Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Why do they hate us?
America's Debate > Archive > Assorted Issues Archive > [A] International Debate
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Google
Dontreadonme
SoCal,
Do you have a link for this?
QUOTE
which prompted Saddam to later admit (during the attack on Kuwait) that is those damn Israelis hadn't blown up my Nuke I would have used it.

I have not heard of it before.
Google
Wertz
I think John Powers of the LA Weekly probably provided the best answer to this question: "They hate us because we don't even know why they hate us."

QUOTE(ikeaboy69 @ Sep 14 2003, 10:09 PM)
Not once have I seen any of the News organisations explain why Americans are more and more hated by the rest of the world. I think that would make an interesting story. Although 2 years back Newsweek asked "Why do they hate us?" written by Farheed Zahareji something or other, anyway in my opinion that article didn't tell the whole truth and the explanation the government has presented is so absurd it isn't worth mentioning.

Some of them hate us because we say things like "Newsweek asked 'Why do they hate us?' written by Farheed Zahareji something or other" - and are just too smug to even get some "damned foreigner's" name right - or imagine that such lack of respect is a funny joke, ho-ho-ho. (The article was is, in fact, written by Fareed Zakaria - the editor of Newsweek International, a regular on ABC's This Week, and author of From Wealth to Power, who was described by Esquire magazine as "the most influential foreign policy adviser of his generation" and "one of the 21 most important people of the 21st Century").

Some of them hate us because nearly half of our population voted for a man who had never set foot outside the North American continent and had no interest in foreign affairs until after September 11, 2001 - and whose curiosity even then did not extend much beyond how best to exterminate them.

Some of them hate us because those who are setting our foreign policy have the goal of establishing a global American hegemony.

Some of them hate us because we do, indeed, support ruthless, dictatorial regimes when it suits the interests of American business - and sponsor terrorists - and finance genocide - and overlook gross violations of human rights.

Some of them hate us because our foreign policy in the Middle East has been dominated by Zionism without regard to its affect on other people in the region - or their feelings on the issue.

Some of them hate us because we disrespect their beliefs and their holy places, yet expect supreme reverence for what is presumed to be "our" prevailing faith.

Some of them hate us because American business comes before humanity throughout the world: because we inflate produce prices by paying farmers not to grow food as millions around the world starve to death; because we skimp on quality and standards here yet impose tariffs on international products which are made better and cheaper; because we pad our corporate profits through third world sweatshops and child labor; because we demonize tobacco at home while ardently promoting American cigarettes - without Surgeon General warnings, of course - in Asia; because we let millions die of AIDS in Africa to keep up the profits of US drug companies.

Some of them hate us because of our callous disregard for "the rest of the world".

Some of them hate us because of our vast ignorance.

Some of them hate us because of our vast arrogance.

And some of them hate us because we dismiss legitimate concerns about our country's leadership and its policies as "envy" or "jealousy" or "hatred of freedom" - or "evil".

Most of them hate us because we just don't care enough about any of the above to change any of the above.
GoAmerica
Some of them hate us just because we seem like nasty little people who just drink, have sex, and kill people. They hate us because they do not know the real us. They need to see America as a loving people like some are. There is a compasinate side to America.
Danya
If we're talking about the dangerous terrorist kind of hate I think it's caused from blowback . It's basically 'what comes around goes around' on a global scale. The link I posted is our personal blowback. That doesn't mean the same concept wouldn't apply to every other country but my link is a history of our actions and consequences. I'm sure every country has their own blowback issues.

On a more general stereotypical level I think people view us negatively at times because we can act as if we're so superior to everyone else. Yet we're generally less interested or curious about the outside world. We don't show as much interest in learning other languages, cultures, geography, etc. We're pretty wrapped up in the American Dream and our own lives. I think we've been so ingrained with the idea that everyone wants to come and live in America and be like us that an unconscious tendency exists for us to act like we're smarter, luckier, richer, more civilized, and more technologically advanced than everyone else.

