Attitudes towards Americans

[I_luv_saber]

If you don't like it you could always emigrate

I may not like everything about the States, but I'm much happier there, thanks

[Nusy]

I may not like everything about the States, but I'm much happier there, thanks

I may not love the present American government, but I still wanna immigrate...

[I_luv_saber]

I may not love the present American government {snip}

You are most definitely not alone in this m'dear

[jeff]

.... downside of living in a democracy. You are responsible for Bush in a way that a North Korean is not responsible for Kim Jong Il. If you don't like it you could always emigrate

Topic for thread drift perhaps?

Been to busy to post here - I spent what little f.net time I had last few days on ROW video, but am pleased to see this chugging along.

To your point: I'm not awfully sympathetic to collective guilt arguments. If the cab driver knew who Inq was, maybe he had a valid case for making a face at him, but I'm not keen with the idea that private individuals should be abused for government policies they may have personally opposed. Or submit to a "love it or leave it" policy.

Does this mean we should have been beastly to Brit tourists visiting the US during their long colonial period or during the Troubles? What would the motto be - "spit on a Brit for Bobby Sands and the Elgin Marbles"? Be nasty to French after torture in Algiers? To Belgians (we need a thread for them - their country might fission. If they can't hold together, what's the odds of Iraq sticking as one unit?) because of Belgian genocide in Africa? To Norwegians because of Quisling? All more or less democracies, too. No, I just don't buy this as respectable behavior.

Besides, as I pointed out, there's a tradition of mindless, reflexive anti-Americanism even when we weren't invading Iraq, and a tradition of lauding despicable regimes and their leaders while disparaging the US. I suppose I could add Castro and Cuba - feted throughout lefty circles where our name was mud - never mind the dictatorship and prisoners. Or today, Hugo Chavez, busily inventing a 21st century socialist paradise where he can shut down opposition media and appoint himself President for Life. So, it's not even just a case of "do you punish private citizens for their governments bad behavior", often it's simply the left bien pensant picking the clearly wrong team to root for.

("root" having a different meaning in Australia, but it works nonetheless)

To other points: pigeonmeisters' comments illustrate the "why" of the UN's being hobbled - only serving to prove the point I was making. Thanks. As far as the supposed uniqueness of our posturing as moral while serving our own interests - that certainly applies to almost every foreign policy. Oh heck, classic imperialism of the British sort was laden with that - remember the "White Man's Burden"? Spare me the claim that this is a US-unique trait. Besieds, JBirch got this right: for good or ill (mostly ill) we did go into Iraq with public approval based on altruistic reasons (search for his "screwed the pooch" post) foolish and mis-conceived as they were. Durando's comments notwithstandings: Congo is a place where the international community failed to save millions of lives (I'm not exaggerating), and Darfur is where it's currently failing to save hundreds of thousands. So much for the effectiveness of the "right way" to solve such conflicts.

[Inquartata]

I would also establish a no-fly zone, enforced by NATO. UN authority already exists to do this.

Say...didn't you voice the opinion at one time that Iraqi targeting of allied planes patrolling the no-fly zone there was justified? And THAT was a country which had AGREED to no-fly zones as part of a cease-fire agreement. But forcing one upon a country would NOT be an infringement on its sovereignty?

I also refute your point about the universal popularity of anti-americanism since the war.

Either you meant "dispute", or else you hold a very high opinion of your own arguments!

I would say that it is worth remembering why the US took unilateral action in Iraq in 2003 but discounted it in Sudan in the same year. Unilteral action for humanitarian interests is not, and has never been, a US doctrine.

How do you know?

[pigeonmeister]

Say...didn't you voice the opinion at one time that Iraqi targeting of allied planes patrolling the no-fly zone there was justified? And THAT was a country which had AGREED to no-fly zones as part of a cease-fire agreement. But forcing one upon a country would NOT be an infringement on its sovereignty?

To quote an Bush ex cronie of Bush: I've searched my mind and I don't recall...I doubt I used the word justified.

I am not averse to infringing upon the sovereignty of states in some circumstances. Establishing no-fly zones Sudan is, having looked at it a bit more, not an easy thing to do- but if it was going to be done it should have been done at least 3 years ago. We are now committed to putting significant UN/AU forces on the ground. I support this and think significant effort should be made to bolster these troops in terms of resources and training. If you are trying to use this as some evidence of hyporacy in my refusal to support war in Iraq then you are going to have to work a lot harder....

Either you meant "dispute", or else you hold a very high opinion of your own arguments!

Unless I am very mistaken (and we must, of course, not ever rule that out) I was denying the accuracy of (i.e refuting) at least part of Jeff's comment. Anti-Americanism has been displayed consistently since the last war. It was, however, marginalised to the extreme political left to a much greater degree before 2003-at least in Britain. I do, however, agree with Jeff that a greater degree of self-examination is required. But if Bush justified torture, illegal wars, mass killings and general impunity for criminal actions committed by US forces in the terms suggested on this thread (i.e you all did it when you were powefull) then perhaps this point would have a greater impact.

Instead, we have an American mindset so self-assured about the universality and intrinsic quality of American (substitute- human) values- that it basically thinks US action in any form is logically incapable of not supporting them. What's good for America is good for the world. Thus America is supposedly torturing people for MY benefit....Thus, even if America doesn't have a physical empire equivalent in nature and geographical scope to the old European nations (I would argue that it doesn't need to) traces of colonial instincts can be seen in the neo-conservative vision that clearly influenced the 1st Bush administration.

