It is not so much anti-america-ism but anti-US-government-ism.

Think about it, who else in the world would go to war over oil and still call it a fight to get rid of an "imminent threat"? Oh wait, since there was no WMD, it is now a fight for freedom and democracy.

Like my father used to say, "in business, you should always make sure everyone involved gets something out of the deal." The US government is just a little too good at making deals that are great for Americans but terrible for everyone else.

Selfishness and hypocrisy, that's why.

I agree with J10pilot, it is more like anti-US Governmentism, at least in my country. This however began after the so called "War on Terror" (or the War for Oil as many put it). Especially the 180 turn from the non-existing WMDs to the "freedom and democracy" fueled anti-Bushim and anti-US Governmentism. "A dead men is usually free" many people in my country say about the civilians murdered by US air raids and operations.

My country borders Iraq, thousands of refugees arrived here. (Especially in the initial stages of the war) The things we see and hear not only from the media but also fron the people who make is is the main cause of anti-americanism here in Turkey.

First of all I really dislike the term anti-american as it is overly exclusive in its opposition to the United States. People who disagree with the United States usually only do so in a limited fashion, and otherwise are fine with Americans and American culture.

[FONT=Times]I will agree to some extent on this one. I believe that one major factor on the anti-amercanism around the world is a direct consequence of the US agressive war on Irak. It simply showed that the USa had the arrogance to disregard popular opinion around the world and even international law. As long as The USA used its power with self restraint, the rest of the world could feel confortable about the USA retaining a benevolent, "only superpower" leadership position. After Irak, many in the world came to see that the USA could not be trusted, and has gone, to some extent out of control. In other words, the USA severily damaged its "goodwill" and particularly in third world countries, not just muslims, but all around the world, there is both a popular, and also at a governmental level, to put a break to american arrogance. Over the long term, america has little to gain, and much to loose to keep the current policies of arrogance and ignoring the rest of the world. With irak, america lost its position as leader, and become just a bully.

What america needs to do, is to recover its traditional values of respecting laws, and showing that it is not just a matter of brute force that matters, as the current government only seems to care.


[


/FONT]


What do you think are the causes of Antiamericanism?

Conflicting international interests mostly. And since the U.S. has more power it often (not always) gets it's way, right or wrong. Getting its way sometimes causes resentment. I can understand that.

Do you think it is rational, do you agree with it?

Disagreeing with U.S. interests is rational as long as it's done in a peaceful fashion. If anti-americanism turns to hatred or violence then it becomes irrational and will not resolve their concerns. It rather deepens the divide and promotes isolationism on their part.

[/quote]

Well, actually, Turkey has been America's ally in that war and provided assistance. Do you place some of the blame on Turkish government?
Besides, good luck to anyone who wants to prove that the war was for oil. In US they have been trying to do so for a while, but with no results. The Senate Intelligence Committee hasn't found anything as of yet.
As for the state of things in Iraq - I saw a survey showing that most Iraqis like where their country is going.

No, I didn't support the war and I still don't. I am just providing another angle to view the situation from.

In my opinion envy is certainly not at the root of anti americanism, there are many
reasons for it, and each generation that grows finds its own reasons.If you talk to ww2 veterans in the uk it is doubtful you will hear much praise for ww2 GIs, partly
because of them getting jiggy with the wives of men who were away fighting, secondly for leaving syphilis as a calling card on the wives of those who came home, and those that didn't.

If i was from japan/china i would be strongly anti american,
Since the end of ww2 not one year has passed when america has not either invaded a country or at the least been in conflict somewhere on the planet.

A fair bit of contempt arises from americas foreign policys towards the gov&towards the people who support these policys,[there is no pride to be gained in inflicting fear on anybody] and if any country is scared it is of bush because the mans got the power over a nation being administrated by the brain of a two year old.

As for the economy and health care?????????????????????????

The latest anti usa feelings stem from the fact that bush sees fat profit as being so much more appealing than the health of the planet.

Whilst i believe these things and many more are true i will say that it is uncalled for
to blame an entire country for the ills of a few

"In my opinion envy is certainly not at the root of anti americanism, there are many reasons for it, and each generation that grows finds its own reasons."
I think envy is certainly one of the roots of antiamericanism. People tend to be jealous of money and America is usually perceived as filthy rich, whether or not that is actually true.
As for the other part - don't you think that Americans could find a thing or two to hate the British for, if they tried? That's really true about anybody finding a reason to hate anybody. I think these reasons are superficial and if the roots weren't there, nobody would even notice them.

As for the final statement - I couldn't agree more.
Peace.

I think that any animocity between uk and usa was born long before any of us were even thought about,ie many years past. And i agree with the fact that most
reasons for intolerable behavior from whoever to whoever are superficial and just waste good oxygen, usually when somebody is being a twerp its because they are
lacking facts, for surely it would be better to present undeniable truth - than to base a statement on sketchy biased opinions.

ME I LOVE YOU ALLXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Hey, stinky, a debate on Antiamericanism is starting here. The participants will include people of different backgrounds, you might wanna see what they have to say. And drop your two cents while you are there.

Do you think it is rational, do you agree with it?

Antiamericanism has existed in some form or fashion ever since America's founding. Most European nations hated America during the 1800s because they wanted to "protect the world FROM democracy." Then as our nation approached the 1900s, many Latin American nations disliked America out of fear of America's old imperialistic ambitions.
However the answer to the question is yes, I do believe anti americanism is rational. Envy may never be a good reason to hate anybody, but it still exists in the world. Poor nations always resent rich nations as bullies. I'm not saying the whole world is poor; however, America has the world's strongest economy. What seems to strengthen antiamericanism is the fact that the whole world wants to be as rich as America, but does not seem to know how to get to level of America. America's development has been unique in the whole world.

Let's see this unique development:
In the 1775 - 1783, a minority group in America that we now know as Patriots overthrew British rule and established their own government. Around 5 to 6 years later, another minority group known as the Federalists used a session that was intended to fix the Articles of Confederation instead to scrap that document and make the Constitution. For the next 80 years, a weak nation would continually gain land through threats of war, actual war, or simple purchases. Then comes the big bad American Civil War, a war most the world thought would destroy the nation. Though leaving behind much resentment, this war would actually speed up the modernization of America.

