Would you consider yourself to be Anti-American?

PH01

Would you agree with recent remarks from Mary Horney about anti-Americanism in Ireland?

Thorbar

I can't understand how anyone could claim to be anti-American unless they've lived over here for a few months otherwise deciding what you think of around 250 million people on a few tourists who go through your home town is pure ****e. I've been living in Boston for 5 weeks now and granted that's a short period and this is a friendly city with a fairly relaxed atmosphere, The vast majority of people I've met have been salt of the earth, dead friendly and willing to help you find where your way around. I think a lot of the anti-American sentiment is a nice mixture of begrudery and ignorance. I'll tell ya I feel a lot safer walk though Boston at 5 am pissed out of my skull then I do walking though Dublin.

How could this country be anti american when hundreds of thousands of people on the friday after 9-11 packed churches and grave yards in a national day of mourning??

Anti American my foot!

This country is not a fan of an invasion of Iraq for sure, but we aren't alone in that.

Mind you if we were still on the security council, maybe Bush would have built Berties bowl in return for a yes vote on the 2nd...(or rather 18th) resolution
mm

mike65

I'm not anti-American nor am I anti War on Saddam Hussain. But I don't have much time for Bush in other respects.

Mike.

Éomer of Rohan

I think everyone with some opinion with regards to America should make a contirbution here; I for example said I was pro - America but anti-Bush. I imagine that some people will feel that I am messed up in the head when all of my posts so far may indicate rabid anti-americanism (which I am sure at least one person will quote). Allow me to clarify:
The present American administration has demonstrated its incompetence, first by offending both Russia and China within a short space after taking power (1972 ABM and Spying respectively) and later by the ridiculous 'they hate our freedoms' type speeches following 9/11. Then we have this moronic policy (seemingly) of strike first, think later, with the Bush administration at the head of a coalition which wants to right 'daddy's' wrongs (am I alone in being reminded of the position of the DUP in Northern Ireland with the constant demand for deadlines to be met and even though weapons have been handed in, still not enough no matter what?). Thus I am completely anti-Bush and the 'hawks' which favour a 'pro-active' (aka unilateral, be damned to the rest of the world') approach, not to mention against their internal policies of 'balancing the budget' meaning the national deficit at the expense of libraries, schools, welfare etc.
With respect to America as a nation, no country should have that much power; in fact in the hands of a nation where people worshipped as stars can possibly score as pathetically as they do on the US version of the 'Weakest Link' (did anyone see today's episode?; these people have no comprehension of a world outside US borders) then it is positively disastrous. Before we hear the cries of self-justifying Americans, yes I apply that equally to China, Russia, the former European Empires etc.
With respect to American people, I engage in conversation with many many Americans every evening; and my general opinion is that there are indeed many blind idiots who like the idea of war with whoever, who like the idea of removing welfare entirely since they think all it does is prop up lazy people, who look down on intellectualism and who despise anyone who says they are wrong, branding them 'euro-weenies,' 'muslims' or 'communists' without actually realising what they say but at the same time there is a smaller group of people aware of the world outside America and who are the 'good guys' - however these people feel disenfranchised from their 'two party' political system resulting in republicrats as Michael Moore and others have termed the resulting political faction
I think that America, having enjoyed a general immunity from world affairs since Pearl Harbour needs to wake up to a reality that does not include terrorists around every street corner. Those of you who have seen 'Bowling for Columbine' will understand what I mean especially well; the atmosphere of fear portrayed.
I think America like so many other countries has the potential (speaking from a non class politics point of view) to do a lot of good if only it would realise that they cannot adopt the arrogance inferred by the 'do what I say, not as I do' approach and cannot push other sovereign nations around as they like whether by trade sanctions or by interfering in due electoral process.

Hobbes

Originally posted by Thorbar
I'll tell ya I feel a lot safer walk though Boston at 5 am pissed out of my skull then I do walking though Dublin.

Someone who has obviously never been to the 'Combat Zone' during that time. Other then that, most of Boston is cool, although there are still some areas that are dodgy.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

pyure

the only problem i have with america is the so called 'axis of evil' crap that bush (or weed as ive heard my american relatives call him ) has come up with.

fair enough, bomb the hell out of agfhanistan, that was pretty much expected. but bush has gone a lil over board with iraq.

i have to laugh when he accuses iraq of supporting al'quieda (?) terrorists etc, when how many goverments were overthrown, terrorists financed and trained by the american cia ?
hell didnt they help out terrorists (sorry 'freedom fighters' as they were called) in afghanistan when they were fighting the russians in the 80s? hey yeah, how about we arm and train terrorists then **** em over ? i bet they wont be pissed at us!
stupid stupid stupid.
also, the way i see it, you can pretty much blame the entire drug problem in south america on their northern brothers.

american people = cool...a lil dumb (as proven be the weakest likn ) but cool.
american governments = burn in hell you two faced ****s

my 2 cents.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

Thorbar

Originally posted by Hobbes
Someone who has obviously never been to the 'Combat Zone' during that time. Other then that, most of Boston is cool, although there are still some areas that are dodgy.

Yeah we were lucky enough to get a cheap flat in a rich almost 90% jewish area. Basically you wont see a soul on the street after 10 o'clock.

Biffa Bacon

Pro-America.
Pro-Bush.
Pro-War on Terror
Pro-liberation of Iraq.

Éomer of Rohan

Actually Daveirl, there is a better one somewhere about the North Koreans striking against America with nuclear weapons if America were to invade; to show America that she cannot bully weaker countries etc - and I still hold with that but you neglected to read my post regarding the American administration that followed what Sand quoted; this laid out that mayhaps I was wrong since it was not really the fault of [Italics] Americans as a people [/Italics] more a fault of their system and their government since as with all indirect democracies, the people have NO real say over Foreign Policy when they elect their representatives.

Éomer of Rohan

Sorry I forgot to mention that I know me better than you do and I KNOW I am not anti-American considering I have american friends. Oh and that maybe instead of posting arguments that I preempted and dealt with in my post, you should consider the argument in hand?

MY 2 cents. lol.

BattleBoar

Eomer, I feel the need to highlight that you are more than simply anti-american. How can you claim to NOT be anti-american when you advocate genocide of the American people:

"Maybe we should just allow Osama and his crackpot adherents to eliminate America entirely. He would be doing the world a favour. "----Éomer of Rohan, 01-03-2003 21.07

Trying to spin this one away is ridiculous... :rolleyes:

This, not withstanding your advocation of the elimination of the capitalist system which forms the basis for the american and western economic system and the republic form of government which is laid out in the american constitution. The fact that you are actually attempting to claim that you are pro-american because you have a few american friends or because you are not anti-american people is an amazingly poor argument. I have a friend from Pakistan. Does that makes me pro-pakistani? If I say that I realize there are wonderfully nice people in Zimbabwe, does that make me pro-zimbabwe? Not any more than it makes you pro-american for having an american friend or two. I am not pro- either of these countries, I don't like the ideals. But I would never go so far as to advocate the indisciminate genocide of either of its peoples.

You either like the idea of what america represents or you don't, and you Eomer, don't. And what I mean by that is not that people cannot and do not disagree with the one or more individual policies of america, but rather the notion of the american ideal. In other words, do you like the idea of representative democracy? Do you like the idea of a being free to work hard and better yourself? Do you like the idea of the freedoms laid out in the american constitution?

I do not consider the right-wing fundamentalists who would curtail the individual rights of citizens to be pro-american at all any more than I would consider the taliban to be pro-islam. They have their own little sheltered brand of what they consider to be "right". They live in their own little world. They would impose their ideals on others, thus stripping the rights of others. You, Eomer, would do the same with your Marxist philosophy.