How do you know?

It is my judgement- I'd be happy to start a discussion on its validity. Otherwise I will go through every assertion you have made in your 20,000 posts and apply the same question (actually that is an empty threat..)

As far as anti-Americanism in Europe is concerned, it cannot be defended. In many cases, and certainly in central and eatern Europe, xenophobia is rife in general. When you have had as many wars as we have- that is hardly surprising. America loves itself a bit too much, but it isn't as broadly suspicious of foreigners as Europe. That's the honest truth.

[Inquartata]

denying the accuracy of (i.e refuting)

Denying is not the same as refuting. Refuting means disproving.

Well, OK, yours is a secondary sense. But still.

It is my judgement- I'd be happy to start a discussion on its validity.

All I ask is an occasional acknowledgement that a statement is an opinion, not an assertion of proven fact...

[pigeonmeister]

[QUOTE=Inquartata;611447]Denying is not the same as refuting. Refuting means disproving.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/refutes

"To deny the accuracy or truth of"

[Inquartata]

I SAID yours was a secondary sense!

[Insipiens]

[QUOTE=pigeonmeister;611450]

Denying is not the same as refuting. Refuting means disproving.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/refutes

"To deny the accuracy or truth of"

my bold emphasis below

Online Etymology Dictionary - Cite This Source
refute

Refute 1513, "refuse, reject," from L. refutare "drive back, repress, repel, rebut," from re- "back" + -futare "to beat," probably from PIE base *bhat- "to strike down" (cf. beat). Meaning "prove wrong" dates from 1545. Since c.1964 linguists have frowned on the subtle shift in meaning towards "to deny," as it is used in connection with allegation.

Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper

refute's meaning deny is not a usage I have ever heard and frankly I think is quite misleading.

5 out of 6 of the dictionaries on this page:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/refute
seem to give only the meaning of disprove.

But back on the thread-drift - wouldn't Africa be better off if we hadn't left them to their own devices just when we were beginning to treat the inhabitants as if they actually had moral value equal to ours?

[Have At You]

...wouldn't Africa be better off if we hadn't left them to their own devices just when we were beginning to treat the inhabitants as if they actually had moral value equal to ours?

I'm not sure what you mean by "moral value," much less "moral value equal to ours." But the crux of your rhetorical question is that Africa would have been better off if it had continued to be either ruled or run by the more enlightened members of the world community.

To that, I can only say that people tend to get the government they deserve. If a culture puts tribal identity over the interests of the wider community, justifies or even celebrates slaughter, and grants power but not responsibility to whomever can wrest that power by force, well they're going to get a government that reflects those cultural values.

Whether foreign governments should intervene depends on the interests of those governments. The mere fact that a region lacks any actual government and its residents are being murdered, raped, tortured and starved does not necessarily justify the expenditure of another nation's treasure, resources and blood to change the situation. If the instability and violence are likely to damage the nation's economic or security interests, then there's a reason to step in. (Leaving aside the interests of "justice" and "goodness.")

Do these parts of Africa have any economic influence? Does their situation threaten ours? I don't really know. But that's what I'd be thinking about.

[Lemonaide]

Well, what we should try to realize and at least respect if we can't completely embrace this notion, is that it's a Nations choice to 'befriend' or not. It's the same as an individual's right to association. We sometimes get upset with the mere idea that someone doesn't 'want to be our friend' - What we might want to try to absorb is that while many people may like observing the United States from a distance, they may not be over anxious to actually befriend us and I agree with that, as I feel that way personally about people. I admire people, and enjoy listening to their viewpoints and ideas, but it doesn't mean I want to pal around with everyone. Sometimes people go 'abroad' and mill around with townspeople who are busy working - on their way to and from shopping, digging a road or dealing with their own lives - and along comes wunderkid with a kodak and buzzes around them like an annoying pest. It's a difficult thing, that we are just raised to be more inquisitive. The classic example given is that in the US kids are expected to raise their hands to ask questions, while in other cultures, asking a question is considered a confrontation.

[pigeonmeister]

I'm confused- have you refuted my use of the word refute?

[Lemonaide]

"Think nine times before replying" - proverb from China

"Observe with the eyes of Li Lou" - proverb from Japan about China

"Hear with the ears of Shih K'uang" - Proverb from Japan about China

Grasshopper!!

[Zilverzmurfen]

"Think nine times before replying" - proverb from China

"Observe with the eyes of Li Lou" - proverb from Japan about China

"Hear with the ears of Shih K'uang" - Proverb from Japan about China

Grasshopper!!

[Inquartata]

Tsk! SOMEone only thought EIGHT times before replying, didn't they?

[Phaeton]

Tsk! SOMEone only thought EIGHT times before replying, didn't they?

Wait..people actually think before replying? This...is...not...possible...

[Nusy]

Tsk! SOMEone only thought EIGHT times before replying, didn't they?

Oh wow. Thinking before replying. I do, mostly. I have to translate.

[Epee_Pox]

Don't make me think! If what you have to say doesn't obviously conform to the views of my particular echo chamber, then your thoughts are clearly stupid and must be rejected outright (forget disputing or even refuting).

[jeff]

Q: Which sense of "refute" is used in this famous example:

"After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus." Boswell: "Life"

A: "To deny the accuracy or truth of"