Then there's how our parent's always told us to eat everything on our plate because there were children starving in Africa. We're always reminding ourselves how lucky we are because someone in some other country has to deal with something worse. There is nothing wrong with this...naturally we don't want to take things for granted or wallow in self pity so that's what we say. But then you get people who must really believe that the rest of the world is mostly living in third world conditions or caves (with the exception of the old countries ie Italy, Britain, France, etc which are better but still old and falling apart.) These people put themselves and America on a pedestal so high they just have a skewed exaggerated sense of themselves and everyone else.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(Danya @ Sep 21 2003, 01:05 AM)
If we're talking about the dangerous terrorist kind of hate I think it's caused from   blowback . It's basically 'what comes around goes around' on a global scale. The link I posted is our personal blowback. That doesn't mean the same concept wouldn't apply to every other country but my link is a history of our actions and consequences. I'm sure every country has their own blowback issues.


The problem with the article, Danya, is it gives a very westernized (and extremely imbalanced) view of brutality. Countries which have people who dress up babies as suicide bombers for parties, or religious police who throw young schoolgirls back into burning buildings because they didn't have time to dress 'properly' when escaping the flames, or chop off the heads and hands of people in the middle of a public center for entertainment do not have the same conceptions about brutality that we do.

Stating (per the article) that we backed bin Laden when he was fighting the Russians, so 'aren't we bad' doesn't explain that the Russians were dropping toys from the skies (with hidden bombs) for the express purpose of maiming children. Blanket numbers of bombs we've dropped over different countries doesn't explain their purpose, or the consequences of not dropping them. A large percentage of the "American foreign policy violence" cited on that link were absolutely defensive actions on our part.

I'm sure most of us would like to live in a nice, peaceful, loving world. We have been lucky (through vigilance) to have been virtually untouched by violence until recently. Now, I question the merits of an article which would state that we are the world's greatest terror sponsors. I think it's safe to say any country which publicly tortures its own for entertainment or shoots mothers for taking their dying children to the doctor without an escort would probably use our weapons for a much more devious purpose than we do. It's nice to pontificate about how bad we are from the position of our easy chair, but there actually is real evil in the world and it's important to recognize it, and take steps to protect ourselves from it, even while attempting to empathize.
ikeaboy69
QUOTE(Wertz @ Sep 21 2003, 01:35 AM)

Some of them hate us because we say things like "Newsweek asked 'Why do they hate us?' written by Farheed Zahareji something or other" - and are just too smug to even get some "damned foreigner's" name right - or imagine that such lack of respect is a funny joke, ho-ho-ho. (The article was is, in fact, written by Fareed Zakaria - the editor of Newsweek International, a regular on ABC's This Week, and author of From Wealth to Power, who was described by Esquire magazine as "the most influential foreign policy adviser of his generation" and "one of the 21 most important people of the 21st Century").

Wertz;
That comment was in no way intended to be humorous or arrogant, I'm sorry if it came across that way. I just couldn't remember his name, so I guess I should have tried to find it somewhere. My bad. sad.gif

Ikeaboy69
CruisingRam
Mrs Pigpen- the interesting part of that article is that prior to 9/11 groups like the taliban were the frequent target of "liberal feminist groups"- Jay Leno's wife was a freqent and vocal critic of the taliban and other intolerant religious regimes.

I agree with the Blowback article as posted- this is the stuff that makes poeple hate us- I mean, we assasintate Allende and put in Pinochet which is in the league of Saddam, We support the Shah of Iran, etc etc- WE HAVE A HORRIBLE RECORD IN FORIEGN POLICY- we seem to always support the bad guy in my opinion. I have harped and harped on our policy in Isreal- we are completelly hypocritical and one sided in that conflict as well, of course the Arabs hate us for that reason alone!
Cephus
QUOTE(SoCaliente_1 @ Sep 21 2003, 12:43 AM)
well as far as Osama binLaden, he hates the debauchery of the west.  his solution is either conversion or death. He acted against us. This concerns us.

Then why are he and his family such good friends of the Bush family if he hates the west so much? Why was his family in the US at the time of the 9/11 attacks? Somehow, I don't see "I hate you, I hate you, can I stay at your house" to be very rational, do you?

CruisingRam writes:
QUOTE
I agree with the Blowback article as posted- this is the stuff that makes poeple hate us- I mean, we assasintate Allende and put in Pinochet which is in the league of Saddam, We support the Shah of Iran, etc etc- WE HAVE A HORRIBLE RECORD IN FORIEGN POLICY- we seem to always support the bad guy in my opinion. I have harped and harped on our policy in Isreal- we are completelly hypocritical and one sided in that conflict as well, of course the Arabs hate us for that reason alone!


