of how we try to divide europe. i'm not saying it is not happening its just i don't see the point...


>You'd be surprised how little people forget.

you are right...people don't forget they just stop feeling the emotions behind the facts


 
ifihadahif Posted: Mon Mar 21 21:28:38 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Christophe said:
>
>And I'm (or anybody here) not saying that America brought terrorists to Europe, they do argue however that America unnecesarily poured fuel on the fire and made Europe into a target too by pulling others along with them.
>
The terrorists were in Europe before they were here.

>Keep in mind that a lot of Europeans don't agree with what Britain is doing under the influence of the US, but Britain is a member of the EU, thus making the EU as a whole a valid target.
>
Agreed and a lot of Americans don't like it either, but there are a lot of Europeans that are on board with us as well as most Americans. If Europe weren't going to be on board, then they shouldn't have signed on UN resolution 1441.

>America is also disliked for trying to divide Europe (wether it was meant this way is a different question, but that is how it was percieved)(old/new europe, anybody?), and I do think that when those terms were launched America underestimated the "patriotism" if you will for Europe it's subnations have already developed, and it didn't come across very well, I can tell you that.
>
Big deal, it was one quote, one time by one official, and you guys ran with it like kids on a playground.
It pales in comparison to what Chirac did.
The bottom line is, if anyone in Brussels thinks they weren't a target before we started the war on terror, then they deserve what they get.


 
Silentmind Posted: Mon Mar 21 21:29:22 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  The funny thing is, there wouldn't be an Osama as we know him today, if it weren't for American "involvement" in the middle east. A large number of dictators, including Saddam, were put into power by America. America, under the former Bush, encouraged a Kurdish uprising in Iraq, and backed out when they {the Kurds} actually began to uprise. Kinda funny, ain't it?

And with this whole business of the forced democratization of the middle east: You cannot force democracy. You cannot go from a dicatorship of the right, or a dictatorship of the left, directly to the middle, where democracy lies. Study the french revolution, as it is the template for most revolutions towards democracy. Here is how a revolution generally goes {simplified, but in general}:
1) People overthrow the dictator or ruling party of the few.
2) A continuing shift towards the opposite side of the spectrum {to the far left, or the far right}
3) The people realize that they have gone to far, and there is a sharp shift again to the opposite side of the spectrum.
4) Steps 2 and 3 occur a few times, each time to a lesser extent until the country arrives somewhere in the middle, as with France.

This is a "natural" proccess, and must occur with the people of the country. The people of the country must initiate this process of revolution {as it usually does occur in history} Outside readings and idea's may enter into the revolution {just as in the French Revolution with the Philosophes} but they must be in by a member of the society and accepted by society. What America is trying to do {and why there are insurgents and a reaction to the Americans} is bypass this process and impose its values and ideas on a country, and give it democracy, without the needed "reactions" of a normal revolution. These are neccessary as they give the country experience and help to shape their eventual democracy. They must make their own mistakes and learn from them. America is trying to skip this. That is why they are failing.


 
Silentmind Posted: Mon Mar 21 21:31:45 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  "they must be in by a member of the society" Pardon for the spelling mistake, it should read : they must be brought in by a member of the society


 
addi Posted: Mon Mar 21 21:58:37 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  wait...hold on...almost here....
YES!
I felt a flash on insight!

Bush, Cheney, Rove, and the rest of the posse are fucking ignorant (and evil)

Osama, Al-queda, and the rest of the muslim fanatics that have twisted the Koran into their own words are fucking ignorant (and evil)

Reed, Robinson, Falwell and the rest of the religious right that have twisted the Bible into their own words are fucking ignorant (and evil)

Europeans and the rest of the world that believe America is evil and hasn't significantly helped countless people and numerous countries over the last century live a more free and better life are fucking ignorant.

Americans that refuse to admit that our own government has directly or indirectly stuck its nose into other countries businesses since the late 1800's for our own political and monitary gain (at the expense of countless innocent lives being lost), are really fucking ignorant.