Even if the foreign nations know this information, no one can seem to comprehend how America became as great as it is. The foreign nations are looking for a formula to the greatness of America but will never find it. That is the source of antiamericanism in this world.

Do I agree with antiamericanism? No, there is no formula for success. The only way to success is to pave your own path.

Hello Bucket hello everyone!

I want to give some input from a European\German side: To my experience and observation European Anti-Americanism comes\came solely down to GW Bush as a person. The first thing Bush said about Putin was he found him "trustworthy". Saying this many educated Europeans found him extremely un-trustworthy since he is saying it. It s like someone telling me he is full of integrity: I wont trust that person anymore. Leaders are thoughtful and careful with their words.

Capitalism and Americans are no more a problem for European nations than it is a problem for them with one and each other. Someplaces privacy is considered a part of freedom whereas different European cultures might say a person is only free when he gives up privacy? If one national company is being bought and transformed into another (foreign) company then this change in business culture needs to allow the employees to maintain different freedoms and privileges: like a career and the education for a trade or profession and like the freedom to develop one s spirit or life independently from the job.

I agree that we all life with the experiences and concepts our fathers tought us: be it the bad that we have to deal with or be it the good that we want to preach.
European integration is setting a lot of those concepts free and in a lot of ways Americans come to be a mirror of what can be or what could be (or not be). This way America is almost included into Europe (also with all the un-necessary judgements or justified critics) and jet America is far and another own center of gravity.
At this point geographical Europe is somewhat also stuck or self-beloved on its long history therefore takes things into longer considerations and for this reason catches up with Americas pace differently - all surely no Anti-Americanism.

I read this and laughed aloud, not from your point, but the simple idea that a society so well-versed in the realities of the time and some of the most laid-back and accepting people on the planet could be so short-sighted and narrow-minded to the point that they condemn an entire nation for the actions of one person. How can it be that the whole of America never condemned the entire nation of Germany during a war in which they were wiping out an entire ethnic group and the same nation decades later feels free to look down its nose at the whole country simply because of one man? I do not mean to imply Germany as a collective was behind the Holocaust, but George Bush is one American. To say that America is a failure and a disgrace because of one person is to blame the Holocaust on Germany instead of Adolph Hitler.

I am sorry VDemosthenes, but apparantly you did not read Hamburgers post correctly. As he said Anti-Americanism does not come from the fact that Europeans dislike or even hate U.S. citizens. As Hamburger said:

I fully agree with him. As a matter of fact one of the reasons for me to join AD was to find out why U.S. citizens voted for Bush and even more amazingly that they re-elected him! I can understand you voted for him the first time (everybody can make a wrong decission based on false election promises), but what I do not understand is the fact you re-elected him. Even after reading a lot of posts here on AD I still do not get it. Why is it so hard to accept Bush is completely incompetent to be the President of the most powerfull country in the world? Why are there still so many people who will defend this sorry-excuse of a President, when the whole world and half of the U.S. population look at him as a complete failure? It still baffles me. (btw. I am not partisan, in general I do not trust the majority of the U.S. politicians, whether they are Rep. or Dem, corruption, word twisting and mud-slinging have replaced any sensible political process or discussion it seems. )

And btw I have discovered that a lot of Americans are still referring to WWII when they talk about Germany in general and like to point out that the leading country in Europe has a realy dark history. And there exists a disliking towards France comparable to the Anti-Americanism existing in Europe.

Well, there is certainly a lot of projection in your post. Your point seems to be (as a self labeled liberal socialist), that you just can't believe how Americans could elect a leader that "you don't agree with". In other words, YOUR views represent the "truth" and the poor misguided souls who see things otherwise are either blind, stupid, or not paying attention?

The United States has a process for selecting a president. Bush won (twice) because he was able to win via that process. It's more complex than a simple majority (per our constitution) otherwise Bill Clinton who only achieved 43% of the popular vote would never have been elected.

I don't agree with your premise that anti-American sentiment is focused on one individual; namely our President. He's there because a majority of voters put him in office and they did that because Bush shares THEIR views on many issues. Bush didn't rise to office in a coup. He was ELECTED. Twice.

Furthermore, myself, and many other Americans don't see Bush as a "sorry excuse for a president". They see him as a strong, decisive leader who shares many of the fundamental values that a majority of Americans hold dear. The fact of the matter is that the majority of Americans are NOT liberals and/or socialists.

The United States is a very large country with a wide range of opinions. That's what happens in a diverse and free society. I've traveled to Europe many times and always chuckle when one of my friends or colleagues refers to the "average American". I, for the life of me, don't know who they are talking about. The countries I've traveled to in Europe which include your country, Germany, Austria, France, UK, and Ireland are far LESS diverse places than the USA.

Yes, the near half of the US citizens who "hate" Bush as you put it do so, fundamentally, because they don't share his world view. Of course, European opinions are in line with this but both are a function of a consistent message that has been presented by the left leaning US press and the ultra-left leaning European press. If someone like President Bush is consistently presented in a negative light by the media, what do you think the opinion polls (which involve most people who do not follow the details of each story) will reflect?

There has always been a struggle within the US for dominance of divergent world-views. This even boiled over into a civil war; which still remains (by far) the most bloody war that the United States has ever fought. This has been true throughout our history back to the revolutionary war when a substantial percentage of our population was still committed to England.

We've had our conflicts over a wide range of issues and there is no sign of that trend stopping, independent of who the president is. But a lot is perception and that perception can be biased by the people reporting the "news". If, in 2008, a liberal democrat is elected in the US, I guarantee that nearly "half of the US population will hate that person" and will consider him/her to be an incompetent nitwit.

I know a lot of European people and have traveled to Europe a number of times. Yet, I have to admit that I'm starting to get very tired of the Bush bashing that has become habitual on that continent. It's "fashionable" now. And what are the major reasons that I personally have heard for this?