As for me, I do like the principles america was founded upon, I just happen to think that america has gone astray in the sense that she should not be trying to take care of the world for better or for worse. Whether you would argue that these actions of interventionism are for the selfish gain of the country or for the benevolance and generosity of american spririt, the fact is that the cold war is over and with it died any plausible reason for interventionist foreign policy. Founding Fathers Thomas Jefferson and George Washinton were both very skeptical of any interventionist foreign policy. The distinction must be drawn that we are not taking about isolationist policy, merely non-interventionist policy...put simply, we should mind our own business - refusing to send american forces or wealth to places in the world where we are not threatened, but still maintain beneficial economic relations. Hence, both were very positive in forming economic relationships and trade with other countries.

“Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations - entangling alliances with none”— Thomas Jefferson

“The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible."— George Washington

I am an american. I do not like Bush. I did not like Clinton. I voted for neither. I do not like the idea of war against Iraq at this time for my own reasons which are outside the bounds of this topic.
I do not consider myself inferior intellectually or culturally to europeans (Eomer). And, I most definitely consider you, Eomer, to be wholeheatedly and unabashedly anti-american based on every post of yours I have read.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
more a fault of their system and their government since as with all indirect democracies, the people have NO real say over Foreign Policy when they elect their representatives.

So Éomer, are you on the extreme left then or extreme right then?

I know me better than you do and I KNOW I am not anti-American considering I have american friends

You sound like a stereotypical 'Jim-Bob' character from Mississippi who’ll argue that he’s not racist because he lets a local “negro” mow his lawn

I like you Éomer. You remind me of when I was young and stupid.

Well i guess its my time to get torn up.

I don't have a problem with americans. However i do have a problem with america. If thats anti-americanism then, sign me up.

I have the problem with a number of issues:

1) America's proposed invasion of Iraq, which as far as i can see is illegal.
2) America's Proposed invasion of other nations once Iraq has been colonised.
3) America being put forward as the last foundation of democracy.
4) The level of aggression thats currently coming from America.
5) the lack of standards whereby America is allowed to have stockpiles of WMD's, but nobody else is. Either all or none.

Before the Iraq-America conflict of the last few months, i didn't think too much abt america. They didn't inflict themselves too much on my life. Nor did i care what they did internally. However when it comes to their approach of dealing with the outside world, thats when my breath comes out short.

Sept 11 was a terrible disaster. And i'm going to get really flamed over this, but "Get over it". they have already invaded one nation as a result of the attack. They have the leader of the attack. Where will it end?

America is more than happy to tell other countries that suffer from continous terrorist attacks to be calm, and peaceful in their responses, but they have a double standard when it comes to themselves. They have been attacked once on their own soiul, by a terrorist attack. Grand, alotof people died, however, how many people have died as a result of landmines left in Vietnam, or the number of people killed/injured by Palestinian Bombers over the last 30 years? Now they have Justice (which i see as revenge) on their side, as they take out every country that has ever looked at them sideways.

It would be nice to see America actually follow some international laws for a period of time, when it doesn't involve their own interests. By their actions, all confidence in the UN is fast disappearing.


Now on the other side of the coin. I like in essence what america represents. I'm not talking abt it being a superpower, or how large its army is, but rather the groundwork its "constitution" put down for them. Also i like the concept of "freedom of speech" etc, that American's feel so proud of.

In Summary.

I have no problem with the americans themselves. However, within the period of Bush comin into power, i've gone from indifferent, to anti. I have american friends, & i've been to america and i totally enjoy being in their company.

So dependent on whose definition of anti-americanism, i could be either.

In fact, i'd love for a definition to be beaten out here in this thread, and for one of the moderators to place a sticky of it. That way there wouldn't be so much confusion abt the term.


(I didn't want to hi-jack the thread, but most of my feelings against america stems from the current conflict)

Hellrazer

Originally posted by klaz
Well i guess its my time to get torn up.

I don't have a problem with americans. However i do have a problem with america. If thats anti-americanism then, sign me up.

I have the problem with a number of issues:

1) America's proposed invasion of Iraq, which as far as i can see is illegal.
2) America's Proposed invasion of other nations once Iraq has been colonised.
3) America being put forward as the last foundation of democracy.
4) The level of aggression thats currently coming from America.
5) the lack of standards whereby America is allowed to have stockpiles of WMD's, but nobody else is. Either all or none.

Before the Iraq-America conflict of the last few months, i didn't think too much abt america. They didn't inflict themselves too much on my life. Nor did i care what they did internally. However when it comes to their approach of dealing with the outside world, thats when my breath comes out short.

Sept 11 was a terrible disaster. And i'm going to get really flamed over this, but "Get over it". they have already invaded one nation as a result of the attack. They have the leader of the attack. Where will it end?

America is more than happy to tell other countries that suffer from continous terrorist attacks to be calm, and peaceful in their responses, but they have a double standard when it comes to themselves. They have been attacked once on their own soiul, by a terrorist attack. Grand, alotof people died, however, how many people have died as a result of landmines left in Vietnam, or the number of people killed/injured by Palestinian Bombers over the last 30 years? Now they have Justice (which i see as revenge) on their side, as they take out every country that has ever looked at them sideways.

It would be nice to see America actually follow some international laws for a period of time, when it doesn't involve their own interests. By their actions, all confidence in the UN is fast disappearing.


Now on the other side of the coin. I like in essence what america represents. I'm not talking abt it being a superpower, or how large its army is, but rather the groundwork its "constitution" put down for them. Also i like the concept of "freedom of speech" etc, that American's feel so proud of.

In Summary.

I have no problem with the americans themselves. However, within the period of Bush comin into power, i've gone from indifferent, to anti. I have american friends, & i've been to america and i totally enjoy being in their company.

So dependent on whose definition of anti-americanism, i could be either.

In fact, i'd love for a definition to be beaten out here in this thread, and for one of the moderators to place a sticky of it. That way there wouldn't be so much confusion abt the term.


(I didn't want to hi-jack the thread, but most of my feelings against america stems from the current conflict)

I would have to say that I agree 100% with Klaz on this one.Before Mr Warmonger Bush took up residence in the White House US politics didnt really have an effect on my everyday life.But US foreign policy recently has really started pi$$ing me off.
There seems to be a lot of double standards in the US foreign policy.
1.The US can have all the nukes they want yet no-one else can.
2.They can target "pre-emptively" those countries that may or may not want to attacK the US.Yet other countries could be frowned upon/sanctioned for doing likewise.
3.The Israeli situation sickens me.The US has consistently allowed Israel to attack stone throwing Palestinians with gun ships.Ok maybe a bit OTT but still the US have let Israel invade Palestine and attack refugee camps with Gunships.Attacks like the ones carried out in Gaza etc are obviously illegal by UN standards(and could be seen as an act of war) but again it seems like Israel and America dont abide by UN charters.
And if this means Im Anti-US then yes I am.

Shinji

You know what? Yes, I'm anti-American. This isn't a blind irrational hatred, or a random childish decision that I don't like an entire nation across the sea from us. This is a considered, educated stance; I do not detest the people of America, but I do despise "America" and the "American way". I loathe their foreign and domestic policies, the way they treat the weak both on an international and an internal level. I loathe their contempt for education and their hypocritical stance on freedom of education. I abhor their wanton consumption of this planet's resources without thinking of the damage they are doing.

I hate their institutionalised racism, which persists even now and even in some of the most unlikely places. Their attitudes to gun control, juxtaposed with their incredibly hardline attitudes on harmless things like soft drugs and their increasing moves towards media censorship, disgust me.