We're only out for our own interests. If those interests hurt others, so what? It isn't like we take responsibility for our actions or anything. And if those people we supported stop being our lapdogs, we turn on them and put them to sleep.

And we wonder why people hate the US?
Wertz
QUOTE(ikeaboy69 @ Sep 21 2003, 01:47 PM)
That comment was in no way intended to be humorous or arrogant, I'm sorry if it came across that way.

I was evidently hasty, then, in using that as an example - but, in the context of the question, it just seemed so apt. wink2.gif My apologies. (In fact, in looking over your other posts, it did seem a bit out of character.)
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(CruisingRam @ Sep 21 2003, 11:48 AM)
I agree with the Blowback article as posted- this is the stuff that makes poeple hate us- I mean, we assasintate Allende and put in Pinochet which is in the league of Saddam, We support the Shah of Iran, etc etc- WE HAVE A HORRIBLE RECORD IN FORIEGN POLICY- we seem to always support the bad guy in my opinion. I have harped and harped on our policy in Isreal- we are completelly hypocritical and one sided in that conflict as well, of course the Arabs hate us for that reason alone!

Just a smidgeon of the blowback article:
QUOTE
There is, of course, no need to wonder about the possible motivations of those from the Middle East or other Muslim countries to commit terrorist acts against the United States.  Consider these actions of American foreign policy during the last 20 years:  The 1.shooting down of two Libyan planes in 1981; 2. the bombardment of Beirut in 1983 and 1984; 3.the furnishing of military aid and intelligence to both sides of the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88 so as to maximize the damage each side would inflict upon the other; 4.the bombing of Libya in 1986;5. the bombing and sinking of an Iranian ship in 1987; 6.the shooting down of an Iranian passenger plane in 1988; 7.[B]the shooting down of two more Libyan planes in 1989

1.Self defense
2.Self defense retaliation for terrorist bombing
3. A valid point, but one of the very few in this article.
4. Self defense in retaliation of numerous terrorist bombings. Here’s a nice timeline to help discern who the good and bad guys are:Libya timeline
5. Yes, a minelaying ship, used to plant mines throughout the Gulf region and sink other ships
6. A complete accident. The passenger plane was mistakenly identified (by the most sophisticated radar of the time) to be an Iranian fighter. The Navy warship that shot the missiles was engaged in battle with Iranian gunboats. The plane was warned, and didn’t respond. It was horrible but completely accidental.
7. They were armed MIGs and engaged the aircraft in a dogfight. Both pilots successfully ejected.

Do you know which president initiated US support for the Mujahideen? It was Carter. I am willing to give that pacifist the benefit of the doubt that the intent was good. It is easy to sit here today and speak of how the US backed this or that Godawful group. The reality is, the world is full of a lot of Godawful leaders and sometimes one has to choose the lesser evil. During the Afghanistan war with the Soviets, a much more strongly armed opponent was waging war on a weaker one. We can muse about the theoretical historical impact of ‘what would have been’, but at the time, Communism was a true threat to America and the Soviets weren’t nice.

Our foreign policy most certainly isn’t perfect. But the fact remains, there is no such thing. Coming to the defense of baby seals is going to enrage the baby seal clubbers. More often, it’s hard to make the distinction in the real world because the baby seals were often the clubbers themselves years before. There are enemies throughout the globe, and coming to the defense of one will almost inevitably make you the enemy of the other and their allies. We must work for our best interest within the context of the best knowledge we have, towards the most purposeful goal. We do not have the power of absolute divination.
Google
Danya
Mrs. P,
I didn't post the article because I believe we are wrong in every case and it isn't the point anyway. It doesn't matter how you or I justify our actions. What matters is really how the people who feel like we've violated them choose to respond. Why must we involve ourselves in overthrowing the governments of other people?

Would we think it was ok if some OTHER country came and overthrew our neocon government? HELL NO! But I bet they could find ways to justify it too. Just like you're doing.
They would say that he was a threat to their country because he attacked a soverign neighbor without provocation and was constantly threatening to do the same the them. They would say that even people in America hated him and wanted him out of office...millions protested against him last February...they would say he rigged the election and wasn't legitimate anyway.