1. Kyoto and Bush's rejection of that treaty. Well, I haven't seen any major European capitals step up and start practicing these "protocols" which are the result of pseudo science in any event. That treaty was a joke, would NEVER have been approved by the US Congress, and furthermore, Clinton, who gave it political lip service never lifted a finger to enact any of the provisions either. Kyoto is "political", not "scientific". And Bush was honest enough to call it what it was and reject it.

2. Iraq. Do the people of Europe just expect the United States to sit back after 9/11 occurred and become victims? Do they expect a rogue tyrant like Saddam Hussein to continue to defy the terms of his surrender (after the first gulf war), continue to defy the UN sanctions against WMD's and routinely fire at US aircraft and attempt to assassinate a former US president and have the US do NOTHING about it?

3. American "arrogance". Europe has been, post WWII, in a position where they have largely not been responsible for their own security or their own prosperity. What they destroyed via Germany's grand ambitions, was repaired, replaced, and modernized by the United States. And, to prevent the same thing from happening via the USSR, we provided the security for the continent as well. That allowed Europeans the LUXURY of creating a social welfare state, pseudo-closed economies, and a mindset akin to college students who are still living off of their parents. In my view, if European countries want to stop being treated like children by the Americans, they should stop ACTING like children (metaphorically) and start pulling some of their own weight in this world. That involves a serious recognition that radical Islam threatens the ENTIRE western world, not just the US. To date, Europe for the most part has been content to look the other way, harbor these terrorists, and appease them wherever possible so that they don't attack THEM and seem happy to let these thugs focus their attention on the USA. That has to stop. Europe also has to take seriously their own security (I favor the pullout of US troops from Germany and other countries in Europe) and also deal with regional issues like Kosovo (where the Americans had to do the hard work while Europe did almost nothing).

So, now you have heard the views of someone who has (incredibly) voted for President Bush, not once, but twice. And do you know what? If he ran in 2008, I'd vote for him again.

Come on LordHelmet, do not twist my words. I have never said my opinion is the truth. I only pointed out that Bush, as your elected President, is really unpopular in Europe and the rest of the world. (before he became President alot of Europeans were also horrofied by the high number of executions in Texas when Bush was governor) The negative stance towards the Bush administration does influence the way the U.S. society is portrayed in the media. (as I have said before I joined AD to find out more about the average American and to create a better perspective about the current situation in the U.S.). The U.S. people elected him, and the rest of the world has to deal with him!



Why Bill Clinton? Why are you comparing a former President with the present President? I only look at the present, I only judge Bush by his action like I did with Clinton when he was President. Up till now I have seen very little to make me happy. My confidence in this administration is low and apparantly I am not the only one. This feeling is shared by the majority in the rest of the world. Do not confuse me with a party-bashing Democrat, I am an outsider and that is how I analyse the actions of this President.



Yes and that is exactly why a lot of people are loosing their faith in the U.S.. The re-election of Bush did not improve U.S. popularity in the world.



I am well aware of this, you do not have to explain this to me.



Maybe in the eyes of an outsider, but there are fundamental difference between countries like Holland, France and the U.K. That´s one of the reasons the formation of the E.U. is not going as smooth as planned.



Could you please point out were I stated that nearly half of the U.S. population "hates" Bush?



This is your perception and its not even founded on facts. What you see as ultra-left I see as moderate.



You deliberately try to marginalise the critical opinion towards Bush. So the only reason we do not like Bush is because it is "fashionable". Come on, you are not even trying to understand why Europeans do not like Bush.



And Bush was critized by the whole world for his decission. Apparantly the President of one of the most polluting nations in the whole world, thinks money is more important than a clean enviroment. It is no wonder he did not get any sympathy.

Besides that Holland is working really hard to fullfill their part of the Kyoto protocol. Take some time to read this article http://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/251701059.pdf



No we didn't expect the U.S. to do nothing. We supported the war in Afghanistan and even send troops to Iraq. What we didn't expect was the fact that Bush ignored some of her loyal allies in the E.U. and the U.N. and started a war that had nohing to do with fighting terror. We didn't expect that the U.S. would break some of the most important international rules and we didn't expect U.S. troops to torture their prisoners.


Excuse me, but it were the Europeans that rebuilded their own countries. The financial support from the U.S. was important, but in the end we, the Europeans (my grandparents and parents for example) did all the hard work and tried to make a better society. Apart from that Western-Europe was crucial for the U.S. in their fight against the Communistic threat. The financial support also benefitted the U.S.



A mindset akin to a college student who are living off their parents???
Apparantly you really do not understand European history and culture. I suggest you take another vacation to the continent and try to understand the mentality and culture this time.



Remember France and Germany at the beginning of the War in Iraq and the reaction from the U.S. We have never treated Americans the way some Americans treated these countries.



Are you for real with this statement? Try reading threads here on AD like "burqaas, chadors, niqaabs ..." Europeans are struggling with fundamentalistic Islam longer than the U.S. Europe is the hot zone for future terroristic attempts. (Britain, France, Germany, Spain Denmark and Holland, just to name a few, all have big problems with the extreme aspects of Islam and are using every means to track down potential terrorists within our own societies. Radical Islam is a bigger problem in Europe than it ever has been in the U.S.



Can you proove this with facts? Or is this just a rant against Europe? WE DID NOT STIMULATE THE HATRED OF RADICAL MUSLIMS TOWARDS AMERICA!! It is unbelievable that you even dared to say this.



And I still do not understand why you did it.

Renger,

I am not in favor of capital punishment and not use to taking up for Bush. On the other hand, every state has a different form of Government. The Texas Constitution was written soon after the Civil War, (a post reconstruction document) when executive power was mistrusted. The only legal power a Texas Governor has on capital punishment cases is to issue one 30 day stay.

Bush spoke out in favor of capital punishment, but he was following crowd mentality rather than leading.

The conveyor belt to the death chamber is still running under Governor Rick Perry. The atmosphere in Texas is such that I think executions would have occurred at near the same rate regardless of who was Governor, sadly even a Democrat.

Oddly enough, the Lieutenant Governor enjoys more Constitutional power than the Governor, especially if the Lt. Governor is a powerful figure like the late Bob Bullock.

Edited to Add: No Governor of Texas would have had the power or the will put a hold on all executions as did Governor Ryan of Illinois.