I have met a great many American people who I have liked and whose company I have enjoyed. I don't wish death on the people of America. I bear them no ill will.

But I despise their society; and if the people are "Americans", then the society and the system they have created and in which they now live is "America", and I am certainly "anti-America". Six months ago I would have said I was anti-Bush, but a lot of thought and research on the matter simply shows that Bush is only one of the heads of this hydra, and he's not even a particularly important one.

Visit Los Angeles. See what this greedy, violent, consumer-driven, fearful, ignorant model of society has done to the sunny valleys and shorelines of southern California, and to the millions of people living in them. Read up on Panama, on Chile, on Iran. Then come and tell me that America's way is right, and they you're not "anti-America".

bertiebowl

I'm definitely not anti-American - but I am anti moran bush and his co-hort.

Sure we can all laugh at our sterotypes of uneducated Americans......but answer this - what country do the worlds biggest book stores come from?

Also people can dig up all the past history about Chile etc. where America did not cover herself in glory - true enough.

But this is coming from a country who sent notes of respect to the Germans when Hitler died!! A country who had no problem in feeding the armies of Saddam Hussein while he was gassing Kurds/Iranians etc.!!!!

So lets get a little perspective on the debate. Remember would you rather live in North Korea or Boston?

Wook

Here's a list of the countries that the U.S. has bombed since the end of World War II, compiled by historian William Blum:

China 1945-46
Korea 1950-53
China 1950-53
Guatemala 1954
Indonesia 1958
Cuba 1959-60
Guatemala 1960
Congo 1964
Peru 1965
Laos 1964-73
Vietnam 1961-73
Cambodia 1969-70
Guatemala 1967-69
Grenada 1983
Libya 1986
El Salvador 1980s
Nicaragua 1980s
Panama 1989
Iraq 1991-99
Sudan 1998
Afghanistan 1998
Yugoslavia 1999

Me anti-American...?

Definetly. If you mention anything that the US have done in the past, military wise, you're automatically anti-american. Welcome to the Club.

Sure we can all laugh at our sterotypes of uneducated Americans......but answer this - what country do the worlds biggest book stores come from?

Actually i'm thinking Germany. They might not be in English, but they do have large stores.

Also people can dig up all the past history about Chile etc. where America did not cover herself in glory - true enough.

True. But people can also dig up other theatres where the US has messed up.

But this is coming from a country who sent notes of respect to the Germans when Hitler died!! A country who had no problem in feeding the armies of Saddam Hussein while he was gassing Kurds/Iranians etc.!!!!

Yup. We're polite.

As for feeding Iraq, so has the rest of the world. Also consider its better to be feeding them, than bombing everything that moves. I prefer feeding a country than constantly calling for more air-strikes, and continous sanctions.

So lets get a little perspective on the debate. Remember would you rather live in North Korea or Boston?

Why do people always compare the US to N.Korea as places to live? We're Europeans. At least use european countries as reference. I live in Ireland. If i wanted to live in America, i'd be living there. I don't. I live in Ireland because my friends are here.

The comparison between N.Korea & the US does not bring perspective. All it does is make a comparison between two nations with very different politics and history. Its not relevent to this discussion.

The Corinthian

Europeans (including the British and Irish) have long had a somewhat cynical attitude towards their colonial cousins. We like them, we’re almost proud of them in the same way as we would be of younger cousins, but we still consider them to be a bit crass and vulgar, even if well meaning. A prejudice, I know, but a common one.

Anti-Americanism is where, due to recent political events (that even predate Bush), many non-Americans have begun to feel uneasy and in some cases even resentful towards what is perceived as uncontrolled American influence. An America that would help us chase out the Nazi’s and keep the Soviets at bay was welcomed. An America that handed out foreign aid and took up the responsibility of international policing on our behalf was applauded. But then we all get upset when we find that they are in a position of complete dominance and can do whatever they like?

In this I would certainly agree with the Bush administration’s view of Old Europe, that unable or unwilling to be at the forefront of that international policing, basking in the apathetic glow of peaceful neutrality, we can hardly be respected for defiantly stamping our feet now.

As Europeans, we are probably beginning to feel what many in the Third World have felt for a long time, the frustrated helplessness that comes with our destinies becoming subject to the political whims of a foreign state.

Tough - we have no one to blame but ourselves.

Welcome to the New American Century.

Tough - we have no one to blame but ourselves

I agree totally.

However it doesn't change the feeling of anger against the current US mentality. What am i saying??? its close to the mentality the US has had since Reagan.

I dunno. I'd love to see Europe take a hand at policing the world. But the fact remains that the US does indeed provide most of the support for NATO. Any contribution Europe makes will always be overshadowed by that.

But hey, i'd rather american troops dying, than Irish troops dying. An awful argument, but one i'm willing to admit to.

They've pushed to become the sheriffs of the world. Let them have it. It's not going to make me appreciate their culture, or history any better.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by klaz
But hey, i'd rather american troops dying, than Irish troops dying. An awful argument, but one i'm willing to admit to.

That was my point, and why Europe finds itself where it is and why America, quite rightly, does not take too seriously European letter-opener rattling.

They've pushed to become the sheriffs of the world. Let them have it. It's not going to make me appreciate their culture, or history any better.

That’s not really your choice anymore though, is it?

And your children may not even know that there was a choice in the first place...

That’s not really your choice anymore though, is it?

Well if you want to be realistic, it was NEVER my choice. BUt i don't have to like it, do i? Especially since, there is no chance of me, personally, being able to change it.

Éomer of Rohan

Quote from the Corinthian

That was my point, and why Europe finds itself where it is and why America, quite rightly, does not take too seriously European letter-opener rattling.

You do neglect to mention however that over the last one hundred years, Europe has experienced more bloodshed that all the rest of the world put together thus they have very good reason not to bask in the foreglow of an upcoming imperial contest. And I ask, why should Europe lose her sons in a war for American glory? This is not a 'police action,' this upcoming war is a war for control of resources, a war therefore of imperialism.

Quote from Klaz

Well if you want to be realistic, it was NEVER my choice. BUt i don't have to like it, do i? Especially since, there is no chance of me, personally, being able to change it

Make no mistake my friend, if you wanted to change it, there are others who will want the same, and doesn't the world turn on the hopes and dreams of idealistic men who want to change things for the better, not just the pragmatists who can help it happen?

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
You do neglect to mention however that over the last one hundred years, Europe has experienced more bloodshed that all the rest of the world put together thus they have very good reason not to bask in the foreglow of an upcoming imperial contest.

Hardly a reason to pretend that the rest of the world does not exist.

And I ask, why should Europe lose her sons in a war for American glory? This is not a 'police action,' this upcoming war is a war for control of resources, a war therefore of imperialism.

You really are missing the point, you silly little boy, which is that as a result of such pacifistic intellectual masturbation Europe is too weak to be credible on a military level.

And whether people like it or not that is what it comes down to. Try debating with a cruise missile sent up your arse.

Might is right. Bottom line.

Éomer of Rohan

Hardly a reason to pretend that the rest of the world does not exist

So what you are in fact saying here is that Europe not wanting to endure casualties for American power is not a reason to pretend the rest of the world does not exist? That does not even make sense; first of all, Europe is not pretending the world does not exist, as I stated, but you ignored, she is simple unwilling to suffer for a pointless goal.

You really are missing the point, you silly little boy, which is that as a result of such pacifistic intellectual masturbation Europe is too weak to be credible on a military level.

And whether people like it or not that is what it comes down to. Try debating with a cruise missile sent up your arse.

Might is right. Bottom line.

