Why do people hate America?

[wmw999 2,148]

Quote

Iraqi insurgents
...
can to tear down every effort GWB has put forward to end this war as soon as possible

GWB started the war against Iraq. He started it on a number of pretexts, many of which have since proven to be false, and which many of these same "liberals" said were bogus in the first place. These were the reasons that were emphasized in speeches and the like.

And now we're supposed to support this war that he started, underestimated, and either lied about or had incompetent enough staff advise him about to go out and kill 10's of thousands of people in another country.

Give me a break.

Yes, now that we're there we need to do the job right. That doesn't mean nuking them, it doesn't mean imposing our standards of social niceties and religion on them, it doesn't mean reducing them to people who do whatever we say because they're scared of us.

And no, we shouldn't have gone there in the first place. We should have kept fighting al-Quaida, and we could have used our vast resources to help rebuild Afghanistan, which also had a crappy leadership, instead of Iraq, which had a crappy leadership.

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[lowtimer 0]

I've spent quite a bit of time in the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe. I've been led to believe that people don't hate 'America', they just completely disagree with our foreign policy. I agree, we have to make MAJOR changes in our affairs throughout the world. When I interact with citizens of other countries, I bring this up and 95% of the world citizens I've spoken with have been quick to differentiate between our government's actions and our citizenry.

----------------------------------
Successfully avoiding adult responsibility since 1978!

[billvon 2,434]

>Where do you draw the line between healthy debate and encouraging our enemies?

Simple. Debating whatever you want is fine, and protected under our constitution. Actually aiding our enemies is treason.

Examples:

A person criticizes the president for using questionable information to justify invasion of Iraq - first amendment right.

Revealing the name of an undercover CIA agent - treason.

Reporting on torture by Americans in Iraq - first amendment right; see "freedom of the press."

An american fighting against the US in Afghanistan - treason.

Reporting on the failure of the US to find WMD's - first amendment right.

Giving military aid to Saddam Hussein - patriotic or treasonous depending on the year and the current president.

Helping an Iranian spy gather info against the US - treason.

[billvon 2,434]

>That's a common misperception from people from small countries.
> That being well traveled or 'worldly' requires traveling between
> multiple countries.

I'm from a pretty big country, and being well traveled requires traveling between countries. Dongguan, Sandire, Belfast, Korat and Madison, WI are nothing like each other. If you think that you can see as much diversity by traveling from Madison to NYC - you haven't seen much diversity.

>They had it right in Stripes, "It's Czeckoslovakia, it's like Wisconsin,
> you zip in, you zip out"

If your total exposure to other countries is via the US media, I can see how that statement might make sense. Of course, you would also have to believe that all skydivers are risk-taking, suicidal druggies; the media is pretty clear on that.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Where do you draw the line between healthy debate and encouraging our enemies?

Simple. Debating whatever you want is fine, and protected under our constitution. Actually aiding our enemies is treason.

Examples:

A person criticizes the president for using questionable information to justify invasion of Iraq - first amendment right.

Revealing the name of an undercover CIA agent - treason.

Reporting on torture by Americans in Iraq - first amendment right; see "freedom of the press."

An american fighting against the US in Afghanistan - treason.

Reporting on the failure of the US to find WMD's - first amendment right.

Giving military aid to Saddam Hussein - patriotic or treasonous depending on the year and the current president.

Helping an Iranian spy gather info against the US - treason.

What I've learned today is that if you speak ill of a homosexual, a minority etc and that speech encourages and incites someone to perpetrate a violent act against said homosexual or minority, then your words have consequences and you should be punished severely.

On the other hand, you can speak out with as much vitriol condemnation and hate against the President, the country etc and if that incites our enemies to perpetrate acts of violence against our troops, that type of speech is O.K. and is actually admirable and should have no restrictions.

[vonSanta 0]

Quote

If the U.S was invaded by another country and I thought we were losing the war, I would be very disheartened and fearful of would become of my life. If I started hearing about people in that other country tearing down their leader, criticizing everything he did. Calling him a moron ect. it would cause me to believe that if killing more of their troops I may be able to create enough political chaos, and other problems to get them to pull out, I would do so. I would be encouraged to fight on.

There are many drawbacks to a democracy that can easily beused by those wanting to do so. The question is: do we value the freedoms we have over the added security restricting them would give us? To me, the answer is simple.

Quote

Al Qaeda and the Iraqi insurgents are very aware of the elements in this country like Al Gore and others who have done whatever they can to tear down every effort GWB has put forward to end this war as soon as possible.

No doubt some will play it to reduce the chances of GWB winning the next election. Had Democrats been in power, the Republicans would have done the same.

