Why do they hate us?

Remove all ads!

"Why do they hate us?" Well, after 9/11 the question was to be heared again and again and never satisfyingly answered. So let's reflect a little on that point. Certainly, it's not only about the US doing wars all over the world, yet they have been intervening the hard or the clandestine way in quite a number of conflicts, for political (Yuck! Commies!) or economical reasons. So let's start with the most visible part of it, the war thing:

and an interesting related article here:

http://www.counterpunch.org/white01092003.html

America's policy, like in colombia (The US are keen on cocaine, so we kill peasants in south america and defoil their fields ...), induces a lot of suffering, rage and anger in the forgotten, overlooked and not-cared-for places in the world. Let me again speak along Bill Maher's lines: "Maybe it's americas luck that seemingly only the arab temper makes people react with flying planes into buildings."

Just something to ponder about.

PS: Had to shift focus, so this final edit is what counts
PPS: Indeed.

[ June 12, 2003, 17:01: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

Ragusa, I wonder if your thread title really conveys the direction this thread is intended to take. Do you really want to discuss the "whys" and "what fors" of war in general, or are you talking specifically about America's more economically-motivated incursions as described in your quote? They really are different subjects. For example, WWII could have avoided being a war if we all just sat back and let the Nazis set up police states in our homelands. I do not accept that fighting back against an attacker or overthrowing (one's own!) corrupt government is as immoral and wasteful as initiating an invasion to further economic interests. There *is* such a thing as justified military action, and clumping all war with the actions your post describes makes it hard to debate intelligently on the subject. Sorry for being difficult!

 

Good insight Sprite!

 

War is just a senseless act and IIRC the wars of ancient times were less devastating than now maybe because you had to see the opponent die maybe because they knew it was a stupid thing to do, the african tribes were giving compensation for the dead of the other tribe and generally they tried to inflict as less casualties and damages as possible.
In our time because technology has developed so far that now you kill without even being in the same area with the victim makes it easier to start a war and the overpopulation has made the nation leaders less reluctant to declare wars.
After all even if they die a few thousands they will help to reduce the unemployments rates. We are talking about a win win situation for the goverment of the attacking nation.

 

You are seeing a thread in creation, written in confusion. Fixed the title.

My motivation is basically to dispute the, perhaps unperceived, side-effects of foreign policy and use of military force, and the effect on and the reaction of those at the "receiving end".

 

America desires to be universally loved. That's their main problem. Other big powers don't really care too much if the world loves them or hates them. America is no more of a foreign affairs annoyance than the USSR, China, or Great Britain (at the height of the Empire) was. I say Americans shouldn't be surprised when people hate them. But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't keep trying to pursue their own goals in order to be popular.

As for war, it is often unjustified, but only a fool would say it's never justified. Ask the Jews in Europe during WW2, the Blacks in the States during the Civil war, and the Kurds today.

Now, I'm not naive enough to think that saving these groups was the reason the States (let alone anyone else) entered these wars, but even if you have ulterior motives, saving lives is never wrong.

 

Thank you, Ragusa.

I do think that general hostility towards America can be attributed, in many cases, to foreign policies that demonstrate a cavalier attitude towards the lives and welfare of non-Americans. However, I would not put the current not-so-cold war between America and the Islamist movement, and specifically the work of Al-Quaeda, in that category. Bin Laden and his ilk were keen to spread a Taliban-style version of Islam, by force if necessary, in North African countries and did not turn on the United States until it participated in activities - particularly in the Sudan - that thwarted his plans. Now, you can say that the US should have let him have his way in Africa I suppose, but there is no question that the islamists were the aggressors and the United States did the Sudanese, and later others in the region, a favour by intervening.

It is interesting to read references to Bin Laden in international relations textbooks that pre-date September 11, 2001. Strangely enough, it was clearer to everyone that he was a dangerous aggressor *before* he killed thousands of Americans. Now all of a sudden he's portrayed as the defender of "the poor powerless Arabs" against the American military juggernaut. No doubt Al-Quaeda is thrilled by this interpretation, but for years he was showing a clear interest in being the one to squash the poor powerless Arabs himself. His sworn enemy - long before the US put itself in harms' way to stop him - was not America but, to quote Bin Laden himself in 1979, "the party of Satan is the people who pretend to believe in Islam"; i.e. insufficiently fanatical muslims.

To sum up, my point is that Al-Quaeda terrorists hate America for a totally different reason than the average "man on the street" in South America or the Middle East does. And in their case, at least, they really do hate America for protecting freedom.

