POLL: The repercussions of a US attack on Iraq
- Thread starter candletrader
- Start date
"Imperialistic" is a buzzword. The way that you frame the issue is paradoxical: You seem to be saying that if the US does act, then it will show itself to be imperialistic, and will therefore be unable to act ("prevent[-ed]... from stopping" etc.).
And here you demonstrate a completely biased attitude joined to a simplistic perspective. Your language appears to suggest that you believe the US deserves to be ('is justifiably") more "despised" than, say, Zimbabwe, Iraq, North Korea, and others. "Despise" probably isn't really the right term: It's a little easier to imagine a reasonable individual from another nation despising US culture or US attitudes than "despising" (placing oneself above) the US as a nation.
I suspect that the US is both the most hated and the most admired nation on the planet, and that in several billion instances there are individuals who simultaneously both dislike (or hate, or fear) and admire the US.
Agree... I would guess the majority of the world (by numbers) hates the policy makers and their policies (hate is not too strong a word, it is appropriate)... at the same time I would guess that these people have nothing but admiration for the American people and various elements of American culture...
Unfortunately the terrorists who hit on September 11 didnt differentiate between the US policymaking machinery and Mr American Public... if solely the Pentagon was destroyed (without any collateral damage), such an act would probably acceptable in the eyes of the majority of the world... but the moment the terrorists hit the World Trade Center, the terrorists immediately stooped to the depths of depravity of US foreign policy...
In America, over 50% of the voters "hated" Bush, or at least "admired" Gore and the also rans. In the last presidential election, I don't' think admire or hate had too much to do with it though, just the lesser of two evils swinging the vote.
That is just part of the system, part of life. We have come to accept it.
We cannot stop those who hate us from having hateful thoughts, but we can take steps to punish those who act on them, and take steps to deter those who would seek to act on them in the future.
They call the process "national security."
Because the terrorists share your perception that US foreign policy is "depraved," that the US is "justifiably" the most "despised" nation on Earth, and that, in short, the US is the supreme danger, oppressor, and moral evil - the "Great Satan" as they say - it is not difficult for them to take the next step and presume that anyone who lives in the US, pays taxes to the US government, or in any other way supports, advances the economic or other interests of, or even merely fails to oppose the US is a valid target. Furthermore, anyone who shared their and apparently your views could hardly make much of an argument against the sacrifice of his or her or anyone's life or health or possessions for the purpose of seeing said Great Satan harmed.
Does your Christian ET "signature" mean that you're a pacifist? If you're not, then I can't understand why, feeling as you do, you haven't launched your own violent jihad or joined the one under way - presuming you haven't, and don't just take an occasional break from war on the US to post on ET.
Since you've failed to recognize or respond to my prior challenges to your positions, I won't expect much of a response here either.
In truth, I honestly believe that what we often hear referred to as "hatred' felt towards the US is really "envy".
It is a natural human reaction to find fault with those we are envious of of. So while so much of the third world (and yes, much of Europe too) verbally assaults us in their rhetoric, I can't help but believe that the vast majority of the inhabitants of the world would gladly trade places....to enjoy what we in America take for granted.
Here, we have a stable government, and freedoms unimagined by the majority of the people on our planet.
Right here, on ET, we can bash our own government with complete freedom and no fear of reprisal. While in the places we consider "rogue" states, being critical of the government in any form can result in arrest. Or worse.
The guy who stood in front of the tanks in Tienamen Square is surely either not alive, or not free. Certainly not enjoying the freedom of our most underprivileged (but law abiding) citizens here. Do we have social injustice here? Yup. However, can anyone rise above it? Overcome it? Yup. (Collin Powell....poor black kid from the Bronx, now Secretary of State; too many examples to begin to list).
Tom Hayden was one of the Chicago 8 (later to become the Chicago 7). On trial by the federal government for conspiracy. Later to become a congressman. No overthrow of the government occurred. But an accused conspirator against the country became part of the government he protested.
Where else does this happen? Cuba? Vietnam? Latin America? South Africa? Certainly "enemies of the state" become part of governments. But they are, other than in America, new governments. It doesn't take a revolution here to change from "bad guy" to "good guy". (Or vice versa...Nixon, Agnew come to mind). It just takes time for the process to work. And so far, it has worked pretty well for over 200 years. Where else is this true?
We have had our shameful occurrences. Slavery. Displacement of Native Americans. Racism. Civil rights being too slow ( especially with the benefit of hindsight). Hell, my grandmother couldn't vote when she was 21 because women did not have the right in America even in the early 20th century. But we evolve as a country. Our constitution clearly was written to be "adaptable". We have experimented and failed. (prohibition, WPA). We have experimented and succeeded. (Changing voting laws, eliminating conscription, civil rights, segregation, women's right's, etc.). All possible because we have the freedom to debate and to criticize and to institute change when the times dictate that change makes sense.
Not the case in the regimes we are officially "hated" by. The governments of these regimes instill, by whatever means available, as much anti-American sentiment in their populations as they can. Helps them to keep their oppressive governments in place. Very self serving.
