I feel kind of angry about our position in the world. We fight against terror and injustice in the world. We are right. The French sell weapons to our enemies and say how fat and stupid we are. The guys on the other side of the war on terror are racist, evil, anti-semitic and brutal in their disregard for human dignity. I feel kind of angry that America is critized as evil. Do I have a right to be angry?

Interesting topic.

And factually, we are far more respectful and considerate a world leader than Britian was in its day. Yet, we are vehemently disliked in some places and constantly criticisized in others.

Much of these knee jerk reactions to "America" are manifestations of envy. Playing an active role in international affairs emphasizes our importance in the world, and smaller countries can feel resentment for this.

Then there's fear; some of it is rational. Our foreign policy is inconsistant because we are powerful and willing to extend ourselves, we scare people. Some foreigners fear that America has the potential to act against them on a whim. To a certain degree, they may be right. Churchhill stated that "America will act righteously after all others options have been exhausted". We can be sloppy in our foreign policy, but in relative terms - in comparison to England, we are not The Terrible Tyrant everyone makes us out to be. America, unlike Great Britian, at least recognizes what is right.

And finally, people are just plain uninformed and exaggerate the "wrong" that America does and overlook the good that we accomplish.

I think that it is flattering to a degree. To be a citizen of a country that is the center of attention is kind of nice. And Debate is good, healthy; criticism has the potential to make us wiser and stronger, as our own debates do. By allowing ourselves to be the center of attention, we are creating a common topic amoung countries and ultimately uniting them - however in disharmony.

I am not angry at the criticism. I encourage it, but burning effigies of Bush is a bit much, and it does anger me a bit. Civil disobedience would be so much more effective.

jjirout

Ranciduncle,

You have a right to feel all your emotions. If criticism of US foreign policies makes you angry, so be it.

My feeling is more of disappointment than anger. I thought by now the world, including the US, would be a lot smarter than this. I thought war would eventually be such an expensive undertaking all around that nobody would want to do it.

Guess I was wrong.

jjirout



I'm sorry but I disagree. Great Britain ran a global Empire, and they never denied that's what it was. America is consolidating its grip on the world, but Americans still refuse to think of themselves in any terms which relate to an empire.

And by the strictest dictionary definitions, they may be right. But America has military forces deployed all over the world, has ignored the UN and is currently waging, what the bulk of the worlds population regards as, an illegal pre emptive war waged by a Imperialist America.

Rancid uncle



If America really is fighting against terrorism, then why is George Bush doing exactly what Osama Bin Laden wants him to do?

Why did the CIA smuggle the former Iraqi general (and suspected war criminal for the gassing of Halabjah) Nizar al-Khazraji out of Denmark so he can aid the CIA?

And why is America awarding contracts for the rebuilding of Iraq without consulting the people of Iraq what they wish for?

In my opinion, you have every right to be angry, I just question where you're directing your anger?

How can it be that so many nations, even old allies are not behind the current government of the United States?

(How is America an imperialist nation?)
First off you need to clarify yourself. How are we trying to do the same thing that Osam Biladen tried(?) to do? We told Saddam that he was in violation of a treaty tell him to step down and when he doesn't we were supposed to (fill in the blank) _____



You just answered your own question. We smuggled him into Denmark so we could get Intel w/o risking more lives to get it.

Okay so now America is the official genie of the lamp. If you have any wishes or needs just come begging to America, we'll throw you as much money as you need.

We ignored the UN because it is a group of countries that have the same goal of milking money out of the U.S and careing a bigger vote (France). The UN is outdated and should be discarded because many country's (again France) are using it for their own personal gains, they love our money, but they keep a tight hold on our leash.

Quite frankly I don't think we should depend on them they have never proven to be reliable allies and we can't go around looking out for everyone else's interests.

Just out of curiosity can anyone explain to me why we are still part of the UN? What do we get out of it

I'm not what France and Al-Jazeera says I am. I'm not a fat, stupid lazy idiot. I don't want to steal Iraq's oil. I don't think French people are lazy and evil. I don't mind critisism of my country. I mind lies and racisism being used against my country. I don't agree with Bush's methods either. I feel that we are seen as something we are not. That makes me angry.

The above quote is your opening post, Rancid. You've since gone on to say:


So, you're not what France and Al-Jazeera says you are, but is any one French or Arab citizen (viewing Al-Jazeera) anymore of what you say they are? People in France and the Middle East lump "Americans" together as a whole the same way you and many in America lump together the French, Arabs and anybody else.

We can say that the French are this and that, but the French can equally turn around and say we are such and such as well. To them, we may be "fat and lazy," while to us they are "racist and evil" (whatever adjectives we choose). They're all generalizations based upon the actions of our governments and not necessarily representative of individuals within the nations. I don't think anybody has much justification in getting angry about a generalization if they're going to turn around and commit the same mistake themselves.