Oh lord...
I've stayed out of this debate because the literal reality is that the majority of Anti-Americanism is based in Western Europe and the Middle East, in which both cases predominantly aren't sourced in reality but rather zealot religion or ignorance. Asians and S. Americans, as a general rule as welcoming and hold no disdain for Americans more than any other foreigner.

Let's break it down, in that even prior to the war in Iraq, many Europeans weren't particularly enthusiastic about Americans. It revolves around a Western European pride based culture... with the French being the least accepting and the British the most. Personally, I believe that it revolves around Americans' complete lack of interest in other cultures, in other languages, coupled with our financial and military prowess.

Basically, a large number of people across the world become resentful of capitalistic imperialism. They hold disdain for the fact that their children listen to Eminem and drink coke. This mixes with American "arrogance" or "bravado" and BOOM- antiAmericanism.

If the War in Iraq and G Bush are the reasons that Europeans don't care for Americans, then why didn't you hate Iraqi's during Saddam's reign? Why don't you all hate N Koreans? Personally, if there weren't a certain amount of envy thrown into the mix, frankly, this discussion would be non-existent. If it's proven that the approval rating for GW is low, then why wouldn't Europeans feel sorry for Americans? Oh... because their resent has only now found a sounding board, while being in existence since far prior to 2001....



Good Lord. Please pull the rhetoric train into the station.
If you're talking about the Kyoto in terms of pollution, please stop typing and google the Kyoto Treaty... and begin reading. Here, I'll help ya.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2233897.stm

It's a watered down political nightmare. It allows some countries to have "provisions", and others to foot the bill. Typical UN inefficiency. At some point, world leaders have to step back and call a duck a duck... and Kyoto is a sure flop. Lest we not forget Australia's opposition as well... I suppose George Bush ruined it for them as well? lol

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said....


Simply put, I work for a company based in York, England that also has offices in Paris and Cannes. Frankly, I've spent more than one sunny afternoon in Europe and do believe that there are stark contrasts in nations, and that the EU would never really work on a long-term scale. I predicted it like Nostradamus years ago... and what do you know, problems! Thousands of years rooted in strife and war cannot possibly be forged via a continental currency based upon multiple economies, which inflates the cost of goods sold for some nations and not for others.
Here's a great article to read...
EU problems...
The best quote from this article...
"Less that half of EU citizens think membership is a good thing, and this is less than 30% in the UK. There has been an enormous decline in the UK, from 60% support in 1991 to 30% support in 2003."

Europeans, like many nations' people, have a deep rooted pride in their history and culture as if it were built by them alone. This often finds discord with contemporary history and American influence on the current world in reference to military power and economics. It's also coupled with the fact that our parents and Grandparents took part in wars that changed the course of fate on European soil, which is still recent in terms of history. Basically, the US is the Rome to many Europeans and Middle Easterners... (strange, but very fruitful coorelation). However, as opposed to imperialism via colonization, we do it with McDonalds and General Motors; while also putting US military personnel on their contenents (even if at the behest of their gov't).

Finally...

Well, I hate to tell ya, my state is larger than your whole nation; of course both in size as well as in population. This provides a unique set of circumstances in a nation this large that precludes some of the political nuances experienced in Europe. In addition, your logic wanes in that George Bush not only won the electoral vote in the second election, but also won the popular vote.

At what point will the media and the rest of the world come to terms with the frank reality of the situation, and realize that even prior to 9/11, Europeans and Middle Eastern people weren't greeting Americans at the airport with open arms and hugs. Europe was and is open to any of us with a dollar in hand ready to spend, but frankly that's about as far as it goes (well, with some parts of the UK excluded...).

Is it like that everywhere? Umm....no. Japan is a far different situation. During my one 4 day trip to Tokyo (yes, we have a Tokyo sales office), I learned two things quickly... the Japanese are very accomodating and interested in Americans, and everything there is very SMALL!

Oh yeah it is Bush, all Bush's fault. I remember when I went to the health office in Brisbane Australia (Clinton was president then) to sign up for my medical card that I was afforded because of my UK citizenry and the woman asked why I didn't sound very British and I told I lived in America since a child. Boy did that exchange suddenly change sour, not only did she refuse to submit my form for health coverage, she would no longer even look at me. When I asked my boyfriend why so many Australians were hateful to Americans he told me ohh because of the Vietnam war of course! As if it was just a matter of fact, constant thing the world had always known.


Bush is just the latest version of it. He is anti-Americanism2000

And Renger isn't it curious how you explain to us that this dislike stems from Bush and then go on to give examples using things in American society that have existed long before Bush, like capital Punishment. Do you think perhaps my comments that it is something more, the nature of American society , that Bush so well personifies have validity? Not Bush himself, but more or less what he represents?


We all have negative aspects in our societies. I think European cultures can be extremely xenophobic. Not that I would account this for all problems or negativity with our relations with one another. It is a factor, how well the society in question is accepting or receptive to vilification of foreigners, and I think the idea governments or political movements try to play off or capitalize on this is also a well accepted occurence in regards to this issue.

Mmmhhh, it seems my reaction on this issue have triggered some reactions.



I trust your explanation BoF, but the facts are that during Bush's 6 year term as governor of Texas he persided over 152 executions, more than any governor before him. Somebody who is supporting executions on that scale arouses great fear in the hearts of Europeans, who are in general against the death-penalty. He is clearly a man who believes in his own right and as a governor hardly had any quality for mercy. This same man is now president of the most powerfull country in the world, thanks to the efforts and friends of his dad.



Look at it from this perspective: America is the strongest military power in the world. That is reality and we have to accept that. That is not the problem. What is causing a problem is the fact that at this moment Bush is president and he is ready to use any means neccesary to accomplish his own personal political agenda. This is scary for a lot of people. The U.S. invaded Iraq on a really thin reading of the international law and against the will of the U.N. and Europe. Bush and Cheney, no matter how they bring it in the media, have more or less condoned the practise of torture. Under the Bush administration a law was introduced that allows the president to "rescue" American soldiers if they stand before the ICC. This means military action against MY own little country.