It wouldn't matter if they could find ways to justify their actions. You can bet there would be blowback for any country that attempted to overthrow our government regardless of what excuses they came up with.
doomed_planet
Why do "they" hate us?

Maybe if we examined what we hate about ourselves, individually and
collectively, we would find that answer.
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(Danya @ Sep 21 2003, 08:16 PM)
Mrs. P,
I didn't post the article because I believe we are wrong in every case and it isn't the point anyway. It doesn't matter how you or I justify our actions. What matters is really how the people who feel like we've violated them choose to respond. Why must we involve ourselves in overthrowing the governments of other people?

Would we think it was ok if some OTHER country came and overthrew our neocon government? HELL NO! But I bet they could find ways to justify it too. Just like you're doing.
They would say that he was a threat to their country because he attacked a soverign neighbor without provocation and was constantly threatening to do the same the them. They would say that even people in America hated him and wanted him out of office...millions protested against him last February...they would say he rigged the election and wasn't legitimate anyway.

It wouldn't matter if they could find ways to justify their actions. You can bet there would be blowback for any country that attempted to overthrow our government regardless of what excuses they came up with.

Most of the points of that article had nothing to do with us trying to overthrow the governments of other people! Lybia tried to overthrow the Syrian government and we intervened, along with Egypt and another country or two (don't have a link, sorry, my husband took my book on a TDY and I don't have the time to search the net right now). They also terrorized and bombed us and numerous European civilian populations. They downed an airliner passenger plane. How exactly were we wrong to retaliate? blink.gif Quadaffi was (and is) a nutcase...that article was beyond biased. The fighter jets were wrong to fire on the armed MIGs which engaged them in combat? Should they have died? Exactly what option did they have?

I think I made my point about Afghanistan and the rest. Iraq I won't even go into, the entire thing disturbs me, and has since 1992. 9/11 was about Iraq. Period. It had very little if anything to do with our response to Quadaffi terror. It had everything to do with sanctions, no fly zones, and thousands of heathen troops camping out on sacred ground for over a decade.
Danya
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Sep 21 2003, 08:01 PM)
Most of the points of that article had nothing to do with us trying to overthrow the governments of other people!

And some did but you are missing the point. You are free to disagree with whether or not any of the diplomatic actions were justified but it's irrelevent. The basic premis is the same.

"Blowback" is a term used by scholars of international relations It refers to an unpredicted, negative response against a nation in regards to a diplomatic action previously undertaken by that nation. [1] What the daily press reports as the malign acts of "terrorists" or "drug lords" or "rogue states" or "illegal arms merchants" often turn out to be blowback from earlier foreign policy operations. The terrible, momentous events of September 11, 2001 were, in fact, the most stunning example of blowback in world history. Therefore, "blowback" can be simplified into the proverb "you reap what you sow," hence, as Jesus warned in the Bible, "all they that take the sword shall perish by the sword." [2] In this paper, it will be conclusively demonstrated that the United States actually brought the events of 9-ll and other related terrorist attacks upon itself by means of its foreign policy, and that any failure on the part of the U.S. to amend these policies will only encourage more attacks in the future.

No one that I know has ever claimed 9/11 and Quadaffi are connected.

However, some might argue 9/11 could have been prevented if we had never gotten involved in Afghanistan's war. Maybe if we had never gave weapons to bin Laden or trained him in military and covert attacks (some would call them terrorist attacks) we wouldn't have ever had them turned back on us 20 years later. Even if someone else gave him those things he might have focused on them instead of us.

QUOTE
Iraq I won't even go into, the entire thing disturbs me, and has since 1992. 9/11 was about Iraq. Period.

When Bush said Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11 it immediately made me think that he must have been. But I couldn't find any evidence to support my suspicions so I guess Bush and I will have to agree this time. I can tell you still think otherwise...let me know when you can prove it.

If you're bringing up 1992 to say it was to stop mass killings like the gassing incident or to prevent the continued torture, fear and death of innocent people I guess you're disappointed with the results.