Patriotism, in moderation, is a good thing. Rampant nationalism always ends up leading to dire consequences.
It seems to me that a lot of people need to open their eyes. There's a lot of finger pointing going on, some of it justified, some of it unfounded. If you're going to point your finger at someone else you need to also be able to turn it around and point it at yourself and your own country.


 
beetlebum Posted: Tue Mar 22 00:13:15 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Sure, people hate America, just like Americans supposedly hate the French, the British hate the French, the French hate both America and Britain, the French hate Germany, Germany hates America, America hates China, China hates America, Australia hates Indonesia, Indonesia hates America, Nigeria hates America, America despises Iran, etc.

On a macro level, sure, we all hate one another. On an individual level, that's not the case.

I live in England (I'm American) and during the election I was brought to tears quite a few times by ignorant pricks who thought bashing Bush and America to my face would be an effective tool for change. I'm sure it was, since I was able to call Bush and let him know what my constructively critical friends thought. And since Bush considers me his most trustworthy advisor in all matters, he did everything I told him to do. Riiight.

In an oh-so-shocking turn of events, when I invited my English, Scottish, and Northern Irish (anti-American, anti-Bush) friends to come visit me in the States, they all were happy to accept the invite. To be sure, anti-americanism exists. But not in the overly-dramatic way that some want to claim. People just like to blame others for world problems. We're the most powerful country in the world (both in the way our culture pervades the world and in our economic performance and military capacity) so we're easy to blame. Plus, we don't make it a habit of bombing our European friends, so perhaps Europeans feel free to take it out on us all they damn well please, simply because they're safe in doing so.

First, Iraq:
Bush screwed up invading Iraq. Wolfowitz is a tool. Cheney never seems to help matters. Iraq was more an unchecked box on Bush #1's agenda, and Bush #2, with many of the same advisors, thought it a good idea to clean things up. Not a smooth move, but even in a neo-realist or constructivist world, explainable.

Second, the war on terror:
However, the war on terror, even if misnamed, as "war" is not the best term to describe the problem, is very real. People who don't think that America has the right to aggressive action against terrorists are out of touch with reality. If that involves shaking up and out various governments, so be it. While the constructivist argument that democracies don't go to war with democracies might not be wholly proven, it has stood (relatively) the test of time. Terrorists flourish in an environment of suppression, concentrated power, and ignorance. By spreading the ideals (however flawed and ambiguous) of freedom and potential, America is hopefully planting the seeds for a more peaceful tomorrow. It is sad that innocent civilians must die, and that the troops will make mistakes identifying targets. It's downright shameful by some accounts. However, by hopefully creating a free Iraq (we've gotten ourself into this mess, let's at least try to do something positive in a country in which we've really mucked up) we are creating the conditions (eventually) for economic prosperity. Afghanistan is a mess, but this, too, will take time and diligence. The younger generations, which seem more disheartened than some of the older generations, have the attention span of fruit flies. Calm down, for the love! Again, it'll take time and lots of money. But America did it in Japan after WWII, and in Germany and France. Before the war (and during) Germany certainly wasn't the greenhouse of growing democracy. But we (along with Britain's and France's help) made it work. I don't think Germans could really concieve of another Hitler or a return to brutal facism. Hopefully Iraq and Afghanistan, although completely different in many ways, will see much of what happened in Germany come to fruition in a rather hostile Middle East. I sure hope so, anyway. Sigh.

Four, American-European relations:
In the book *Of Paradise and Power*, Robert Kagan lays out a rather compelling and convincing argument-- that in a nutshell, the EU could not exist with America's umbrella of security. I agree with this. Sorry to any European citizen who takes great pride in the European identity, but it shouldn't include self-maintained independence. With no common military policy (don't blame Britain, for fuck's sake) or, hell, common military, or (hell!) common military budget or (again, hell!) true military power centralized in any single country, the EU could not maintain itself in the face of a world conflict. If KIM Jong II attacked Germany tomorrow (however inconceivable), the U.S. would be there to deal with the consequences. I think that Euope wants to look somewhere to blame, but Europe has suffered from terrorists attacks, and many before 9/11. Europe should get its act together. Sometimes the geopolitical situation means that countries have to react instead of act. Frustrating, but true. Quit blaming us. Do something about it. If you're so worried about America's abuse of military power, get your own military together. Not so easy, but in a realist world, it may very well be necessary, even with a Democrat in power. Europe doesn't want to believe that talk is cheap. Guess what? it's worthless when dealing with over-zealous Islamic fundamentalists, corrupt governments, or countries that do not share the ideological base of freedom and democracy with Europe.