I'm missing the point? The principle of all western civilisation is that might is NOT right and that is the purpose of a democracy; at the very least internally, otherwise we would still be stuck in a feudal period of one man killing to overcome another etc.

You obviously disdain intellectually advanced people then, from what I derive from your insulting comments so I will keep this simple for you; it is as a result of such militaristic attitudes that arms races come about and much money is spent on pointless ventures such as Anti Ballistic Missiles and this new weapon that I have heard disturning reports of from a post on these boards; Big Blue rather than on social welfare and protecting the environment; if the west was not a threat to other people, they would not be a threat to us. The fact you ignore also is that the UK, France and Germany are still very advanced nations, militarily speaking and could deal with any threat to themselves, even though one does not exist at present. Thus your arguments whilst comforting I am sure to those politicians who backed a 265 Billion USD hike in the defence spending, they are more than worrying from the rest of us.

One last thing, are you american by any chance? Not a criticism, just a question.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
So what you are in fact saying here is that Europe not wanting to endure casualties for American power is not a reason to pretend the rest of the world does not exist?

I am in fact saying that just because Europe does not seek war it does not mean that war will not seek Europe, or in fact that given Europe’s lack of interest in such military adventures, that someone else will not take advantage and profit from similar adventures.

I'm missing the point? The principle of all western civilisation is that might is NOT right and that is the purpose of a democracy; at the very least internally, otherwise we would still be stuck in a feudal period of one man killing to overcome another etc.

Grow up. What part of history did you get that bit of clarity? Rule of law in a feudal state would have been less violent than a supposedly democratic one of the same period if only for the greater emphasis on law there would have been in the more autocratic feudal society.

The law between states is and always will be - Might Is Right. Dislike it and you will be silenced. That is the only reality.

One last thing, are you american by any chance? Not a criticism, just a question.

I am not American. And before you ask either, I’m not a Jew either, just in case that’s also on your agenda.

Éomer of Rohan

I am in fact saying that just because Europe does not seek war it does not mean that war will not seek Europe, or in fact that given Europe’s lack of interest in such military adventures, that someone else will not take advantage and profit from similar adventures

Who, for example, poses a credible military threat to Europe? Even the Soviets did not pose such a threat; the most imperialist of all Soviet leades, Iosef Vissarionovich Stalin refused to contemplate conquering all of Germany even, never mind pushing to the channel and this was decided long before the Americans used the nuclear weapons on Japan.

Grow up. What part of history did you get that bit of clarity? Rule of law in a feudal state would have been less violent than a supposedly democratic one of the same period if only for the greater emphasis on law there would have been in the more autocratic feudal society.

The law between states is and always will be - Might Is Right. Dislike it and you will be silenced. That is the only reality

I am thinking that my knowledge of history is vastly better than yours and I intend backing that up, so don't get all indignant. If rule of law in a feudal state would have been less violent, why were those men at the top constantly knocking each other off? Consider England in Anglo Saxon times, prior to 1066AD. Edward 'the Confessor' was king yet Harold Godwinssons' father was the foremost earl, during which time he led armies against rebellions in Northumbria and Mercia; to suppress his rivals - a result of a power dynamic justified by the might is right theory; of course post Battle of Hastings we saw such peace as William I of England killed of almost the entire population of Exeter despite their submission and laid waste all of Northern England as an example of the 'rule of law.' In a democracy, roughly equitable to this level of advancement since we must remember that the early middle or Dark Ages occurred after the fall of 'civilisation' in the North, Hellenic Athens, in all the years that democracy was in place (508 though some say 511 to 404BC), there was only one uprising in Athens - and then it was by oligarchs in 411BC who wished to overthrow the Boule of 500 and the Ekklesia of 6000 to substitute it with the Areopagus of 400 'good' (a euphemism of Ancient Sources meaning rich) men. What is more, Athenian democracy practically laid the foundations for Western Democracy.

The law between states is and always will be - Might Is Right. Dislike it and you will be silenced. That is the only reality

Personally I think that this is ridiculous and put in for the 'sound byte' effect. If this were the case then the United Nations would not have been founded on the principles it was founded on, to create peace. Of course indubitably we will hear something on the Pax Romana and how Roman power solved the problem of war; anyone who really thinks that needs a little more time in the library.

What is more, you are outrightly wrong. You consider only those nations with an imperial imperative; what about nations which are genuinely peaceful? Have you ever heard of an armed dispute between Cuba and the Dominican Republic for example?? If we think like you do then I personally think that the security of the world is in real danger, we may even end up creating enemies out of powerless little thrid world nations....oh wait, the First World already did that didn't they - it was called Viet Nam.

Éomer of Rohan

And before you ask either, I’m not a Jew either, just in case that’s also on your agenda.

I want to know what you mean by that because I consider it a grievous insult if you are calling me anti-semitic. I simply enquired as to whether you were american since your rhetoric sounded much like that from certain republican americans that I know - that is all. It was not a discriminatory question.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
I want to know what you mean by that because I consider it a grievous insult if you are calling me anti-semitic. I simply enquired as to whether you were american since your rhetoric sounded much like that from certain republican americans that I know - that is all. It was not a discriminatory question.

Diddums, were you offended? You might try avoiding such cheap shots as “are you American” then. Ultimately you’ve just responded with the most incredible diatribe of irrelevant waffle I’ve witnessed in a good while and missed the point entirely. You really should not be caught up in your own dogma so as to be blind to the world around you.

As such to disagree with you is to become a pro-American warmonger. I’m not. I made no moral judgment on American, European or Iraqi actions. All I did was highlight the ultimate consequences of historical Darwinism.

Read over what I posted again. Take a deep breath, think outside of that little box you live in and argue with what I said, rather than what you would have liked me to say. If finger puppets will help you understand, I may be able to sort something out for you.

If you intend to spout pages of pseudo-intellectualism in response to this, don’t. It would be a waste of both our times, bandwidth and the thoughts of those you would plagiarize.

Éomer of Rohan

You might try avoiding such cheap shots as “are you American”

You obviously missed where I made it clear w.r.t the reasons I asked this.

As such to disagree with you is to become a pro-American warmonger. I’m not. I made no moral judgment on American, European or Iraqi actions

Where did this come from? I was attacking your theories...

Rule of law in a feudal state would have been less violent than a supposedly democratic one of the same period if only for the greater emphasis on law there would have been in the more autocratic feudal society.

and

The law between states is and always will be - Might Is Right

and as yet all you have done is tried to insult me. However it was you who brought up 'pseudo-intellectualism' with

You really are missing the point, you silly little boy, which is that as a result of such pacifistic intellectual masturbation Europe is too weak to be credible on a military level.

- hence my questioning your obvious disdain for intellectuality.

All I did was highlight the ultimate consequences of historical Darwinism.

Do you know the modern name for a Social Darwinist? A Nazi.

Take a deep breath, think outside of that little box you live in and argue with what I said, rather than what you would have liked me to say. If finger puppets will help you understand, I may be able to sort something out for you.

I was arguing with precisely what you said hence the quotes I included to point out the relevent piece I was arguing with . So far it has been you who has failed to argue, saying things like

If you intend to spout pages of pseudo-intellectualism in response to this, don’t. It would be a waste of both our times, bandwidth and the thoughts of those you would plagiarize

- do you care to substantiate your theory of my plagiarisation?

To conclude, I think it is fairly obvious that your argument was not at all well contructed and thus you resort to such slanging tactics; something I am trying to go off for lent lol.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
You obviously missed where I made it clear w.r.t the reasons I asked this.

No you didn’t. You just gave the reason “Not a criticism, just a question”.

Where did this come from? I was attacking your theories...