 

WWII could have been avoided since the end of WW1, or in the late 20ies and early 30ies. Some foresight would have been wonderful. But on the other hand, it would have meant that most of the Europeans had to change and let go of their sensless and idiotic jingoism. A change which WW2 brought. So... maybe a necessary lesson and it had to happen, because are ancestors were a bunch of morons.

I disagree here in part. The broader Taliban-style version of Islam is mainly spread with money, money, money, money, money, money and money. It's a side-effect of Saui-Arabia being one of the most biggest donators in foreign-aid worldwide. The supply streets, hospitals and schools inclusive very strange and weird teachers. No wonder, they expand. Money is power and sexy.

"aggressors". Let's say they took over because they baught the whole country. And with intervention you mean that famous...... bombing of a pharmaceutic plant, alleged a WMA-fabrication plant and then..... Well, errors are human, it was only a pharmaceutic plant. Sorry.

I wouldn't say freedem, rather protect interests, strategical and economical. Not that Europeans would not do the same thing. In this case, Al-Queda and the Americans had to clash, because they have interests in the same assets.

 

Yago, 20/20 hindsight is far too easy. OUR ancestors did the best they could knowing what they knew. I take issue with your statement as my father fought in WW2, and is most assuredly not a moron. The only way to prove your rather arrogant statement would be to go back in time, erase what you know, and then see how well you'd do as a world leader. Given that you are human, I'll bet that you would -- wait for it --make MISTAKES! Try not to fall over with shock at the suggestion that you might not be infallible.

 

Well, Lord Depaara, I said the war would have been avoided, if the Europeans would have changed in the time between 1918-1933. There would never have been a Nazi-party seizing power and there would never have been a war, at least not the kind of war that happened. I don't say, that me, only in a time machine could have avoided it. I guess you know some of the major reason, that all happened yourself. If those would have been different, everything would have been different, for example:

1. If Germany would not have searched for peace 1918 and would have been occupied. -> No backstabber legend (we were winning, but those ****ing liberals). And a taste of foreign troops on their own soil.

2. Different conditions in the Versailler-treaties.

3. More "Im Westen nichts Neues" instead of "In Stahlgewittern" in German schools and schools all over Europe

4. A work-together of the two democratic German parties. They hated eachother (but peacefully) so much, that they nearly ignored the Nazis completly. Even better the Nazis then the other democratic party.

5. More common sense in the minds of the politicans of Western-Europe in the time between 1918 and 1933. They ****ed up big time.

6. Mein Kampf was been puplished long before 1933. The book everyone had, and no one read.

7. They were voices all over Europe, who clearly warned, what just another giantic power-struggle between the big powers would mean.

My ancestors were morons and most of the inhabitants of Europe in the time between 1800 and 1950 were morons, in particular a lot of the people who were in charge. Just read some of those lovely statements they left. Oops you are a English teacher. You know them. A lot Europeans were blinded by hate, chauvinistic idiots who's hobby was to slaughter inhabitants of other parts of the world with machine-guns and shell them with light artillery. They fancied themselves to be a white-master race and had other interesting nice ideas. Ok, not all Europeans have been this way, but a lot.

And about hintsight. Yes, hintsight shows clearly the shortcomings of that time. You know that one:"He who forgets, is destined to remember".

One of the biggest morons was Winston Churchill, who admired fascist-Italy.

[ June 12, 2003, 18:44: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

@Yago:

I'm going a little bit OT: What parties do you mean? SPD and Zentrum? I hope you don't mean KPD.

 

SPD and Zentrum (CDU)

Damit KPD. This is FDP and CVP land (Not that joke of a FDP you or the Austrians got, of course)

And all just because of:

There is no Empire on the march! No country in the Middle East possess the overwhelming military machine of the Germans. There is no Empire on the march!

It's the time of foresight ! And maybe blattant miscalculation of the past 20 years has cost many people their lives.

[ June 12, 2003, 21:07: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Everything you are saying is evidence that was gained by hindsight. There's not a person alive that can't look back and see where they could have done things differently. The same can be said for international issues.

I'm not saying that they didn't make some huge mistakes. What I am saying is that such mistakes do not constitute being a moron. Such blanket statements, judging a situation far removed from our own by standards of today, that's just ridiculous. I don't see any great change in intelligence or foresight havign hit the human race over the past 100 or even 1000 years.

 

Lord Depaara:

I do not say, that I would have done better in their time and place.