Europeans are sitting across the Atlantic in front of their tvs or internet and constantly confronted with Bushes "I don´t give a damn" attitude towards Europe and the rest of the world. Europeans are afraid of what America is becoming. We do not hate Americans, we strongly disagree your politicians and we try to warn you that this is not going well. Apparantly a lot of Americans do not want to listen to us or feel we unjustly critise them. That´s fine, but do not be surprised if the popularity of the U.S. drops rapidly.



Can you proove this? Or is it just your perception of what we think in Europe? Apparently our children really like American culture. You said it yourself. That doesn't mean they agree with the foreign policies of the U.S. I like to listen to hiphop music (preferably fr the mid-nineties), I like to drink coke, wear American clothes and I try to understand the American culture by participating in a American debate forum. All of this doesn't mean that I agree with Bush or the international policies he developped. I still think Bush is an incompetent and even dangerous president. And I still do not understand why some people defend him beyond reason. Do you consider me anti-American just because I disagree with your president?



First of all lets make one thing really clear I DO NOT DISLIKE AMERICANS. phew I have said it. Besides that there is a big difference between people who are being oppressed by a brutal dictator (N-Korea and Iraq) and people who life in a democracy. Iraqis didn't elect Saddam to be a dictator, North-Koreans didn't vote for their brutal regime, Americans (as citizens of a democratic country) did ellect George Bush ... twice.




Maybe some Europeans have had a disliking towards the U.S. before George became president, but it is clear that this president has only made these feelings stronger. Even Europeans with a pro-American attitude are having problems with Bush and his gang.



At least all the countries in the world that signed the Kyoto protocol are willing to make a change to improve our natural enviroment. Bush is not even doing that. It doesn't matter if the Kyoto protocol is perfect or not, it is the intention behind it that counts.




So your state is bigger than my country. I am glad for you, but you did not respond to my statement. I find it remarkable that everytime somebody criticizes Bush, in comes bad Bill Clinton. It is a trick to deflect the main arguments. Bush is bad, but Clinton was also bad, nahnahnahnah..... Arguments like that are useless in this debate. We live in the present, not in the past. I am discussing Bush, not Clinton.



I am not saying that you are wrong. Perhaps anti-Americanism has deeper roots than merely Bush. But it is clear that this president has intensified the (already) existing tensions between Europe and America. No matter how you view this, it is clear that Bush did nothing, really nothing to improve the relationship between the mighty U.S and her most important allies in Europe. In fact his policies have more than ones lead to intense conflicts and strengthened the slumbering anti-American feeling that slowly developped after the ending of the Cold War.

Some years ago, Larry McMurtry published a book of essys entitled Texas in a Narrow Grave. I would suggest that this is about the only "narrow grave" Bush could have taken root and spread like a garden weed. If you can get a copy you should read it. Otherwise you'd almost have live here to get the full impact of things.

I agree with you concerning capital puinishment and favor its abolition in the U. S. The prevailing attitude here is "hang 'em high." Bush could not have legally stopped any of those executions for more than 30 days. On the other hand, he was reported to be somewhat gleeful when the state put Karla Faye Tucker to death.

It's a question of which came first, "the Bush" or "the Texas." Clearly the answer is "the Texas."

I never did and never will say that anybody would condemn the American people or its nation; Anti-Americanism is more a movement against certain politics which were embodied by one (or a few) persons mindframe actions and attitude. The Bush administration appears more accessible today.
The US President is also the Leader of the "Free Western World" and by this he is exposed to justified critics from "all his citizens". He can get bad critics but he may not be a bad leader.

Let me just intervene to deal with some of the staggering factual errors in this post.




Over the course of the cold war, the United States spent on average 5.0% of its GDP on defence spending. This is on average, it went up and down year to year obviously, up to 6.7% in 1987.

During that time, here is the average percentage of GDP spent by some of the US' NATO allies:

UK: 5.1%
France: 4.6%
Turkey: 5.3%
Greece: 6.9%
Germany: 3.4% (low because they were forbidden to have a military for a chunk of that time)
Belgium 3.5%
Italy: 1.3% (?)

So, as you can see, while the US did spend more than some, it spent at best marginally more than most in terms of percentage of GDP. The fact that every first world nation on the planet except the US has socialised medicine and a social safety net is not because they 'were not pulling their weight in the cold war' but because of a concious decision based on their values.



I'm not even European, and that is just absurd and insulting. Firstly, Europe does quite a lot, you might be surprised to know, it just doesn't always make CNN. Secondly, the moment a nation outside of the US shows the slightest independence, the US has a collective apoplexy.

You want to talk about acting like children? let us look at two countries, France and Canada.

9-11 happens. The world backs the US. The US invades Afghanistan. France and the US sent large contingents to aid the struggle. Bush Jr. decides to invade Iraq. France and Canada both say that we should wait for inspections to finish (a fact agreed to by the inspectors) and then wait for a clear UN mandate to attack. They do this despite the fact that both nations still have troops actively supporting US operations in Afghanistan.

The US media goes berzerk. French fries (which are belgian in origin, oh well) are renamed. Every imaginable insult is hurled at the French and to a lesser degree the Canadians for having the gall to disagree with the US. Wine and cheese are boycotted, the far right calls for a halt to tourism in France. WWII era rhetoric is dredged up.

Amidst all this pointless anger, France and Canada keep their forces in Afghanistan, where they still are today, fighting alongside the US as they pledged to do, regardless of the fact that the US people and givernment have nothing but furious anger and vicious public bile for them.

Who exactly in this scenario was 'acting like a child'?




This is laughable. The US is a total late-comer to the war against both fanatic Islam and to world terrorism. Europe has been dealing with these issues for decades. Perhaps you have heard of such organisations as the IRA? Red Brigade? Action Directe? the ETA? The AIG? GRAPO? 17 November organisation? The Algerian War? Cairo crisis?

The reality is that North America was a safe haven where terrorism never struck until the last decade. The US sat back and did nothing... well, to be fair, not nothing. Its citizens helped fund organisations like the IRA and Action Directe, while the US government ignored repeated pleas from European nations to take action against these terrorist fund-raising activities. Now suddenly you think Europe has been 'looking the other way'?



