Why people Hate America-Americans.

Wook

One of the most significant questions to emerge after the very tragic terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001 is: Why do people hate America and Americans?

In a nationally televised address to a joint session of Congress one week after the World Trade Center/Pentagon attacks, President George Bush answered this question as follows:

"They hate what they see right here in this chamber. A democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."

At the outset, it must be stated quite categorically that contrary to President Bush's assertion, one of the reasons why people hate America and Americans is not because they are jealous of America's freedoms and/or way of life.

People hate America and Americans because America has:

. "Supported repressive monarchies and dictatorships.
. Ignored torture and other human rights abuses by (their) allies.
. Suppressed and helped attack democratic movements."

Let us recall that:

. In May 2001, "the United States was voted off the U.N. Human Rights Commission.(as) an opportunity for countries.to express dissatisfaction (with America's foreign policy)".

. "The Bush administration has decided to renounce formally any involvement in a treaty creating an international criminal court and (declared) that the signing of the document by the Clinton administration is no longer valid,"

. "Despite fierce U.S. opposition, advocates of the first permanent international war crimes court.obtained more than the 60 government ratifications required for the creation of the tribunal."

. "(On 3 September 2002), the International Criminal Court held its first meeting.ignoring a U.S. campaign to undermine its jurisdiction by exempting Americans from prosecution;" but in the case of non-Americans, the U.S. Pentagon Department has already set the stage "for prosecution of the Iraqi high command before U.S. military tribunals.for aiding or abetting crimes on the battlefield or for failing to investigate subordinates' alleged violations."

This unilateral action reflects America's Arrogance of Superiority at its racist zenith.

. The Bush administration has warned foreign diplomats that "their nations could lose all U.S. military assistance if they become members of the International Criminal Court without pledging to protect Americans serving in their countries from its reach."

However, despite the U.S. "arrogance of power," the Court could begin prosecuting cases in 2003.

People hate America and Americans because of its ethnocentric and etrocentric policy toward Iraq as opposed to North Korea.

The fact of the matter is that unlike President Saddam Husein of Iraq, the leadership in North Korea has:

. Declared that it possesses one or two nuclear weapons.
. Removed U.N. seals and surveillance cameras from nuclear facilities
. Expelled U.N. nuclear weapons inspectors
. Continued to produce and store chemical-biological weapons of mass destruction.
. The capability to reach the West Coast of the United States with long-range missiles
. Violated international atomic treaties
. Withdrawn from the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and
. Restarted a mothballed nuclear complex capable of producing weapons grade
plutonium and threatened to resume missile testing.
. Threatened to abandon the 1953 armistice that ended the Korean War.
. Reactivated a nuclear reactor as a first step toward production of additional nuclear weapons within one year.
. Intercepted an unarmed U.S. Air Force spy plane on a surveillance mission
near North Korea's coast" on 1 March 2003. In this "threatening and provocative" act of aggression, the North Korean jets "came within 50 feet of the U.S. aircraft.in international air space."

The fact of the matter is that any nuclear threat from Iraq on America is at best five years away while nuclear threat from North Korea on America is now.

And contrary to President Bush's assertion, Iraq does not pose "a direct threat to the security of the United States (and) the American people (are not) at the mercy of the Iraqi dictator and his weapons (of mass destruction.)"

Yet the Bush administration has not threatened to launch a military invasion of North Korea. In the words of Secretary of State, Colin Powell: "We have made it clear, we have no aggressive intent (and are) looking for ways to communicate with the North Koreans."

The Bush administration has therefore decided not only to launch "diplomatic efforts," but also to offer a "bold initiative" that would "bring aid, energy, and eventually even diplomatic and security agreements to the country."

Let us recall that European nations are also against U.S. policy toward Iraq.

In fact, France says "it will fight to prevent war in Iraq," and along with Germany and Belgium on 10 February 2003, "vetoed a U.S.-backed plan for NATO to protect Turkey from any retaliatory strike by Iraq in the event of war."

In the words of German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder: "We agree completely to harmonize our positions as closely as possible to find a peaceful solution to the Iraqi crisis."

In fact, eighty percent of the British public is against the U.S. invasion of Iraq; the figure is seventy-five percent in France and over eighty percent in Spain, while forty-five percent of Afrikan-Americans and sixty percent of Hispanics are against any U.S. war on Iraq.

In addition, on 15 February 2003, tens to hundreds of thousands and in some instances, millions of anti-war demonstrators took to the streets to protest against any unilateral military invasion of Iraq. These demonstrations took place all across Europe (for example, Rome, Germany, France, Sweden, Belgium, Switzerland, Spain, Netherlands, Denmark, and Austria) and in six hundred cities in more than a dozen countries, including the United States, Britain, Australia, Scotland, Canada, Ireland, Russia, South Africa, Tokyo, Bangladesh, Prague, and Syria.

Some protestors carried signs and placards equating George Bush with Adolph Hitler.

Indeed, these vociferous demonstrations convey a very potent, dissenting and tenacious collective, hateful voice from the international community against America's policy toward Iraq.

For his part, President George Bush arrogantly and summarily dismissed these anti-war protests as "well-intentioned but irrelevant"-the equivalent of a marketing "focus group."

Yet in the same "arrogance of power" breath, President Bush was meticulously attempting to bribe Turkey to the tune of $15 billion in loan guarantees and grants "to allow 62,000 U.S. ground troops to use bases on Turkish soil to open a northern front against Iraq." The reality is that ninety-four percent of Turks oppose any war on Iraq.

Even Pope John Paul II has publicly expressed his "strongest opposition" to U.S. war policy toward Iraq, by suggesting that: "war is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity. No to war."