That being said, I think there was a misjudegment before the war - the administration genuinely thought they'd be seen as liberators, as of starting a democratic process that'd perhaps spread to the rest of the Middle East. Noble motives, perhaps, but not a proper judgement.

GWB and the Republicans took a chance there. Had it paid off, reelection would be a near certainty. That's how the political game is played. Now, having their plans go awry, they cannot fault their political opponents for reacting.

Quote

I think everyone should think about what their words would mean to OBL, Sadr etc before they become so sanctimonious in their rhetoric.

And I think everyone should think what restricting speech because of his actions would mean to him. Probably a lot more.

Santa Von GrossenArsch
I only come in one flavour
ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

[Gravitymaster 0]

Then have at it. I hope you don't have to go and explain this to the families of the dead from the next terrorist attack.

Are you also aware that our Military are being forced to take casualties because they have been ordered to reduce the number of civilian casulties who get caught in crossfires because you need to exercise your unresticted freedom of speech? Perhaps you will volunteer to go and explain to their families they died so you could express your feelings unrestricted at a time of war.

Please let me know when you come back from the first visit.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Iraqi insurgents
...
can to tear down every effort GWB has put forward to end this war as soon as possible

Quote

GWB started the war against Iraq. He started it on a number of pretexts, many of which have since proven to be false, and which many of these same "liberals" said were bogus in the first place. These were the reasons that were emphasized in speeches and the like.

Thats Bullshit and you know it. Nearly every politician on both sides agreed on the reasons for war. What a freakin cop-out to try and spin it like it was all GWBs' doing.

Quote

And now we're supposed to support this war that he started, underestimated, and either lied about or had incompetent enough staff advise him about to go out and kill 10's of thousands of people in another country.

Bullshit!!! You can go ahead and convince yourself of this if it makes you feel better but it doesn't change the truth that almost all the Democrats voted for the war and thought SH had WMDs.

Quote

Give me a break.

Give me a break

Quote

Yes, now that we're there we need to do the job right. That doesn't mean nuking them, it doesn't mean imposing our standards of social niceties and religion on them, it doesn't mean reducing them to people who do whatever we say because they're scared of us.

Who's advocating any different?

Quote

And no, we shouldn't have gone there in the first place.

Tell that to John Kerry and the rest of the Dems who voted for it then.

Quote

We should have kept fighting al-Quaida, and we could have used our vast resources to help rebuild Afghanistan, which also had a crappy leadership, instead of Iraq, which had a crappy leadership.

In case you haven't heard, most of Al Qaeda left Afghanistan and scurried into Iraq and Pakistan and Syria.

• Quote

[mr2mk1g 10]

I hate all Ameraicans beacuse they generate thread drift and always turn the conversation to an argument about GWB and Iraq. I hate them so much I might just poo myself.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Dude, did you really just write "tickety boo?""

Yes I did, nice ASCII picture, love it, tip-top.
But try and imagine a broad Clydeside accent, say Billy Connelly, replace the monocle with a welding mask, and your closer to the mark.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"You're trying to generalize."
Okay Pajarito, apologies for generalisation.

Specifically, do I believe that discussing (criticising even) our leaders, here on DZ.com or any other public forum will directly lead to a terrorist attack?
No, not really.
I remain unconvinced that we should shut up and not challenge our leaders, 'in the interest of national security'.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[pa2themd 0]

Quote

i think europe is mad because it only took us about 150 years to dominate and they've had 2000 years to get their shit together!

You hit the nail on the head...with the word DOMINATE!!!!

use it don't use it

"Most of us can read the writing on the wall; we just assume it's
addressed to someone else!" Ivern Ball

[Red_Skydiver 0]

Quote

Dude, did you really just write "tickety boo?"

~.._
O..o
>
---

..and that comes from someone who uses the word "Dude"!

[Red_Skydiver 0]

Quote

it's hard work being #1; it's a thankless job but, somebody has to do it!
i think europe is mad because it only took us about 150 years to dominate and they've had 2000 years to get their shit together!

And one day some other country will kick your butts and they will be the leading nation - you can't rule the world forever, not unless you destroy it of course

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

I hate all Ameraicans beacuse they generate thread drift and always turn the conversation to an argument about GWB and Iraq. I hate them so much I might just poo myself.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[KATO33 0]

Quote

On the other hand, you can speak out with as much vitriol condemnation and hate against the President, the country etc and if that incites our enemies to perpetrate acts of violence against our troops, that type of speech is O.K. and is actually admirable and should have no restrictions.

Violence against troops isn't that the whole point of Warfare?
Not that I want any of our troops Killed or Hurt.
But you can't start a fight then expect the other side not to fight.