There is currently fear of night raids, false imprisonment, family members who can't find prisoners and can't get answers from the CPA. No trials or courts saying when they'll be released or to root out the innocent. The streets are so dangerous that people get attacked in broad daylight by carjackers, kidnappers, muggers, and murderers. Now there is fear of running into check points with troops that don't have time to be careful or ask questions. Now a tank might be targeted while passing a family's home or car and they end up in the cross fire. There are a lot of ways to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.

We get a total for coalition deaths (184) that have occured since May 1st when Bush declared (major) combat operations over. But the CPA does not track anyone else. There are NGO's, contractors, UN workers, journalists, and civilian casualties that aren't recorded and no attempt to keep track of them is being made by the CPA. They care so little about the people they are there to protect. (Under Geneva Conventions we are required to protect them whether anyone disputes that's why we are there or not.) That kind of recordkeeping is vital to planning where and what kind of security forces are needed. Assuming any one IS such a thing and there is no indication they are.

The press has to get permission to visit the hospitals which takes days or weeks to obtain. Still, there are people who try to count what they can. I've seen estimates and wonder if Saddam himself could have done any worse with a possible 1,000 per week. Of course the number is disputable so if anyone else has seen estimates I am interested in sharing. I can go hunt down the articles I've seen myself if anyone needs me to.

I know some people will argue that none are dying...or only bad guys are dying...or it's just not our fault so it doesn't matter how many are dying. But if it doesn't matter now why did it matter before we got involved?
ikeaboy69
William Blum in his book Rogue Nation came up with a simple but brilliant strategy to end terrorism against America. It goes something like this;
On day one I would cut back military spending (300 billion pr. year), on day two pay compensation to the victims of American Foreign Policy, on day three I would be assassinated.

Mrs. P

"When terrorists attack they're terrorizing when we attack, were retaliating. When they respond to our retaliation with further attacks they're terrorizing again. When we respond with more attacks were retaliating again." -Norman Solomon, media critic.

Ikeaboy69
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(Danya @ Sep 22 2003, 03:21 AM)
However, some might argue 9/11 could have been prevented if we had never gotten involved in Afghanistan's war. Maybe if we had never gave weapons to bin Laden or trained him in military and covert attacks (some would call them terrorist attacks) we wouldn't have ever had them turned back on us 20 years later. Even if someone else gave him those things he might have focused on them instead of us.


If we hadn't backed the Mujahideen Afghanistan would've been overrun by the Soviets. Carter thought it was a good idea, as did Reagan. Those two had nothing in common, so I'm betting they had information which I don't that indicated it was the better option. We are going to make enemies everytime we stick our neck out. Often, foreign policy comes down to choosing the best of a couple of very bad options.
QUOTE
QUOTE
Iraq I won't even go into, the entire thing disturbs me, and has since 1992. 9/11 was about Iraq. Period.

When Bush said Saddam wasn't involved in 9/11 it immediately made me think that he must have been. But I couldn't find any evidence to support my suspicions so I guess Bush and I will have to agree this time. I can tell you still think otherwise...let me know when you can prove it.

If you're bringing up 1992 to say it was to stop mass killings like the gassing incident or to prevent the continued torture, fear and death of innocent people I guess you're disappointed with the results.

There is no direct connection to Iraq. There's certainly a connection with our handling of that situation. We sanctioned Iraq and thousands upon thousands staved. The children weren't even allowed to have graphite in their pencils (a potential lubricant). Former female professors were turning tricks for cash on the streets. We placed troops throughout the middle east to enforce this. They were sick of us. They consider us to be a blight that wouldn't leave. That rage fueled 9/11.

I brought up 1992 because that's when my husband went into the airforce and I discovered we still had an ongoing prescence in Iraq. I was blissffully ignorant before.

(Edited to add: Yes, Ikaboy, we should unilaterally disarm. Unarmed nations of the past seemed to do well.)
Danya
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Sep 22 2003, 06:31 AM)
If we hadn't backed the Mujahideen Afghanistan would've been overrun by the Soviets.

Maybe. But maybe it was a knee-jerk reaction like everything else during the cold war. I'm not arguing one way or the other...but I think we are sometimes too eager or quick to mess around in places that we shouldn't. I'd like to see that stop or at least have more confidence that it's not getting abused or done for the wrong reasons. I know that won't happen but that's what I would like.
Ultimatejoe
I think you touch on something in your last statement there. Most Europeans I know (at least of the educated variety) read one or two newspapers a day; and as far as I can tell papers outside the united States tend to focus far more on international affairs, in volume of content and in focus.