No you weren’t you were just waffling irrelevant arguments that bore no relation to what anyone has discussed here.

Do you know the modern name for a Social Darwinist? A Nazi.

LOL. I’ve no doubt that’s a term you use liberally about a lot of people who disagree with you.

To be more accurate, a Social Darwinist by it’s nature would be more correctly aligned to Liberal Capitalism than any kind of Fascism, National Socialism or Socialism. Read up on your political and economic science.

I was arguing with precisely what you said hence the quotes I included to point out the relevent piece I was arguing with .

Just because you quoted, does not mean you even understood what you quoted. You’ve still not addressed what I argued, btw.

DeVore

Lads, I'd remind you both that this forum is here to debate the issues at hand, not to attack the debater.

The Corinthian, please rein in your honed debating snipes, your side-wipes are creating heat, not light.

Eomer, you are not blameless either and comments on intectual prowess are not far off the "little boy" jibs, just better concealed.

I dont expect people to come to an agreement, there is often illumination to be found on both sides in the explanation of difference but I will insist on civility which is sorely lacking in the recent posts on this thread.

DeV.

swiss

I'd like to make that a little clearer.

The Corinthian, that insinuation that Éomer of Rohan had a Nazi agenda stepped over the line. There were other transgressions of civility, but that one was especially objectionable. If there are any more comments like that forthcoming, consider yourself banned from politics.

The same holds true for Éomer of Rohan or anyone else who feels like taking a side swipe at other posters (as opposed to their arguments). If you feel you cannot post without being derogatory or insulting to other posters, then you should not be posting in this board.

Well this thread really grew while i was asleep.

Might is right. Bottom line

Perhaps once, but not anymore. Might is just another tool in the arsenals of nations. Those that use might exclusively are barbarians. No nation that uses might exclusively can hope to survive for long. Look at Nazi Germany for example, they used their might, and the world turned on them. The US in the past have known that to use their military everywhere would turn the world against them, and against the world they would have no chance.

Make no mistake my friend, if you wanted to change it, there are others who will want the same, and doesn't the world turn on the hopes and dreams of idealistic men who want to change things for the better, not just the pragmatists who can help it happen?

In this i have to disagree with you. On the international level, its the nations themselves that make the impact, not the individual. I'm entering my thirties, and i don't have the time or the inclination to throw my past aside, to pursue a life in politics, which is the only avenue to change this. The only other course available, is violence, and thats foreign to me.

I am in fact saying that just because Europe does not seek war it does not mean that war will not seek Europe, or in fact that given Europe’s lack of interest in such military adventures, that someone else will not take advantage and profit from similar adventures

As things stand in Europe, there is nobody that would consider starting a war. Europe over the last 100 years has grown closer. The only nation capable of starting a war with europe, are countries outside of its influence. In that case, Europe is more than capable to defend itself. While we don't have an individual nation capable of comparing the the US might, combined we have more than capable forces. You also seem to forget that while America has been a more visible presence in all the recent wars, the european armies, are better trained, and have seen just as much bloodshed. The French, the british, and even the Irish have performed mop-up for american forces, in matters relating to the UN & NATO. This gives us the advantage of the experience of occupying countries, which is alot more dangerous than taking a country.

You really should not be caught up in your own dogma so as to be blind to the world around you.

I think we all can be called up on this front. Even you, if you want to be honest. Its called being Human.

To be more accurate, a Social Darwinist by it’s nature would be more correctly aligned to Liberal Capitalism than any kind of Fascism, National Socialism or Socialism. Read up on your political and economic science.

All this is just psycho-babble. At the end of the day, these labels mean nothing. It has no relevence to this topic. If you want to discuss this type of stuff, wouldn't it be better off in Humanities?


At the end of the day, this thread is abt whether you're an anti-american or not.

I am.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by klaz
Perhaps once, but not anymore. Might is just another tool in the arsenals of nations. Those that use might exclusively are barbarians. No nation that uses might exclusively can hope to survive for long. Look at Nazi Germany for example, they used their might, and the world turned on them. The US in the past have known that to use their military everywhere would turn the world against them, and against the world they would have no chance.

Might is not just exclusively military, but also technological, financial and political - Or perhaps ultimately financial; “the sinews of war are infinite moneies”, after all.

When one power is in a position that it is the financial linchpin in all the World’s major international bodies; the UN, IMF, NATO, etc. it does not need to fire a shot to win a war. That is true might.

I think we all can be called up on this front. Even you, if you want to be honest. Its called being Human.

Fair enough.

At the end of the day, this thread is abt whether you're an anti-american or not.

Returning to the discussion at hand, European anti-Americanism has its origins in the divergence in interests between Europe and America since the end of the Cold War. Up until that point, American leadership was welcomed by a Europe in the front line of a potential nuclear holocaust.

With the end of the Cold War, Europe began to reassert itself, hoping that their western cousins would quietly go back home to tend their farms. America, quite understandably heartened by its newfound status as the World’s only remaining superpower, disagreed. After fifty years of policing and shaping the map of the World, she was beginning to get (in her opinion) good at it.

Thus, all throughout the 1990’s we began the see a slow divergence in European and American interests, which began to become more visible with friction in Kosovo between European (particularly German) and American interests - with one favouring the Macedonian government and promoting the Euro as currency of trade and the other supporting the Albanian separatists and promoting the Dollar as currency of trade.

Add a dozen little incidents leading up to 9-11, including the EU rejection of an offer by the US to use their global positioning satellite network in favour of its own and the move by Germany to Linux (for, amongst other reasons quoted, security reasons) and you’ll see a slow deterioration between the two continents.

Add to this the prevalent feeling of superiority (a.k.a. prejudice) that Europeans feel with respect to Americans - An attitude that sees Americans as ‘country cousins’, a nation that “has gone from barbarism to decadence without the customary period of civilization” or generally as ill educated, vulgar, shallow, culturally bereft (if admittedly likable) buffoons.

Now mix both these factors together with the aftermath of 9-11; an America seen to be swinging it’s weight and the dawning on Europe that America is not overly concerned with getting permission from daddy anymore. Leaving Europeans with potentially very little they can do about it outside of demonstrations and vetoes that are unlikely to stop any conflict.

It is from the above background and the frustration that comes from the feeling of almost political helplessness and fear for the future (after all, shall our voices be even heard in the New World Order, if we are not citizens of its empire?) that we see the rise of anti-Americanism.

When one power is in a position that it is the financial linchpin in all the World’s major international bodies; the UN, IMF, NATO, etc. it does not need to fire a shot to win a war. That is true might.

True, but you were suggesting that the US had dominence over Europe in its might. According to the above, Europe could and will beat them, in terms of might.

With the end of the Cold War, Europe began to reassert itself, hoping that their western cousins would quietly go back home to tend their farms. America, quite understandably heartened by its newfound status as the World’s only remaining superpower, disagreed. After fifty years of policing and shaping the map of the World, she was beginning to get (in her opinion) good at it.

Seems a change from you're earlier statement that Europe was still more than happy to let America shape the world.

Thus, all throughout the 1990’s we began the see a slow divergence in European and American interests, which began to become more visible with friction in Kosovo between European (particularly German) and American interests - with one favouring the Macedonian government and promoting the Euro as currency of trade and the other supporting the Albanian separatists and promoting the Dollar as currency of trade.

There has always been a divergence when it came to America trying to influence Europe. The nations in Europe, have never given America the right to dictate policy to Europeans. Even in the heights of the US political power, Europe has always been rules by Europeans.