Neither the French or American government is angelic in their international affairs. We both have our pitfalls. Al-Jazeera isn't providing any more biased a point of view than Fox News Channel. If people want to get angry, I suppose that's their right. But they shouldn't be too terribly surprised if and when they find themselves labeled a hypocrite.
*granted, many people may not be aware of their hypocrisy... a large portion of our country is ignorant of the misdeeds and lies put forth by our government -- evidence of which you can find spread throughout this forum, if you choose to look for it.

Jester



I didn't say America was an imperialist nation. I said many people perceive it to be as such.



Again, that's not what I said. I said Bush is doing what Bin Laden wants him to do, not that Bush is doing the same thing. There is a distinct and real difference.

The main reasons given for the Sept 11 terrorist attacks was to humiliate the Americans and anger them into a wider pan Arabic conflict. That is exactly what we are seeing today.
It was not difficult to predict this response either, because George W Bush and his political allies had already announced their desire to remove Saddam Hussein from power all the way back in 1999.




No, I wrote that the CIA is being blamed for smuggling General Nizar al-Khazraji OUT of Denmark. The man was under house arrest awaiting trial for the mass murder by means of chemical weapons of the Kurdish population of the village of Halabjah.

My question is, if this is indeed true, then why is the CIA using a suspected war criminal known to have deployed WMD's against a civilian population? Last year, there was even talk of General Nizar al-Khazraji being used to replace Saddam Hussein as president after the war. You can read about it here. Is this indeed what the CIA intend to do with Nizar al-Khazraji.

I don't know, hence my question, but I really hope they don't. Nizar al-Khazraji should be returned to Denmark so he can be tried in a court of law for crimes against humanity.



Nothing is stopping the USA from leaving the UN. But as long as the USA is in the UN then it is constitutionally bound by the UN's laws.



The UN is not an ally, and there is no 'them' it is 'We'.
America is a part of the UN (and a big part) and has used the UN on thousands of occasions to its own gain.



Because in reality, the UN does work. George Bush might not appreciate it, but the beaurocrats of the world need an international forum to do their job. If the UN was scrapped, it would only have to be replaced by another similar forum.

To return to the original question though. Do Americans have the right to be angry?

Perhaps, but then so do a great many other people, and with just cause. If I were a Kurd, I'd be very angry if Nizar al-Khazraji was made president of Iraq by the USA.

As a Dane, I am highly annoyed that the UN has been violated to make way for an American agenda without any thought given to the possible damage this may do to many other regions of the world where UN aid workers are vital in helping people fight starvation, disease and other wars not given such heavy media coverage.

We don't need to rehash the US vs UN thread here

Let's stick to RancidUncle's specific question - does he have the right to be angry?

I think the media is making everyone angry. I'm not what the Arabs think I am and the Arabs aren't what I think they are. I feel betrayed by the leaders of both sides.

Ranciduncle,

I too become angry when watching/listening/reading war news. It isn't a rational reaction but purly emotional. I have a right to feel this irrational anger, but I don't like feeling this way.

I don't like distrusting our leadership, but I can't help it.

I don't like the feeling of impending disaster, but I can't avoid it.

I don't like seeing our military used this way, but I can't stop it.

A tune quote comes to mind: "Helpless, helpless, helpless" from an old Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young.

And GWB is looking more like LBJ every day.

So, I only focus on the war a limited time each day. I get angry. I play my guitar. I listen to loud music and jam with harmonica. I do something else.

Because I am feeling helpless.

My reaction to the entire world situation since 9/11 has not been anger, but a quiet, cynical, misanthropic sadness. My reaction may have certainly been much different if I had been closer to any of the tragic events.

Columnist Walter Williams wrote a piece (sorry, I do not have an exact source, so take this as hearsay; but I did read it myself) in which he stated that the American mood was not angry enough; that there was too much mourning and not enough taking of action. Regardless of whether this is true or not, I thought it was interesting (to say the least) that he thought that this was the result of a "feminization" of the American political scene. He said, more or less, (again, apologies for having to put this in my own words) that women had a positive effect on the home and other places in society, but a bad, softening effect on national policy (at least when it came to defense issues.)

I'm wondering if you think there is really a "gender gap" in the level of anger and/or sorrow felt during these times. I suspect not, but have no exact data to support this.

That's me too -"quiet misanthropic sadness" - but I have my share of anger mixed with it. Not a hot anger, more a "revenge is a dish best served cold" kind of determined persistent anger. It doesn't affect my daily life or emotional state, but it does affect my policy decisions, and I think, for the better since I now take them more seriously.

Walter Williams is one of my favorite columnists, and I think I agree with him that maybe we're not angry enough in the sense that it moves us to action. I tend not to agree with him on there being a gender gap involved.