You stated that you think one of the reasons some Europeans don't like the United States is percieved 'American arrogance'. Thank you for providing a bit of a case study.

I was going to create another thread, but heck this is as good as any.

Check this link out. I've seen it as a popup on several websites.

http://www.worldvision.org/worldvision/eap...0world%20vision


Then check out this:



IMAGE

You gonna donate?


Edited to remove image in accordance with forum Rules.

You seem to be suggesting that donations made through World Vison to provide things like "food, water, blankets, medicine, tents and other critically needed items" for victims of the earthquake centered in Pakistan will instead go to the folks marching through an (intact) city street burning what they think is an American flag. Is that your contention?

If so, is the photo the only proof you have of this? Because it doesn't make much of a case. Surely you are not suggesting that we withold donations to thousands of sick, starving, freezing, homeless earthquake victims merely because some other people, in another part of their country, burned a bad facsimile of a US flag?

No, I'm saying these Pakistanis don't seem to appreciate the fact that Americans are aiding their fellow citizens. That we are giving money TO THEM to help them. ANd yet they burn our flag?

My questions is, are you going to donate? Are you going to give money to people that burn our flag?

That's a great example of anti-Americanism. Maybe we should just swallow the fact that they hate our country.....and let them starve, suffer and kill each other off. Then take their oil...

So I assume you want to kill or let starve ALL High School students in the United States?

http://cs.cementhorizon.com/archives/2005_01.html


As well, I also assume you would wish to kill or let starve ALL adult males in the United States?

http://centricle.com/photos/2005/01/21/y


Oh, and I assume you would want to kill or let starve ALL Members of the United States military as well as all Girl Scouts?

http://www.bhgravephotography.com/singles/Features/07.htm


And add to the list of people you want to Kill or starve to death, ALL citizens of the United Kingdom?

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/wes.../11/281374.html


I am not even going to bother lecturing you on the whole principle of the first amendment right to burn a flag, that is a discussion for another thread. What I am going to lecture you on is the follishness of making vast mass generalisations of a nation of 165 million people whose government is pledged to helping the United States in the war on terror based on an out-of-context picture showing the actions of a dozen protesters.

I am also going to lecture you on the inhumanity of the idea of letting some 80,000 civilian victims of a natural disaster starve or freeze to death because you do not like the particular method of protest of a dozen people 500 miles away, again based on a massive generalisation about an entire country because of this dozen people.



Hey, on an ENTIRELY SIMILAR NOTE, I notice that there was a Ku Klux Klan Rally in Minnesota three days ago. It really is too bad that all 290 million people living in the United States are all cross-burning, sheet wearing, ignorant white supremacists bent on 'racial purification'.


RedCedar, I ASSUME you have no objection to me generalising Americans as being ALL Klan members based on this one protest rally, right?

I Googled this photo to see where it was taken (source)
It appears to have been taken this last Saturday, 21 January, in a city of just over 3 million people in the Pubjab province called Multan. The photo is closely cropped, so it's hard to be sure, but it doesn't look to me like there are more than 20 people in this group of protestors - assuming that the shadows of people out of shot belong to protestors, and not journalists, passers-by, police trying to stop the protests, etc.

Ordinary Pakistanis hate your country so much that only 20 people out of 3 million in this city came to this flag-burning demo. Without mentioning that whatever group this flag represents, it isn't really the USA unless you've lost 41 stars and 4 strips recently, which, if nothing else, shows just how ignorant these protestors are.

On that thought, though, without looking it up anywhere, and without thinking for more than a minute or so - what does the Pakistani flag look like? Got a picture in your head? Now check it here. I have to say I got it wrong - I was picturing the Indian flag - and I reckon I wouldn't be sticking my neck out too far if I guessed you had got it wrong too. So both of us would have shown were not much less ignorant, not to mention unintentionally insulted the wrong people, if we organised our own flag burning.

Look at it another way. The area hit by the earthquake was Pakistani Kashmir, with the city of Muzaffarabad - on the southern edge of the affected region - badly hit. Looking at the maps on the web I found, this is about 300 miles away as the crow flies from Multan - probably more like 500 by road.

Pakistan's population, according to the CIA factbook, is 162 million (rather more than half that of the USA) in an area just over twice the size of California (WAY less than half that of the US, so it's much more densely populated).

So let's play a little scenario out, and imagine that there was a protest last summer against, say, England somewhere (say, San Francisco). Should the British government and people have refused further aid to the NOLA area affected by Katrina because people a long way away, but still in the same country, burned an approximation of our flag? What good would that do, except to possibly switch off people in NOLA from us Brits as well?

That's without factoring in what may also be the case - everyone in the USA knows San Francisco has it's own values and culture that's distinct from much of the rest of the country. But I'll be neither of us knows whether this is also true of Multan one way or the other.

Now, hostility to US actions in Pakistan is pretty wide - here's another article you could have linked to of what looks like a MUCH bigger rally (BBC article), in the town of Peshawar (much closer to both the earthquake area and the US attack site). But here, there are no flag-burning photos - they just focused on the attack itself, the disregard for Pakistani sovereignty, the 'innocent' victims, etc. - so I guess it didn't get your attention.

Even this rally, though, wasn't a "sustained mass protest" according to the reporter on the ground. It was a political exercise organised by two local Islamic extremist parties whose sympathies are fairly obvious. A 3,000-strong protest in Peshawar (pop 982,816 at 1998 census according to Wikipedia, so probably about 1.2 million by now) doesn't necessarily represent mass opinion - certainly not compared to the 700,000 + most major European cities could muster for their anti-war marches at the start of the Iraq War, or the million plus African Americans who took part in the Million Man March a few years back. Did they represent the views of every single citizen?

Oh, and one last thing - Pakistan's natural resources include, and I quote the CIA factbook - land, extensive natural gas reserves, limited petroleum, poor quality coal, iron ore, copper, salt, limestone.

"Take their oil"? What oil?



Oh my! Swindon registers on the world stage. It would take me about 7 minutes to walk to the site of this protest from my house. It's like watching a movie and suddenly seeing a local landmark used as a location - the suspension of disbelief snaps abruptly to the ground (the "Azerbaihani oil refinery" used in the James Bond film The World Is Not Enough is in fact a Motorola cellular phone factory in Swindon - I still can't watch the film without getting to that scene and feeling a sense of anti-climax!)