Add to this the prevalent feeling of superiority (a.k.a. prejudice) that Europeans feel with respect to Americans - An attitude that sees Americans as ‘country cousins’, a nation that “has gone from barbarism to decadence without the customary period of civilization” or generally as ill educated, vulgar, shallow, culturally bereft (if admittedly likable) buffoons.

TBH honest i've never felt this. Americans are just different. I don't feel superior to English people, becuase i'm Irish. Or that i'm superior to Black haired people, cause i have brown. America from my generation has always been powerful, technological & military wise, so this country-bumkin attitude doesn't really apply. America though has always been as arrogant as any european nation even at the height of their colonial power.

That could be what i dislike about americans. Their overwhelming arrogance. But apart from that i have nothing against americans, just america as a nation/superpower.

Now mix both these factors together with the aftermath of 9-11; an America seen to be swinging it’s weight and the dawning on Europe that America is not overly concerned with getting permission from daddy anymore. Leaving Europeans with potentially very little they can do about it outside of demonstrations and vetoes that are unlikely to stop any conflict.

The US has never asked for permission from "Daddy" (as u put it), for anything they've ever done. They just assume Europe will fall in line.

9-11 was awful, but it doesn't excuse the behaviour of a nation currently trying to start wars everywhere. The Versailles Treaty didn't excuse Hitler from gassing the Jews, and being religious doesn't excuse Cromwell for what he did.

Europe if it chose could do alot more if they wanted. You're confusing reluctance to act, as being a lack of power. The power & ability is there all right, its just hasn't been applied as yet. Don't count Europe out as yet.

It is from the above background and the frustration that comes from the feeling of almost political helplessness and fear for the future (after all, shall our voices be even heard in the New World Order, if we are not citizens of its empire?) that we see the rise of anti-Americanism.

I disagree. Anti-Americanism grew out of the actions of the US government for the last 50 years. Ploys by the Reagan administration gave Europe a taste of how the US loves to manipulate foreign states. Actions by Bush just re-inforce the image of a powerful force, that bulls its way thru all restrictions. Restrictions that the US agreed upon when it suited them.

Anti-Americanism has also grown out of the lack of compromise with the US. There is no room for negotiation with them. No subtlety anymore. Everyone is starting to realise that the US is a loose cannon, with alot of firepower. Coupled with the attitude that civilisation ends at the borders of the US, makes for a very worrying stance. Since the US has broken, or ignored so many international conventions/agreements is it any wonder that Europe is very wary of the US. Especially since despite their claims of never using Nukes unless for defense, the very real possibility of them being used, is likely.

Yes there is fear. A certain amount of respect also. The same kind of fear and respect you treat a dobermann before it bites you.

after all, shall our voices be even heard in the New World Order, if we are not citizens of its empire

You're assuming its going to be an american empire. What about an European Empire. You see, i haven't lost my faith that Europe could turn around and create the most powerful organisation, in Economic, Political & Military wise. The EU is just the foundation. Without the US being members, the organisation has a chance to grow.

Have you not noticed that any world organisation that the US is part of lacks respect? The UN has lost respect, over the Iraq situation. Its starting to be viewed as a puppet org for the US. AS for NATO, everyone claims that NATO would cease to be a org with any power without the US, so whats the point?

Anti-Americanism for me, is objecting to the actions of america. Which probably constitutes 1/4 the population of Europe.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by klaz
True, but you were suggesting that the US had dominence over Europe in its might. According to the above, Europe could and will beat them, in terms of might.

True. Were Europe a united body. It’s not as recent events have shown.

Seems a change from you're earlier statement that Europe was still more than happy to let America shape the world.

No, Europe has been more than happy to allow America to shape the World, when it suited Europe’s interest. I believe the problem is arising from a divergence in interests and the European realization that America never really needed Europe’s permission (a mixture of hurt pride and fear).

TBH honest i've never felt this. Americans are just different.

Perhaps that is the case with you, but even you admit to a dislike for what you consider to be their overwhelming arrogance, and I have observed that a conceit of cultural superiority to America is not unusual throughout Europe.

The US has never asked for permission from "Daddy" (as u put it), for anything they've ever done. They just assume Europe will fall in line.

I don’t disagree with you, but they have at least paid lip service to treating Europe with deference in the past. It is the lack of this illusion of asking for permission from "Daddy" that has acted as the catalyst to the current feeling.

9-11 was awful, but it doesn't excuse the behaviour of a nation currently trying to start wars everywhere.

In fairness, I agree and actually didn’t argue that it should be taken as an excuse.

Europe if it chose could do alot more if they wanted. You're confusing reluctance to act, as being a lack of power. The power & ability is there all right, its just hasn't been applied as yet. Don't count Europe out as yet.

Here I disagree somewhat. Europe could have, but didn’t. And it hasn’t for so long that it probably is in no position to do so at present.

You admitted yourself that you’d “rather American troops dying” than Irish or European. Fair enough. But don’t kid yourself sitting in front of the telly by saying that we could if ultimately you won’t. I’m not pointing the finger at you, just that this is the common European attitude to military action, and America quite understandably feels contempt for it.

Abdication of responsibility is what has created this power imbalance between Europe and America. Western Europe, in particular, is too pampered.

I disagree. Anti-Americanism grew out of the actions of the US government for the last 50 years.

Worldwide, perhaps, but we’re (or at least I’m) talking about European anti-Americanism. In Europe, we were more than happy to turn a blind eye, for the most part, to the actions of the US government for the last 50 years, while it suited us.

The phenomenon of anti-Americanism in Europe is far too recent for your assertion.

Anti-Americanism has also grown out of the lack of compromise with the US. There is no room for negotiation with them. No subtlety anymore. Everyone is starting to realise that the US is a loose cannon, with alot of firepower. Coupled with the attitude that civilisation ends at the borders of the US, makes for a very worrying stance. Since the US has broken, or ignored so many international conventions/agreements is it any wonder that Europe is very wary of the US. Especially since despite their claims of never using Nukes unless for defense, the very real possibility of them being used, is likely.

You’ve just agreed with everything I’ve been arguing in that one paragraph.

You're assuming its going to be an american empire. What about an European Empire. You see, i haven't lost my faith that Europe could turn around and create the most powerful organisation, in Economic, Political & Military wise. The EU is just the foundation.

Again, true. Were Europe a united body. But it’s not.

Europe is still a collection of competing states, loathed to surrender any national sovernty for the greater good and often holding greater affinity to America than to their European neighbours.

But that’s a different discussion...

True. Were Europe a united body. It’s not as recent events have shown.

Perhaps. But how much of that is down to American influence?

No, Europe has been more than happy to allow America to shape the World, when it suited Europe’s interest. I believe the problem is arising from a divergence in interests and the European realization that America never really needed Europe’s permission (a mixture of hurt pride and fear).

Just as America has been more than happy for Europe to take a hit, when it suited their own interests. This is not reserved solely for Europe & the US. Any nation will allow someone else to take the brunt for them, rather than take damage themselves.

Europe has known for years that the US plays their own game, and doesn't need our permission. It's you thats assuming that Europe counts America as being lower than us, and that they needed our permission. I've never seen any evidence that this was the case.

Perhaps that is the case with you, but even you admit to a dislike for what you consider to be their overwhelming arrogance, and I have observed that a conceit of cultural superiority to America is not unusual throughout Europe.

Just as there is an overwhelming superioritry complex with Americans towards the rest of the world. Also if you ask what most Cork people think of the rest of Ireland, a hint of superiority will emerge. The same goes for Dublin, or the other cities. Its part of human nature to feel superior to another. For me its people who are poor & uneducated. Its not intentional, its just there. However i find that Americans at times take that to extremes.