Blue Skies Black Death

[Remster 24]

Quote

i think europe is mad because it only took us about 150 years to dominate and they've had 2000 years to get their shit together!

I wonder how pissed off Americans will be in 20 years when China runs the show....

Remster

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"I wonder how pissed off Americans will be in 20 years when China runs the show...."
Better the devil we know, Rem.....

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>I'm from a pretty big country, and being well traveled requires traveling between countries. Dongguan, Sandire, Belfast, Korat and Madison, WI are nothing like each other. If you think that you can see as much diversity by traveling from Madison to NYC - you haven't seen much diversity.

I've been all over, too (cripes, skydivers do seem to be well traveled), and other countries have different cultures -True (most of my international travel is the far East).

But compare the bayou to New York and that's just as big a difference as a california boy compared to a Frenchman. Probably more. I didn't find much difference in the people of Korat from our city folk as I did comparing the people in the countryside of Thailand compared to the city folk of Korat.

My point is this: someone from a country as big as New Jersey who has visitied 20 other countries within a 10 hour drive isn't any more traveled/worldly/sophisticated than your grandma and grandpa who have taken their motor home across the entire continental US. Yet they act like they are and make judgements on that basis. The people who make a big deal about travel typically fit that first profile and it's bunk. They are just congratulating themselves with a shallow criteria.

Real distance and environment make more difference in how people are, not arbitrary political borders - so try city versus farm, or swamp vs plains, or igloo vs suburb, ..... That'll get you there. All you are dealing with is language barriers and choose to assume that people are different because they don't speak your language (I'll throw out an undeserved cut, since you threw out the TV/media cut at me, also an undeserved assumption).

In all my traveling, I've seen a lot more that makes us the same than different. And those 'fundamental' differences were never tied to nationality. ie, the range of differences within a culture were much wider and overlap the range of differences between cultures. How can you disagree with that unless you just want to feel superior because you have a lot of frequent flyer miles? Or you are just looking at the shallow stuff and not what really matters?

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Remster 24]

No doubt Dave. It was justr a statement of probable fact (how do you like that turn of words)

Remster

[nacmacfeegle 0]

" statement of probable fact (how do you like that turn of words)"

"Probable fact", I like it a lot, and may with your permission use it.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[kallend 1,647]

Cry "Bullshit" as loud as you like, it will not make you (or Bush) right.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[vonSanta 0]

Then have at it. I hope you don't have to go and explain this to the families of the dead from the next terrorist attack.

Hm, well, to start off, you're using a logical fallacy. And you're wrong in your assumption that because I support the democratic principles and the freedoms I enjoy, I wish to use them for unsound reasons.

Do a search on my handle and I think you'll find that I do not spout anti American rethoric. I'm critical from time to time, regardless of the subject at hand, but I tend not to get involved in appeals to emotion and the like (I'm very Danish that way).

Perhaps I was a bit unclear in my previous post. I'll try to be more precise and explain my point of view.

The freedom to freely assemble. This is great, since I do this at skydive boogies. It's also dangerous, because people intent on destroying democracy and all the values I hold dear can do the same. It is certain that should the government not only put surveillance on such gatherings, but also make them illegal and enforce that law with a heavy hand, less mischief can come from groups who congregate and motivate each other.

I will not give up this freedom for more security.

Freedom of religion, or from religion. It'd be safer if we had a religiously homogenous group which held shared values and beliefs. Potential terrorists or suspects could be deported based on their religious convictions.

I'll have none of it, and will live with the added risk of having people of other religious persuasions in my country, even though they harbour ill feelings towards me and my countrymen.

Freedom to make your own destiny - heavy state control throughout a persons life, along with surveillance, would mean added security. Determining what that person must do next is an addded layer of protection.

Showing a unified face to the rest of theworld never makes them doubt our resolve. Silencing opposing views would greatly help show cohesion and unity, and therefore strengthen national security. Unfortunately, there are no checks and balances, so the gain will be short term only.

And I'll have none of that, either.

I'll rather be exposed to danger and free, but vigilant and ready, than cowering behind opression, apparently safer.

You American had a great dude who said (paraphrasing) "He who gives up freedom for security deserves neither". I firmly believe in thus.

GravityMaster, you're a Republican from what posts I've read by you. They've traditionally been, for the last couple of decades, the defenders of rights, against big government, pro maximum freedom. That is easy to be when the world is safe. I've seen the opinions change though: now many appear willing to give up some freedom to gain additional security. Why the change? Do you feel the same way, or am I reading your posts the wrong way? I sense that deep down, we're both pretty adament about the protection of our freedoms, to the point that'd we'd kill to preserve 'em.