As of August 2002, the following countries opposed U.S. war policy toward Iraq: Australia, Bahrain, Canada, China, Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Russia, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Their positions are as follows:

. "We express our determined opposition to any unilateral military action against Iraq."
. An attack "could be justified only if it were decided on by the Security Council."
. There is "no proof" of Iraq's war-like intent.
. A U.S. strike would be a "tremendous mistake."
. "The case for war has not been made."
. "If regime change is the goal (in Iraq), then who else is next?"

Surprisingly, the pro-U.S. ally Saudi Arabia has publicly warned America not to engage in any unilateral policy "act of aggression" by arbitrarily invading Iraq, while on the one hand, fifty-two Afrikan nations issued a joint summit statement on 20 February 2003 stated quite equivocally that: "there is an alternative to war."

On the other hand, on 21 February 2003, one hundred and fourteen nations of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) issued a draft resolution to the extent that: "the use of force against Iraq would run contrary to the global consensus that 'categorically rejects the current threat of war'" by America.

In his obdurate opposition to the U.S. war policy toward Iraq, former South African President and Nobel Peace Prize recipient, Nelson Mandela, has stated quite categorically that:

"We would want to urgently appeal to the U.S. and its leadership to demonstrate their strength in the world by respect for those democratic principles they hold dear in their domestic affairs. All Bush wants is Iraqi oil because Iraq produces 64 percent of the oil and he wants to get hold of it.No country should be allowed to take the law into their own hands."

As a corollary, former U.S. President and recent recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, Jimmy Carter has opined that: "For powerful countries to adopt a principle of preventive war may well set an example that can have catastrophic consequences."

This sentiment is corroborated in the stern admonition on 8 February 2003 by United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan as follows:

"This is an issue not for any one state alone, but for the international community as a whole. When states decide to use force, not in self-defence but to deal with broader threats to international peace and security, there is no substitute for the unique legitimacy provided by the United Nations Security Council."

Continues on : http://www.trinicenter.com/kwame/2003/Mar/

Note: i would like to agree with many points from this post but wouldnt say i 'Hate' americans perse, i am sure theyre cool dudes among them. What i don't understand is why Americans ignore what their government is doing, see Kyoto, landmines,racism and let this all happening.

JohnK

What i don't understand is why Americans ignore what their government is doing, see Kyoto, landmines,racism and let this all happening.

That's because a lot of Americans don't even know whats happening. On an American message board someone recently posted about some anti war/bush demonstrations that were taking place in some US city. The demonstrations were covered by some of the foreign media but no mention of it was found in the US. It wasn't on the TV news, radio news, newspapers, or internet sites. Few people in America even knew it took place. Needless to say, this disturbed him greatly. You have to wonder what else they are not being told.

Imposter

Originally posted by JohnK
...You have to wonder what else they are not being told.

I think you also should wonder at what they are being told! Most of that quote below is quite debateable!

"They hate what they see right here in this chamber. A democratically elected government. Their leaders are self-appointed. They hate our freedoms: our freedom of religion, our freedom of speech, our freedom to vote and assemble and disagree with each other."

Matt Simis

The part of the article you posted is the best part... the rest starts to get a little less cohesive:

"The outside perception is that life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness only apply to Europeans, namely Americans. The outside perception is that the life of an Israeli is more precious, valuable, and worthwhile than that of a non-European, Palestinian, or Arab."


Hmm... "only apply to Europeans, namely Americans", what exactly does that mean?

Also, I cannot find the word "etrocentric" in the dictionary(.com), what does it mean?



Matt

p.pete

I think JohnK makes a very good point there. Media has an infinite variety of things that they can focus on. What they choose to focus on will have a huge bearing on what is in the heads of the people.

I don't hate the Americans either - I hate a lot of their administration and sometimes they scare me. I hate the way that they are quite often oblivious to what is going on around them but this is not necesarily their fault if the media is not pointing them in the right direction.

In general they are brought up very proud of the systems that they have in place in their country and the idea of questioning how things work is quite often a radical idea to them.

Sparks

Okay, firstly some related humour.

Secondly,

What i don't understand is why Americans ignore what their government is doing, see Kyoto, landmines,racism and let this all happening.

That applies equally well to us, y'know...

rcunning03

---

only apply to Europeans, namely Americans

---

im guessing the article means white people

Matt Simis

That's a rather ignorant statement to make isn't it.. equating an entire continent (with a range of complexions) with a another, singular nation, which itself is supposedly multicultural. Why not stick to "western peoples"?

I also would not equate myself with an Israeli. Some of them may have been European at one stage, but quite clearly they are not in\from Europe and therefore European now.



Matt

Wook

Originally posted by Matt Simis
That's a rather ignorant statement to make isn't it.. equating an entire continent (with a range of complexions) with a another, singular nation, which itself is supposedly multicultural. Why not stick to "western peoples"? (continues)
Matt

I am not sure i understand you completly if at all , but i don't want to compare myself to your average American citizen.
And i am sure many people would not like to do so either, because there is a difference, so 'western people'?..i don't know.

Matt Simis

Originally posted by Wook
I am not sure i understand you completly if at all , but i don't want to compare myself to your average American citizen.
And i am sure many people would not like to do so either, because there is a difference, so 'western people'?..i don't know.

Well, that is what I said too, I also think Europeans are those in\from Europe.

If people want to generalise Americans and Europeans for , they generally use the term "westerners" dont they? Im wondering why the author (who is actually based in the US himself) chose to equate Europeans and "Americans", as opposed to using the common term.


Matt

Wook

aaaaah, i see... agreed.