Just me however, i could be way off base, and u could be completely correct.

Here I disagree somewhat. Europe could have, but didn’t. And it hasn’t for so long that it probably is in no position to do so at present.

Grand, the last time that Europe banded together was WW2.

You admitted yourself that you’d “rather American troops dying” than Irish or European. Fair enough. But don’t kid yourself sitting in front of the telly by saying that we could if ultimately you won’t. I’m not pointing the finger at you, just that this is the common European attitude to military action, and America quite understandably feels contempt for it.

Oh come on. If you ask the average American they will feel the same way as we do. They'd rather have Europeans being killed than their own troops. However it is the US Government that has chosen to have such a presence worldwide. It was their choice to step forward and take part in all these wars/skirmishes. Nobody asked them to do so, it was their choice. Just as, if they hadn't stepped forward, Europe may have done so.

Abdication of responsibility is what has created this power imbalance between Europe and America. Western Europe, in particular, is too pampered.

Not True. The result of WW2 was what created the imbalance. Being ripped to shreds economically & militarily tends to do that.

Too pampered? Hardly. But i'd rather know in what way are they too pampered?

Worldwide, perhaps, but we’re (or at least I’m) talking about European anti-Americanism. In Europe, we were more than happy to turn a blind eye, for the most part, to the actions of the US government for the last 50 years, while it suited us.

Actually no, i was talking about Europe. This has been growing for a long time. I'm not talking abt anti-americanism in governments, but rather among people, so governments taking a blind eye has no bearing on what i am saying.

You’ve just agreed with everything I’ve been arguing in that one paragraph.

Actually, no i haven't. You've been implying that this anti-americanism sentiment has grown out of a sense of insecurity and resentment by Europe towards the US. I'm saying that its US actions, many of which are so aggressive, that if it was any other nation, we'd be at war. I'm saying that Europe is recognising the US as being a real threat. That is the source for this feeling.

Again, true. Were Europe a united body. But it’s not.

Again you're discounting the possibility of it ever happening. I agree its not at the moment, however, the future is waiting for such a thing. And i'm not even talking about 30 years away, but it could happen within a decade.

Europe is still a collection of competing states, loathed to surrender any national sovernty for the greater good and often holding greater affinity to America than to their European neighbours.

I'm not even going to start with this one. Definetly a subject for another thread.

bonkey

I've skipped about the last page of Punch n Judy replies, and come back to where I think one of the most significant points made in this argument was :

Originally posted by The Corinthian
Might is right. Bottom line.

Nope. Its just not that simple any more.

Might used to be right, but somewhere along the line our technological advancement got so great that this old truth is suspect. Its first really appeared when the concept of MAD came out - albeit nuclear, biological, or of any other nature. Once both sides have the ability to effectively completely destroy the other, then the "Might is Right" equation becomes meaningless.

As a result of this, we have seen a world begin to evolve where the old-world powers (and I include the US in this) believe that the best way to preserve the old balance is to leave themselves with these weapons, and to stop everyone else from getting them. No MAD, and hence, back to good old MiR instead.

Unfortunately, it doesnt work that way, and slowly but surely, these nations are going to learn that they are at best staging a delaying manouever. Sooner or later, the people they dont want having big bad bombs will have them, and all of a sudden the balance of power will shift radically again.

Never before in history was it even theoretically possible for a single man from a tiny revolutionary force to destroy the capital city of the most powerful nation on the planet. Today that capability theoretically exists. Tomorrow, or next week, or in a couple of years...it will not just be theory, but a genuine threat.

The world is on the brink of returning to feudalism, as a result of technologies which allow small numbers of people to inflict disproportionate amounts of damage to their targets. The old belief in the "most powerful army" is becoming increasingly suspect.

No, the more I look at it, the old MiR just doesnt hold up any more - not when most nations have already learned that they have to agree to put certain weapons out of everyone's hands or everyone will lose.

So, is it really "Old Europe"? Is it really a case of Europe being so jealous of having lost world domination that it cant accept that someone else is calling the shots? Is it a case of Europe desperately trying to stop the US fro pulling too far ahead? Or could it be a case that Europeans - having had their nations literally torn brick from brick in the last century through war - are amongst the first to realise that there is a limit to what Might can and should be used to achieve, and that sometimes the risks outweigh the benefits, and that non-prolioferation treaty's can only work if they are the first step away from the old feudalist ideal of MiR.

I think that its all of these reasons, and more. Just like the objectors in the US have, themselves, different reasons for objections. I find it laughable that anyone can try and classify the pro- or anti- arguments into a single mindset....but thats going a bit too far off topic...so I'll get right back to the thread topic.

At the end of the day am I anti-American? No. I dont think I am, because for me, such a generalisation is ridiculous unless you are talking about someone who is simply basing their opinion on any given topic involving the US on the simple fact that we are discussing the US and nothing else matters.

There is much about American society and politics, and domestic and foreign policy which I disagree with - some I find detestable. Then again, I can say the same about Ireland.

I admit to having stereotypical images of certain "types" of American which are far from flattering, but again - I can say the same about the Irish and my stereotypes of them.

I have very little trust for the leaders of the current US government, in certain respects. Then again, I most definitely say the same about the Irish government.

So, the way I look at it, if I'm anti-American, I'm also anti-Irish by the same standards. If I'm anti-America, I'm anti-Ireland by the same standards.

I was born in Ireland. I'm Irish. Somehow this entitles me to pass comment on my own nation, but not on anyone elses? I dont think so.

In fact, I can honestly say that if I am anti-America, or anti-American then I dont believe that there is a nation or people on earth which I am not anti.

So, if I treat them all equally - criticising where I see fault, applauding where I see success, having my little stereotypical images and poking fun, whilst knowing that my images are wrong and that my fun is meant as fun, not as a slur of some sort - if I do all of that....I dont think I'm anti American....I just think I'm honest.

jc

therecklessone

Originally posted by bonkey


So, if I treat them all equally - criticising where I see fault, applauding where I see success, having my little stereotypical images and poking fun, whilst knowing that my images are wrong and that my fun is meant as fun, not as a slur of some sort - if I do all of that....I dont think I'm anti American....I just think I'm honest.

jc

I agree.

There are hell of a lot of aspects of American culture and society that annoy me. But then I remember that most of the TV I watch is from the US (Sopranos, The West Wing, Seinfeld, Larry Sanders, hell even ER). US culture has been responsible for some of the most intelligent and thought provoking film I have seen...Memento, The Usual Suspects, American Beauty, Magnolia (starring Hollywood's own Tom Cruise!), Being John Malkovich, Adaptation. But then its also given us Die Hard and everything Jennifer Lopez has ever starred in!

Incidently, does the fact that I dislike Bull Fighting make me anti-Spanish? Or does the fact that I think German cuisine is the pits make me anti-German? I love Italian food, but I'm not too keen on Berlesconi...pro- or anti-Italian?

Surely I can be constructively critical of many aspects of US society, without being labelled anti-American. Isn't that what friends are supposed to do...tell friends when they are out of line? Anti-American is so over-used it has begun to lose its meaning anyway.

For the record I think Bush is a dolt...it was ironic seeing him with Bertie today, the bowl of shamrock having a higher IQ than the other two combined.

bug

I'm not anti-american. I am against the Bush admin.
Im not going to make a sweeping statement on America but I would be doubtful of an individuals intelligence if they said they supported Bush, that's my opinion.
I think that patriotism is something very different for Americans than for example, the Irish.
I think perhaps patriotism for Americans includes the ideal of wanting and supporting a great leader, land of the free...blah de blah, its very idealistic. The Irish are a very sinical race IMO, and dont believe a word of anything until they see it themselves
Perhaps those Americans who are pro-war in Iraq, feel that they must stand behind their leader ?? Or perhaps they really believe that they ARE in real danger from Saddam because 60 minutes says so.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by bonkey
Unfortunately, it doesnt work that way, and slowly but surely, these nations are going to learn that they are at best staging a delaying manouever. Sooner or later, the people they dont want having big bad bombs will have them, and all of a sudden the balance of power will shift radically again.