Over 130,000 people live inside the Swindon borough boundary, and at best 30 people turned up to this flag-burning. In the wide shot - which we don't get to see from the Multan photo - you can clearly see that the shops are still open and many of the people who look like they are part of the protest in other photos are actually there to buy stuff and just stopped to see what all the fuss was about, not because they were part of, or necessarily agreed with, the protest itself. I wonder if any of the people in the Multan photo were infact similarly passers-by.

Some of them may even have thought to themselves "idiots" and taken issue with the protestors in the photos - in Swindon, I wouldn't be surprised. There's a US airbase about 10 miles away at Fairford, and Swindon is the closest large town, so some of the shoppers might even have been US personnel from the base.

But, for what it's worth, looking at these photos now makes me feel a little embarrassed and ashamed. Not because I fully support everything that's been done or said in the name of the War on Terror - a casual observer of will know that's not true - but because a handful of extremists have (probably) coloured the view many, if not most, Americans who see these pictures will have of the place where I live. I didn't even know that this protest had taken place, and I don't know any of the people in the photos - they may not even be from here (but I wouldn't swear to it as I don't know all 130,000 people that live here!) I dare say than some people in Multan will feel equally embarrassed by this weekend's photo.

The more and more I think about it- I think anti-Americanism stems from the usual human reaction to blantant and egregious hypocrisy.

We decry the torture commited by Saddam Hussien- but condone it by "rending" folks to countries that are on our side that commit the torture for us

We are always talking about Nazi Genocide regarding the holocaust- when it doesnt' even come close in magnitude to our holocaust against the American Indian (how many did we slaughter 40-50 million?) - while demanding penace from the Germans- we tell our own black and indian citizens they should 'just get over it"- do we tell the Jews to 'just get over it"?

We say freedom is what we want for the whole world- while we install the worst dicatators this world has ever seen- or prop them up once they are in power.

The list is long and extreme- we demand from others values we claim to hold dear, while not even really trying to uphold those same standards on ourselves.

Every human being is a hypocrite to this level or that- but America is the head and shoulders shining example of the most blantantly hypocritical bully the world has ever seen.

I say this NOT because I hate America- but because I love it- WE as a nation, need to focus our attention inwards on our failings for a generation or so, or we will devolve into another ruthless imperialistic theocracy- if we are not already there.

I have always wondered if the way I feel is the same way those that were anti-hitler early on felt- when they were saying "hey, we shouldn't go there" but were dismissed as traitors.

I am not saying that the opposition in this case are nazis- I am saying that perhaps thier pride in thier country has blinded them to the changes needed to be made in order for us to maintain the very values we are destroying.

I am sure there are as many reasons for anti-americanism in the world as thier are poeple- but humans are humans the world around, and certain things seem to be universal to human emotion- the intense satisfaction when a bully get's his "comeuppance" or when the self rightoues are found out to be bigger sinners than anyone- and I think that is the place we are in right now

The world hates us because we are the big adolecent bully on the block with a gun, and GW is the embodiment of that picture- it may have been somewhat more dormant among most nations prior to GW- as there has always been some simmering anti-americanism- with our excesses and such- but GW has brought it to the forfront by being the poster child for everything they hate- the hypocrisy, the bullying attitude, the cowboy stuff- and, now, they have an example, a real living example, of all that stuff in GW, and by extension, Americans.

Do you really expect to express such insulting absurdities and yet complain about anti-American sentiment? If non-Americans generalize from your posts the way you generalize from a single news photo, how could you blame them for thinking ill of us?

What do you think are the causes of Antiamericanism? Do you think it is rational, do you agree with it?

I think there are as many causes of Anti-Americanism as there are people who are anti American.

In other words, I don't think there is one overriding reason that dictates an anti-American attitude. For some people anti-American sentiments are based in jealousy, for others envy, some people absolutely hate the government of the of the USA whilst others just hate the USA. There are some people who dislike the USA because they have higher moral values and they look upon the USA as failing those morals and there are others who despise the constant moral lecturing which they perceive in the American cultural bombardment of cheap TV and Hollywood films.

Personally I don't think its rational to dislike a nation as one might a person. It strikes me as being intellectually lazy. I can understand dislike, and even hatred of ideology or a government or even a specific culture... but none of these can really be regarded as representing a whole country, though a culture can go a long way.

Sometimes I resent the influence the USA has over my country, but I feel the same resentment towards the EU. I feel it towards certain parties in the Danish parliament also, and I feel it towards undemocratic political forces that seek to influence and control Denmark, such as priests and clerics. Does this make me anti-American?

Other times I appreciate the USA, and sometimes also the EU.

Looking back over this thread, what impresses itself upon me most is the focus on Europe and I wonder why this is? Some posters seem to think that Europe is the most 'anti-American' part of the planet which I find odd. I could understand it if Europeans were conspiring to attack the USA or flying US aeroplanes into US buildings but it seems to me that passive European criticism bites deeper in some American hearts than active Islamic terrorism.

And what of domestic 'anti-Americanism'? A lot of the information and political perspectives that form and inform much of the world about America stem largely from America. If one wants to examine the root causes of what is called 'anti-Americanism' then one of the prime candidates must be America's own self perception. Its art and critical self opinion. Most Europeans for example have no first hand knowledge of the USA and they are largely informed about the USA through various media such as the television news channels and American entertainment programmes and films.

Its no coincidence for example that in his latest ravings Bin Laden has promoted a a book critical of the USA and penned by an unrepentant American.

Then you get my point? These people that burn the flag are ignorant. We're helping their people while they burn our flag.

Saying it's just a few people is just a guess. But people in the middle east hate the US in large numbers, yet many have no idea that we saved the Muslims in the Balkans from genocide. I saw an interview once where some Egyptians actually thought we aided the slovs in murdering muslims.

Anti-americanism is pure ignorance.

Generally speaking I am against flag burning. However, I have began to re-think this issue . Some yeras ago I was attending a conferenc in St. Louis and a group of African-American's (close to 100 people) were protesting against a Black man that was falsely arrested. They were marching with flags upside down -- no burning occurred.