I do not say, that hindsight isn't the greatest teacher of them all. And I don't say, that reading hindsight isn't too complicated either. (Well it actually is, because no one reads the same in the same).

And again, if the people in Europe at that time didn't belive in crap like "masterrace", "Our nation is the best nation", "We are destined to lead the world". If it would not have been widley held, that Empire is the way to go, and competeting power would have to be held in check or better, destroyed. (Which was clearly impossible at that time, because the European height was crossed about 1890, since then, other parts of the world grew with faster pace then the Europeans). And that believe is utter crap!

And I don't say, that 100 years from now, people will not look back, and say, that we were mostly all morons. And I am fine with that. It propably will suit me well.

But It's my goddam right as free born Swiss to call anyone moron I like to call a moron. (That is, if it wouldn't be against the forum rules).

And Winston Churchill, for example, is widely known as moron.

 

Of course you have the right to call people what you wish -- you could, for instance, call me a Miniature Giant Space Hamster. You would be wrong, obviously. Of course, in the Alley, it requires some actual EVIDENCE to back up such a statement. When you call people something like "moron", the implication is pretty obvious that they have screwed up in a way that you wouldn't.

I have students who read a book and say "it was gay." I always say to them "what parts involved either very happy people or homosexual behaviour?" Of course they have no answer, because there is no common sense support to such a statement, just as a reasonable person, recognizing that the people in the past didn't have the knowledge we have now, would recognize your statement is a logically flawed, poorly worded blanket statement with no argumentative merit.

[edit] Aww, hell, this is degenerating into a flame war. I'll just leave it at that -- on to the next topic!

 

Ok, Lord Depaara, you have won, I will no longer call anyone "moron". I will try to get my opinon over with decorum, some adjectivs and no use of strong words.

They were people of their time, raised and educated in the manner of their time. Born and raised to conquer empires and kill eachother in giantic wars. Wars in which nothing was gained, but everything lost.

Obviously, there was the chance of some reflection of the first world war. What it caused, what it had done. Instead of it, they drew lines on worldmaps, tried to secure some land gains and the crushing of their enemies and go on, like they did before. Like there was never a warning sign of 8 million dead people and utterly destroyed economies.

They were intelligent, bright people full of vigour, but caged in the thinking they were fed with, since the day they were born.

Bismarck

Edit: Lord Depaara was right. It wasn't smart of me to use the word "moron". I will not use it in the future (except some special case requires it). Sorry. My fault. I've been stupid.

[ June 12, 2003, 22:11: Message edited by: Yago ]

 

Yago, I'll say it in public -- you're still one of the smarter posters here! You da man! Even when we disagree, I respect your political positions. I guess I reacted so strongly because such statements seemd out of character for you, and a love of our common ancestors (Mormons love their ancestors, even while recognizing said ancestors colossal screw ups.)

And maybe that's why they hate us -- for all the mistakes and arguments Western world has had ("arguments" being a horrid euphemism for "all out, 8 million lives lost wars) we have achieved a society that on many scales is far superior to theirs - certainly in terms of economic prosperity for people aside from the elite. We've achieved that by being able to look past differences and forge strong alliances (I mean, Germany is a NATO ally, right? And it's only been 60 years or so since they were the Devil's legions.) While that's not the only reason for their hatred of the US and its allies, jealousy is certainly up there, IMHO.

 

Kudos to you Ragusa for having the testicular fortitude to come forward with your thoughts on this matter.
I wish there was a means you could convince the young people in this racket now about the reality of what they do.
Remember what Pogo said, so many years ago...."We have met the enemy, and he is us."

 

It may well help to understand by asking a similarly worded question.

Why do we hate them? It's not as if we don't otherwise there would not be so much conflict...

 

@Mithrantir

War is not senseless, war is a civilised struggle between multiple groups of people fighting for power, land, money, religion, freedom, self-defence, etc, etc.
Strong lives, weak dies, it has always been like that and is part of our nature.

@Yago

And yet he became the number 1 brit, weird huh? And Hitler became the greatest man of the last century with Stalin as second.
Quite an impressive achievement for "evil" "moronic" men, hmmm?

Still you are ignorant of the reason why people see themselves as the greatest race (perhaps because "we" have dominated the African and Native-Indian races for quite some time).

Just because you don't see the cause for their actions doesn't mean the cause is wrong, people act upon causes and who am I to judge them?


But ofcourse, you have your reason for your opinion, and who am I to judge it?

[ June 16, 2003, 12:11: Message edited by: Morgoth ]