Was Margaret Thatcher a weak leader? Golda Meir? Corazon Aquino? Indira Ghandi? Benazir Bhutto? Did they have a "softening effect" on their countries? I hardly think so. As I remember, they were all fiery enough and not afraid of decisive action. Most of the people I have problems with for being appeasers are men.

But then again, the polling data on support for the war suggests Williams is right. I don't know why there is a gender gap on that. but the numbers don't lie and it is there. I know of no polling data on a level of anger or sorrow.

VS: I found Walter Williams articles.

America: A sissified nation

Is the first article he wrote on the subject...

The one you refer to is ....Why America is Sissified

Williams is a conservative African American, an economics professor at George Mason University. His positions are well thought out. They are pragmatic. In short, he is brilliant.

He argues against what many argue against here...letting our liberties be taken away in the name of "security". That is why he refers to Americans as "sissies". That we feel we need to be protected by assinine "airport security" measures and spying from within. He argues that we need to put nations on notice that if a terrorist hits here, then ANY government that sponsors, aids, or abets that organization will pay the price. He says (and I wholeheartedly agree) that laying our intentions plainly on the table will be the greatest deterrent, since those in power (in Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, etc) will not help these terrorists if they are going to be held responsible.

To read more articles by Walter Williams, here is a link Walter E. Williams

Williams is soft-spoken and has very practicle (and conservative) solutions to many of today's issues (but, *gasp* he sometimes is a substitute host on the Rush Limbaugh Radio show).

Right on, Amlord! WEW is terriific!

However, allow me a quibble... many libertarians (such as myself) consider Williams to be one of our own rather than a conservative. So much so that there are perennial efforts to draft him for the Libertarian Party Presidential nomination. I'd support those efforts if he'd go for it, since I think he'd make a magificent LP candidate. Unfortunately for the LP, he's stated repeatedly that he has no interest in running for President, on the LP ticket or otherwise.

Incidentally, when he subs for Limbaugh, IMHO he substantially raises the quality of the show.

Let's get this back on topic, please.

If you want to discuss, Walter Williams in detail, please start a new thread.

Moderators...who can figure em out?

Williams' point is that we were ATTACKED on 9/11, similar to Pearl Harbor. After Pearl Harbor, we didn't stop and ask ourselves..."Self, why would those nice, peace-loving Shinto Japanese attack us?"

They did, and we responded, with no hand wringing about how nice they were, what their motives were, etc. etc. etc. They attacked, we responded, end of story.

Why is it different now? He argues (and I tend to agree) that we are softer now, more "feminized". I argue that we also have a much shorter attention span. In a word, we have "forgotten" 9/11. It has faded from out memory.

I think that alot of people have already forgotten 9/11. The shock of watching those planes. The horror of those building collapsing. The tragedy of almost 3,000 lives lost.

People have already forgotten them, and it makes me (for one) mad.

I have a compilation piece that is a menagerie of sound bites of reporters, victims, and eye witnesses from 9/11, mixed in with "God Bless the USA" and "Imagine" with a speech by GWB at the end. It is powerful. It brings out emotions. I use it to remember the evil that was committed that September day.

I think others should remember as well.

I really wish you guys would start a new topic on this. I'd love to participate in the discussion of Williams and his "feminization" pieces, but here it would continue to be off topic.

amlord



I don't think its got any thing to do with feminization or a shorter attention span, or if it has then its certainly not a negative development.

Japan was a nation and easily defined, al qaeda however, is an aspect of a global religon and is extremly difficult to identify. So its extremely hard for any intelligent human being to maintain an anger towards an enemy they cannot easily identify. Who and what is al qaeda?

I haven't forgotten September 11 and I doubt any other Americans have either. I would be deeply interested in how an American could have forgotten when it's waved in front of us everytime support for war begins to stumble -- as though the images and reality of the situation weren't already enough to solidify its place in our minds.

While I haven't forgotten though, I'm not prepared to set logic and reason aside in favor of emotional responses that will likely lead me astray. I can indulge my emotions and be angry with those who struck at innocent civilians that autumn morning, but I do not wish to allow my anger to cloud my sense of justice.

I forget who had the quote at their signature (I'm thinking Cyan) but I feel it applicable for this thread. Please excuse me if it isn't exact:
"Those who chase monsters must be sure not to become monsters themselves."

Meanwhile, the US (and its allies) chase down terrorists, but allow the countries that coddle, sponsor, and fund these terrorists to go unpunished (largely).

What would you think about the US issuing a clearly defined Ultimatum against countries that sponsor terrorism? If we get hit by a terrorist, military action will follow against those that support or harbor those terrorists?

OK, some would argue that it's easy to fabricate evidence, others will argue about what constitutes an appropriate response, but that's what we elect leaders for, to make those kind of judgement calls. If you don't like their responses, vote them out...

I would be all for such a policy. Clearly defined consequences for clearly defined actions.