As a White person who has spent a good amount of time listening to African-American voices and history, I could really understand what these protesters were trying to communicate -- that America, a land that boasts about its freedom, does not allow African-Americans to have the same amount of freedom as White people. I hate to see flags upside down or burned, however, it does send a very powerful and accurate message that few White people can see behind. Further, it does help many White people and politicians to wake up and at least pay attention to freedom, or the4 lack of freedom, issues.

Hence, although I am against flag burning, I have come to understand the actions.

1) American education system is inferior, as proof they illustrated poor test results in middle and elementary schools.

What is the literacy rate in Russia? We may do poorly compared to other industrialized nations, but Russia borders on a 3rd world country.

2) Americans are NOT religious

I'm not sure how this reflects badly or well for a country. The middle east is very religious.

3) American science consists 90% of imported brains, since American scientists are... rare and dificult to raise on the "rocky terrain of American education".

90%? I'm not doubting that it's high. Is that a bad sign for the US or a great indication that we have the BEST education system in the world that brings the best minds from around the world? You can't argue we don't have the bright people in our universities, I mean we're not bringing dunces here from Asia and Europe or wherever.

4) Americans are incapable of heroism.

Like Patton used to say “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.” Being dumb doesn't consitute heroism.

5) Americans don't have a culture, they have only a substitute - their pop-culture, which promotes sex and consumerism.

The US is a young country. We don't have 1000s of years of history so our culture is not as deep as other nations. And we're a mixed bag of cultures to add.

I compare the US to a new franchise or a new university with a new sports team. They won't have time-tested traditions that are old-school and respected. More likely they'll have a Jumbotron and blasting dance music with every person in the stands wearing mass produced clothing for the team.

And I love the Russian high moral ground on consumerism and capitalism. Yet, they have black markets and the like. Consumerism and capitalism are simply human nature, that's why they work and communism fails. Communism goes against the "selfish gene" and it is an unnatural form of society.

People naturally have a self-interest, you can't deny it. You can pretend to be above it and pretend to be morally superior to it, but in the end even communism turns into some form of consumerism/capitalism.

6) American music consists only of rap and other such vulgarities.

Russia doesn't have pop music that's vulgar?

7) In modern America, there are no good writers.

This is laughable. But knowing Russian society and even Europe, I would say there is a higher interest in their languages than in the US. There is a deeper love for the written word, etc. But again, I think this stems from the US being mult-cultural and not really being tied to English. It's not my ancestors native tongue, so like them I'm not emotionally tied to it.

8) American judicial system and politcorrectness embarass the whole nation (this is where I am somewhat in consensus)

Well it sure beats have a dictator running things, aka Putin.

9) Americans have a hypocritical foreign policy of double standards and are sticking their noses, where they don't belong, forcing democracy on people who don't want it.(and I agree with this one, too)

I would disagree with this. I don't think it's an interest in bringing democracy as much as it's self-interest, mostly corporate interests.

For instance, it's well known that Cheney went to the UN prior to 9/11 to get the sanctions lifted on Iraq so we could get their oil. It failed, months later we invaded and occupied.

Are you going to tell me we really went there to bring them democracy or did we just want stability so we could get their oil?

And I think it's more sour grapes than it is disagreement with our policy. Nations like Russia probably envy our capability to influence the globe.

The people that burn the American flag in the picture you provided are not ignorant, they are Angry, just like the people are in all the pictures I provided.

Do you have evidence that those 20-odd people were among the Eathquake refugees? No? Then how exactly can you claim that you are helipng these people while they burn your flag?

They are also not in the Middle East, they are in Pakistan. Yes, there are people in the Middle East who dislike the United States, but if you knew anything about the history of the US and the West in the Middle East, you might be surprised they have at leat some justification.

You saw an interview once where an Egyptian thought the US aided the Slavs in murdering muslims? Well I saw an interview once with a member of a Montana militia group, the fraky survivalist type. It was filled with the worst kind of staggering ignorance, stupidity and hate you can imagine.

Tell you what, you can generalise about a nation based on a TV clip of an individual if I can too...





PURE ignorance? Really? So you are asserting that there are NO valid reasons at ALL to be angry at the United States curently? That the current administration of the US has not done ANYTHING at ALL which might give cause to justified anger? Are you quite sure you wish to make that claim?


A lot of things are pure ignorance, friend RedCedar, but if I were you I would not be so quick to throw stones.

Just FYI:

Russia's literacy rate is close to 100 %.

Same info - another source.

So what was your point here?
I think the statement above goes beyond simple literacy rate; United States has a literacy rate of 96-97 percent which is not that far behind other industrialized nations, and yet there's no questions that american schoolchildren do poorly when compared to their Western European peers.

Let me tell you my friend, if you are from America, then you should be proud of yourself. And you should know that you were very lucky to be born in America. Look at the world, this world is full of the people that are jealous of America. Because as you know, the United States is blessed with full of resources, and great nature. Also America has got the best technologies that no other country can even compete against, and the strongest military in the planet. The U.S. economy has been strengthened after the Bush administration took over the White House(The rich people are investing more cash on the U.S. companies because America succeeded showing their great power in the Afghan/Iraq wars)

Simply, there is nobody who can defeat the United States. Probably America is now more than the Roman Empire or the British Empire.

Do not lose your faith in America. Because the United States is more than just a only superpower of the world.[/b]

96-97% is almost close to 100% for America I assume, since there are many children who come from other countries in the United States. I have no idea if it's relevant though.

I agree with Moif that much "Anti-Americanism" can be explained by the soft, not the hard power & military might of the USA. As wrong as the Iraq war has been [I would've like to see Bush apologize for that], the influence of American culture can be felt everywhere. The problem with "american culture" is the negative connotation one has when hearing this phrase. [I have to add that culture is understood in my country as what others identify with civilization].

I would guess most people in Europe automatically assume Hollywood (shallow happy-ending movies, something fairly distinct to European movies), fast-food, religious zealotry and gun violence. Self-centred, insatiable, unrestrained and superficial as well as prude are the characteristics that go hand in hand.
Of course, this p