And if begging for a little military power is too far of a stretch, at least work on economic prosperity-- why doesn't Brussels focus on the fact that France and Germany are facing ridiculous unemployment rates, and due to the ghost of the Bundesbank lurking in all corners of the ECB and the rather narrow goal of maintaining low inflation (as opposed to a post-keynesian outlook like that of Britain's bank or America's), France and Germany have now broken the *gasp* Growth and Stability Pact through lax fiscal policy- policies that were only enacted to combat the inability to control monetary policy? I foresee problems in the EU's future. Voting for an 800 page Constitutional document (crap, basically) means nothing. I want to see it work. Really work.

Also, why isn't Brussels concerned with Putin? Europe has problems in its backyard, and it does not seem to be aggresively dealing with any of it. Same goes for China. Quit worrying about us and worry about the up-and-coming economic superpower. Sheesh.

Sidenote regarding terrorism; is it *really* the fault of the US?:
After living in France for a year in 1999, I saw so much anti-Islamic sentiment, and I'm not even talking about anti-revolutionary sentiment. I'm talking about "spit on Muslims, they're a dirty people who should get the hell out of our country and go back to Northern Africa from whence they came". France has done just as much damage in oil producing countries. So has Germany. America isn't the only oil-greedy country. Why does the world seem to blame America for everything these days? Many southern French caucasians sure didn't seem like the proverbial open arms embracing the followers of the Koran... I don't want to speculate, but I don't think that it was only America that has inspired these feelings of hatred; we may simply be the most symbolic target, and the easiest target to scapegoat.

I'm sorry I didn't respond to any one post specifically; I don't mean to be petulant, and I'm not ignoring anyone. I just feel as though so many people, in an effort to be politically savvy (although I'm not necessarily referring to anyone on GT; it is simply that everyone has struck a rather sensitive nerve), confuse so many inter-related, but conceptually independent, issues.

Iraq is one issue. Bush may've confused people by associating it with the war on terrorism, but, we've all come to find how big a mistake that was. Now we deal with it. Case closed. Quite bitching and start searching for solutions.

Anti-americanism is a rather nebulous term that needs to be defined, and then the alleged causes of this supposedly all-pervasive sentiment need to identified and then either legitimated or tossed in the rubbish bin.

And American-European relations are much more complex than "We don't like you and you don't like us" load of shit, because we need each other. The geopolitical situation necessitates Europe's ferocious attempt to check our power, but we *need* to be a military force at this point in history.






 
beetlebum Posted: Tue Mar 22 00:15:42 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  sorry i missed "three". i cut it out. as if my post wasn't long enough.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Tue Mar 22 06:33:22 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Beetelbum, you are very insightful and I find myself in agreement with you on most everything but the Iraq issue.
Well said !
I'd give you a big wet sloppy kiss if you were here :-)


 
addi Posted: Tue Mar 22 06:57:02 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  insightful? She's fucking brilliant!

*and what about my kiss? Hmmm?


 
Mesh Posted: Fri Apr 1 05:16:02 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addison said:
>wait...hold on...almost here....
>YES!
>I felt a flash on insight!
>
>Bush, Cheney, Rove, and the rest of the posse are fucking ignorant (and evil)
>
>Osama, Al-queda, and the rest of the muslim fanatics that have twisted the Koran into their own words are fucking ignorant (and evil)
>
>Reed, Robinson, Falwell and the rest of the religious right that have twisted the Bible into their own words are fucking ignorant (and evil)
>
>Europeans and the rest of the world that believe America is evil and hasn't significantly helped countless people and numerous countries over the last century live a more free and better life are fucking ignorant.
>
>Americans that refuse to admit that our own government has directly or indirectly stuck its nose into other countries businesses since the late 1800's for our own political and monitary gain (at the expense of countless innocent lives being lost), are really fucking ignorant.
>
>Patriotism, in moderation, is a good thing. Rampant nationalism always ends up leading to dire consequences.
>It seems to me that a lot of people need to open their eyes. There's a lot of finger pointing going on, some of it justified, some of it unfounded. If you're going to point your finger at someone else you need to also be able to turn it around and point it at yourself and your own country.


Am I the only one who sees the fucking brilliance of this?


 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]