Perhaps, perhaps not.

Please remember that it was argued by many not all that long ago that the inevitable end to the MAD doctrine was to be deterioration into nuclear war. So to assume that the people they don’t want having big bad bombs will have them, or have the opportunity to use them or the will to use them is premature.

The reality is no one has. And the World did not fall apart on January 1st 2000 due to the Y2K bug. And Ebola has not decimated the planet. And the level of terrorism in the World has not really changed all that much, post 9-11.

You are speculating upon a scenario that is based upon the assumption of inevitability of numerous conditional circumstances coming together in the future. Perhaps, perhaps not. I wouldn’t put all my money on it.

The other thing that you don’t appear to consider is that MiR is no longer simply a military strategy, but political and (in particular) economic one. Never forget that the Cold War was one not though military, but economic conflict.

Indeed, in most cases American influence has been backed not by the bullet or the bomb but by good old-fashioned greenbacks. Would Ireland speak against US foreign policy? Unlikely, but not because of a threat of military action, but because of economic interests. Turkey presently teeters on the brink of supporting a War on Iraq (it may still do so). Not because of military threats, but because of a profane wad of cash being waved under their nose (Don’t know about you, but I’d take it :rolleyes: )

So it probably too early to dismiss the MiR doctrine at present. It can’t really be defined anymore as a simple case of gunboat diplomacy and neither is the scenario of proliferation you postulated a forgone conclusion.

Éomer of Rohan

Would Ireland speak against US foreign policy? Unlikely, but not because of a threat of military action, but because of economic interests. Turkey presently teeters on the brink of supporting a War on Iraq (it may still do so). Not because of military threats, but because of a profane wad of cash being waved under their nose (Don’t know about you, but I’d take it )

Is this not the problem with society? Too many people are willing to compromise on their principles and ideals to benefit a morally corrupt and morally bankrupt nation which seems to believe that money and power or rather one through the other, in any order you like, is an end in itself.

Is it not also true that in civilised society, balckmail, bribery and extortion are crimes? Since when should this not be true on an international basis?

Sand

Is it not also true that in civilised society, balckmail, bribery and extortion are crimes? Since when should this not be true on an international basis?

"Social" laws are based on the illusion were all equal, in international circles the notion of equality is laughable.

As for might makes right, as noted - the "logic" of might making right hasnt changed at all, merely Europe, the greatest proponents of might makes right for the last 500 or more years, is no longer the biggest kid on the block.

Isnt it ironic that when the US was weak it argued for trade, negotiation and respect for international laws, and when Europe was strong it regularly thumbed its nose at them or merely changed the rules to suit themselves. All thats changed is the positions.

It doesnt cost Europe anything at all to advocate rule by committee.

Éomer of Rohan

"Social" laws are based on the illusion were all equal, in international circles the notion of equality is laughable

What has equality got to do with extortion etc?? These laws are not based on equality - in fact far from it, they are based on Christian religious morals. And what's more there are a thousand and one theists, socialists, humanists etc that will tell you WE ARE equal in terms of one human from another.

As to nations, the outdated idea of the nation state is laughable. Was not the UN devised to remove the inequalities between nations by acting independently of the will of any nation in a given dispute?

As for might makes right, as noted - the "logic" of might making right hasnt changed at all, merely Europe, the greatest proponents of might makes right for the last 500 or more years, is no longer the biggest kid on the block.

Isnt it ironic that when the US was weak it argued for trade, negotiation and respect for international laws, and when Europe was strong it regularly thumbed its nose at them or merely changed the rules to suit themselves. All thats changed is the positions

What international rules are you referring to? Remember that in that age the 'rules' were written by the Imperial powers. The US was admittedly weak on that score but though she may have advocated 'respect for international laws' (and I would like to see any example of that) she did not hesitate to wage unthinking war on the natives of the Americas, going so far as to gift some on the reserves Smallpox ridden blankets.

I am no apologist for European Imperialism; it disgusts me that this continent wasted so much for no purpose. However at the same time, we live now and the threat of the US and its obvious willingness to disregard (and yes, this is a more civilised age) its international commitments, such as that to the UN.

The basic fact is that Might does not make right, though as the bard said, History is often written by the victor; these do not equate to the same thing. There is right and there is wrong. Killing innocent civilians for no reason other than oil....well I will let you decide what category to insert that into.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Éomer of Rohan
What has equality got to do with extortion etc?? These laws are not based on equality - in fact far from it, they are based on Christian religious morals. And what's more there are a thousand and one theists, socialists, humanists etc that will tell you WE ARE equal in terms of one human from another.

Equal is a loaded term. Similar would be a better or more accurate one. And we’re not. Some have a talent for art, others for sales or negotiations and some are best suited to, and often happiest, digging ditches. Regardless of the opinion of philosophers over the centuries, this is what has borne out to be the reality.

As to nations, the outdated idea of the nation state is laughable.

That may well be the direction that we are heading in, but I think it premature to consign the nation state to the rubbish heap of history, just yet. Recent jingoism in the US and the bloodshed we’ve seen shed in the Balklands over the last dozen years would point to the nation state being still alive and well.

Was not the UN devised to remove the inequalities between nations by acting independently of the will of any nation in a given dispute?

Sure it was. That’s why we have a security council with five permanent veto carrying members.

I am no apologist for European Imperialism; it disgusts me that this continent wasted so much for no purpose.

Actually we did very well out of them, on balance. What do you think powered industrialization in much of Europe, particularly Britian.

The basic fact is that Might does not make right, though as the bard said, History is often written by the victor; these do not equate to the same thing. There is right and there is wrong.

Where exactly did you explain that might is not right? Flies in the face of what you argued about “the 'rules' were written by the Imperial powers” really.

Killing innocent civilians for no reason other than oil....well I will let you decide what category to insert that into.

Even the most cynical of us would not be so glib as to assume a simple motivation of oil. Issues such as the Dollar’s position as a currency of trade over the Euro and (a diversion from) domestic US politics may also have their part to play in the current motivation. Finally, the current US administration may, rightly or wrongly, even think they are doing the right thing.

However, all of this is a little off topic, methinks.

Éomer of Rohan

The basic fact is that Might does not make right, though as the bard said, History is often written by the victor; these do not equate to the same thing. There is right and there is wrong

Where exactly did you explain that might is not right? Flies in the face of what you argued about “the 'rules' were written by the Imperial powers” really.

The rules WERE written by the Imperial powers but just because it happened doesn't meant that is was right that it should happen.

That may well be the direction that we are heading in, but I think it premature to consign the nation state to the rubbish heap of history

The superstates that various analysts believe we are heading towards are simply larger versions of the nation state; same principle really - and not quite what I meant.

Actually we did very well out of them, on balance. What do you think powered industrialization in much of Europe, particularly Britian

For most of the years of Britains dominance of world affairs, more of her money came from trade within Europe than without with the exception of the Napoeonic Era when trade with mainland Europe was largely ruled out.

Issues such as the Dollar’s position as a currency of trade over the Euro and (a diversion from) domestic US politics may also have their part to play in the current motivation

Fair point.

Finally, the current US administration may, rightly or wrongly, even think they are doing the right thing.

Wrongly.