Subject:
|
Re: "Why Do so many hate America"... or is it "Why does America hate US?"?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 29 Oct 2001 19:38:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
176 times
|
| |
|
|
Let me first go over the article itself, before I comment on the response
Larry posted.
> > One explanation for this was that they were losers and America was a winner.
One explanation, yes.
> > America's dedication to freedom and democracy is real.
Inside its borders, yes.
> > Most of America's detractors do not hate America's policies toward its
> > citizens, they hate America's policies toward other peoples.
That gets to the point.
> > Most others hate America because they love the American way of life.
This argument leaves me behind ...
> > the situation in Afghanistan is also the product of the American abandonment
> > of that country.
> >
> > After arming the Talibans to help them oust their Soviet oppressors, it quite
> > cynically left them to oppress their own people while pursuing its advantage
> > elsewhere.
Very true.
> > But they hated his policies toward the world, which gave them rulers like
> > Marcos and Pinochet and Idi Amin. Most Filipinos then did not stop believing
> > in America's freedom and way of life. But they hated its denial of them for
> > others.
Again very true.
Now, let's see the other side:
> That is certainly a third-world editorial.
To the same degree as the response is an example of the "what is not
supposed to be cannot be" type of US arrogance.
> The Taliban were hardly a creature of the US,
True so far ...
> and did not receive any direct US aid.
... but how direct does help need to be before it is "direct"? They got
money, help to make money, arms. I would not call this indirect help.
> The fact that
> the Afghanis were not able re-establish civil rule after the Soviets left
> is hardly the fault of America's government or people (who have been the
> largest contributors of aid to the Afghan people for the past decade).
It is hard to tell what would have happened without US military aid for the
taliban, but it is not entirely out of this world to assume that the war
would not have taken so long, and that the sociological consequences would
have been different without it. Maybe some of the humanitarian help of the
US after the soviet exit would therefore have been unnecessary.
> And what goes for
> Afghanistan goes for Uganda, the Philippines, and Chile (the writer is
> obviously going on knee-jerk reflexes learned from the New York Times to
> bring up Chile). What were the wonderful alternatives that America robbed
> them of? The Philippines and Uganda would look like Afghanistan and Chile
> like Romania.
Just a hint: Chile had a democracy, before the US stepped in. The fact that
the people didn't vote for the party the US would have preferred does in no
way compare to Afghanistan, where there was no democracy, plus a Soviet
invasion, when the US stepped in. So, how much of a sensible analysis can we
expect from someone who throws these two very different examples into one
and the same category?
> Do they hate us because we are happy, prosperous, and free, while they live
> in a fly-specked tyrannical dung heap that no self-respecting camel would
> wipe his ass with? Of course they do, because they know it is their fault,
> because they know that if they didn't think that their neighbor's success
> was their loss; that if they were able to argue instead of riot, so brutal
> thugs were the only sort of government that could stay in power; that if
> they believed in an objective world to be addressed by reason and
> intelligence, instead of a fantasy realm to be imposed by theocracy, then
> they might be happy, prosperous, and free.
This may be one side of it, yes, and the original article expresses that, so
nothing new here. Except that the other side is entirely missing here. To
some extent it may be their fault, but to some (probably larger) extent the
industrialized world does just about everything to keep things as they are.
Profits are more important than justice and humanity.
> So the people who "hate" America and, like the editorialist, want to blame
> America for not magically rescuing them from themselves
Bullshit. They blame America (the US, to be precise) for taking their
profits out of opression outside their borders. I know America is not all
about this. But how can you expect a Paletine who hasn't seen anything but
war to also know it?
> America doesn't hate them
No, but still mistreats them. They probably don't care much about the subtle
difference in reasons for doing so. If the US could only apply what they
value so highly internally, to their external affairs, much of the problem
would be gone.
One final word on your comments, Larry:
> We "saved" europe via WW II and the Marshall plan and by defeating the USSR
Yes, you did, and I feel thankful for that. However, I don't think you did
that just for the sake of humanity. You did it (and nothing is bad about
that [1]) in your own best interest. As for defeating the USSR, I think they
did that pretty much themselves, at least in the last phase.
> many europeans resent us just the same, while still wanting to live like us,
> and in large part doing so!
I don't know whether you will count my above criticism as "resenting the
US". I hope not, because that is not my point. I think it is very tempting
for a superpower to do things in one's own interest, without looking into
long term consequences, and without strictly checking for conformity with
one's moral claim. This is what has happened a number of times after WW2.
For me it does not void the moral claim, nor do I think that all Americans
are blind supporters of a double-moral policy.
:wq
Horst
[1] except the reuse of the Echelon system for commercial espionage ...
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
7 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