What I am trying to say is that I am well aware of the weaknesses our freedom loving ways have, and how they open us up to attack. But, this is more than countered by the knowledge that I am a Free Man, who does what he wants, and who can die fighting to maintain that priviledge if that is my desire.

Are you also aware that our Military are being forced to take casualties because they have been ordered to reduce the number of civilian casulties who get caught in crossfires because you need to exercise your unresticted freedom of speech?

They're soldiers. I expect them to do what they need to survive, without intentionally causing unnecessary harm to civilians. I don't live in an ignorant state. War isn't just LGBs dropping on buildings full of Bad Guys. Our soldiers will kill civilians to survive. It's war, there are no rules. War quickly turns into your own survival and the survival of your group. Claiming something else would be intellectual dishonesty.

I have Yossarian's attitude to war (Catch-22). The enemy is whoever is trying to kill you. Sometimes it's people on the other side, other times it's people on your side, giving you near suicidal orders. In such a situation I'll do what I need to ensure mine and my companion's survival. I don't believe in BS lines on a map. My resolve in in my ideals.


It's worth remembering that our soldiers are there to, at least in part, *protect* our freedoms, to ensure we can enjoy them. They take this job, knowing they might die. They don't risk life and limb (and sometimes lose both) so we, in our fear, can just let the freedoms slide away. THAT is an insult to anyone who's worn a uniform and fought and bled for his country!

I can affect the soldier's ROE? They're given to them by their military commanders, who are ordered by their civilian leaders. Which are voted in by the PEOPLE.

I doubt you want to change *that*. The military's job is to do what their masters say, and everyone of us is a tiny little bit of that master through the wonders of democracy.

And I'll fucking DIE to defend my right to make that statement.

Perhaps you will volunteer to go and explain to their families they died so you could express your feelings unrestricted at a time of war.

Soldiers that die in a war die for a couple of reasons, the two major being:

1) They're defending their homeland from invasion.
2) They're protecting national interests on orders by the commanders, who got their orders from the people we elect.
3) They die invading or occupying foreign lands, on orders made by their civilian leaders.

No war, no soldiers dead, be it war with terrorists, another nation or what have you. But to say there'll be no war, or no NEED for war, is to be naeive.

War is much preferrable to being a virtual slave.

Please let me know when you come back from the first visit.

I support your nations troops as well as my own. I support what's being done in Iraq. No matter if the motive is war for oil, personal vendetta or whatever, it brings the possibility of a democratic process in the Middle East. It's gonna be costly, and it already has been costly, but I support it.

I won't volunteer for that job, though. If I am to be shot at, the reason's gotta be better than that.

Santa Von GrossenArsch
I only come in one flavour
ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst

[gjhdiver 0]

Quote

As far as Europe goes, I think jealousy has a lot to do with it and, personally, I could give a rat's ass what they think.

Yup. They're are all really jealous of the US crime rate, violent death statistics, it's economy, and it's health care.

It's a common misconception about Europeans that they are "jealous" of the US. Having lived there for 35 years, I don't think I ever heard that sentiment expressed in any form.

I think the nearest that you could get to that is that most Europeans find the US tiresome, rather like the idiot teenage boy who knows everything and won't shut up.

[billvon 2,434]

>But compare the bayou to New York and that's just as big a
> difference as a california boy compared to a Frenchman.

Agreed, for the most part. But those differences pale in comparison to the differences between a Westerner and a Zarma child living in a tiny village in the Nigerian desert, or to the differences between a French accountant and a Chinese assembly-line worker from an outer province. Heck, in lots of places in Europe, the biggest difference from the US is that you pay for your Big Mac with different money.

While the US is a diverse place, there are some societies we simply don't have here. We don't have people who live in the desert, substinence farm and have no contact with the outside world, nor do we have provinces that are so far removed from cities that people can move to a city, work for a year, then return to the province and retire in luxury. And visiting Hackensack, NJ (or even Barrow, Alaska) will not teach you anything about such people.

>My point is this: someone from a country as big as New Jersey who >has visitied 20 other countries within a 10 hour drive isn't any more
> traveled/worldly/sophisticated than your grandma and grandpa who
> have taken their motor home across the entire continental US.

Depends where you are. If you are in France and you visit Luxembourg, Germany, Belgium etc I agree. If you're in South Africa, Hong Kong or Dongguan I disagree.

>And those 'fundamental' differences were never tied to nationality.
> ie, the range of differences within a culture were much wider and
> overlap the range of differences between cultures.

Agreed. But knowing how New Yorkers get along with Bostonians really doesn't give you much insight into how Tuareg tribes get along with the Zarma. And there is no place in the US (or even Europe) where you can visit that will give you that insight. The Middle East might help though.