Peace,
rs7
It is a natural human reaction to find fault with those we are envious of of. So while so much of the third world (and yes, much of Europe too) verbally assaults us in their rhetoric, I can't help but believe that the vast majority of the inhabitants of the world would gladly trade places....to enjoy what we in America take for granted.
Here, we have a stable government, and freedoms unimagined by the majority of the people on our planet.
Right here, on ET, we can bash our own government with complete freedom and no fear of reprisal. While in the places we consider "rogue" states, being critical of the government in any form can result in arrest. Or worse.
The guy who stood in front of the tanks in Tienamen Square is surely either not alive, or not free. Certainly not enjoying the freedom of our most underprivileged (but law abiding) citizens here. Do we have social injustice here? Yup. However, can anyone rise above it? Overcome it? Yup. (Collin Powell....poor black kid from the Bronx, now Secretary of State; too many examples to begin to list).
Tom Hayden was one of the Chicago 8 (later to become the Chicago 7). On trial by the federal government for conspiracy. Later to become a congressman. No overthrow of the government occurred. But an accused conspirator against the country became part of the government he protested.
Where else does this happen? Cuba? Vietnam? Latin America? South Africa? Certainly "enemies of the state" become part of governments. But they are, other than in America, new governments. It doesn't take a revolution here to change from "bad guy" to "good guy". (Or vice versa...Nixon, Agnew come to mind). It just takes time for the process to work. And so far, it has worked pretty well for over 200 years. Where else is this true?
We have had our shameful occurrences. Slavery. Displacement of Native Americans. Racism. Civil rights being too slow ( especially with the benefit of hindsight). Hell, my grandmother couldn't vote when she was 21 because women did not have the right in America even in the early 20th century. But we evolve as a country. Our constitution clearly was written to be "adaptable". We have experimented and failed. (prohibition, WPA). We have experimented and succeeded. (Changing voting laws, eliminating conscription, civil rights, segregation, women's right's, etc.). All possible because we have the freedom to debate and to criticize and to institute change when the times dictate that change makes sense.
Not the case in the regimes we are officially "hated" by. The governments of these regimes instill, by whatever means available, as much anti-American sentiment in their populations as they can. Helps them to keep their oppressive governments in place. Very self serving.
Peace,
rs7
America is a paradox... it is simultaneously amongst the best countries to be a citizen of and at the same time has extremely ruthless imperialistic foreign policies...
Just like blind Romans wouldn't condemn Rome's imperialistic and murderous conquests, blind Americans fail to objectively examine US foreign policy...
So let's separate the two elements of the paradox: firstly, there is the American way of life, which is to be admired. But then there is US foreign policy which is indeed despised by the majority of the world... the majority of the civilized could conceivably legitimately target the latter, but would be wrong to target the former... to target the former would be stooping to the depravity of the latter...
Just like blind Romans wouldn't condemn Rome's imperialistic and murderous conquests, blind Americans fail to objectively examine US foreign policy...
So let's separate the two elements of the paradox: firstly, there is the American way of life, which is to be admired. But then there is US foreign policy which is indeed despised by the majority of the world... the majority of the civilized could conceivably legitimately target the latter, but would be wrong to target the former... to target the former would be stooping to the depravity of the latter...
I guess I am not bright enough to understand your post Candle.
Please explain to me how we are "ruthless" and "imperialistic" in our foreign policies? What countries have we overrun? And what spoils of war have we enjoyed?
As for separating our "American way of life" which is, it would seem, a result of our freedoms, which are guaranteed by our government, which is, according to our concept of our declaration of our independence from another "imperialistic foreign policy", a "government of the people, by the people, for the people".....well, I just don't see where you draw the line between us (the American citizens), who vote for those who represent us, and make and enforce the laws, and the laws themselves. (Or policies, if you prefer the term).
And, if our foreign policies are so terrible, what is to prevent us from changing them?
Certainly, terrorist attacks will not accelerate any change (in the form I believe you are looking for). So what will? Less freedom? More? Less power of the vote? More?
I am confused. Maybe it is because I don't see how you can make your case without at least suggesting solutions.
What would you suggest? How do we detach ourselves from the policies we create? What policies would be an improvement? isolationism? neutrality? Marshall Law
What?
Peace,
Rs7Sorry, I don't listen to the Voice of Jihad... and don't intend to...
The USA is indeed a quasi-Empire, with military bases practically everywhere...
My voice actually reflects the majority of the world, who have stacked up against the nonsense that America is trying to sell about Iraq being a threat...
This war is most certainly not about weapons of mass destruction, religion or democracy... its about OIL...
If the Middle East was rich in olive oil and not in the type of oil that it is actually rich in, the USA wouldn't care a dam about Saddam and whether or not he has weapons of mass destruction (some of which, as we all know, were American supplied - courtesy of Rumsfeld in fact - and used with America's blessings to gas the Iranians - take note of that last point Babak)... the whole thing is simply a pretext to attack Iraq, install a puppet and take effective control of the Iraqi oil... and in the process murder thousands of innocent Iraqis (many more than the relative handful of Americans who were murdered on September 11, which had nothing to do with Iraq in any case)...
Times are indeed worrying... it is encouraging that a growing body of the American public are waking up to the reality of the situation... they are at one with the global majority...