There is a prevailing attitude in America (that certainly makes itself apparent on this site) that the only time foreign affairs are noteworthy is when American interests are involved. The general impression that the American populace leaves is that rather than seeing themselves as a part of the human race, America is full of homo superior who's concerns are above the rest of the world unless America is directly involved.
Engineer Kimov
It is all about conflict of civilizations.

American values are unacceptable for Muslim, Chineese, Russian or Soviet civilization. That's pretty natural. When Soviets entered Afghanistan to support legitimate goverment, they were also hated. The most interesting thing is that Afghan rebels hated BOTH Soviets AND Americans, even though America was supporting them with weapons and experts.

Besides, hatred is best cure for fear.
quarkhead
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Sep 21 2003, 02:01 PM)
The reality is, the world is full of a lot of Godawful leaders and sometimes one has to choose the lesser evil. During the Afghanistan war with the Soviets, a much more strongly armed opponent was waging war on a weaker one. We can muse about the theoretical historical impact of ‘what would have been’, but at the time, Communism was a true threat to America and the Soviets weren’t nice.

Our foreign policy most certainly isn’t perfect. But the fact remains, there is no such thing. Coming to the defense of baby seals is going to enrage the baby seal clubbers. More often, it’s hard to make the distinction in the real world because the baby seals were often the clubbers themselves years before. There are enemies throughout the globe, and coming to the defense of one will almost inevitably make you the enemy of the other and their allies. We must work for our best interest within the context of the best knowledge we have, towards the most purposeful goal. We do not have the power of absolute divination.

Well, it does turn out to be arguable about the true threat Communism comprised, but that's hindsight anyway. However, our fear of Communism did cause us to make a lot of those bad choices. Would it really have been so bad for Nicaragua to become Socialist? Honduras? Chile? Argentina? We were willing to sponsor horrible groups that did a lot of damage and killed a lot of people in Central and South America, all in the name of political ideology.

When we had any interests at all in a country, and this is still true, we have tended to support right wing authoritarian governments over the (usually) Socialist and Populist movements. Doing so protected trade, primarily. If those governments became Socialist, they might not want to trade with us anymore. And that was unacceptable.

And even if you are correct, it doesn't negate the point about blowback. Even if our intentions were honorable, and our hearts in the right place, those decisions were still made; real people died as a result. Entire governments were toppled. Innocents died by the thousands, around the globe. If I killed John's sister because she was thinking about becoming a Communist, John's perception of me isn't likely to be mitigated by the fact that my intentions were good.

We justified a lot of horrible regimes by citing the "threat of Communism." Whether that was true or not, it provided us with an internal logic from which to base our foreign policy. It is no different with anyone else. There is an internal logic to why we are now hated. It almost doesn't matter whether it's justified in the real world or not; it is there and we must deal with it. However, we have more of a chance of achieving peace and mutual prosperity by attempting to understand that internal logic than by ignoring it.
Hugo
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Sep 22 2003, 11:36 AM)
.

And even if you are correct, it doesn't negate the point about blowback. Even if our intentions were honorable, and our hearts in the right place, those decisions were still made; real people died as a result. Entire governments were toppled.

The fact is even if 97% of the population of the world supports your actions the remaining 3% can be ticked off enough to resort to violence against you. The best policy is free trade and a military that protects your borders. Our intervention across the world provokes antogonism. It is time to intervene only when our national interests are at stake, and this should seldom occur.
Engineer Kimov
QUOTE(Hugo @ Sep 22 2003, 10:16 PM)
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Sep 22 2003, 11:36 AM)
.

And even if you are correct, it doesn't negate the point about blowback. Even if our intentions were honorable, and our hearts in the right place, those decisions were still made; real people died as a result. Entire governments were toppled.

The fact is even if 97% of the population of the world supports your actions the remaining 3% can be ticked off enough to resort to violence against you. The best policy is free trade and a military that protects your borders. Our intervention across the world provokes antogonism. It is time to intervene only when our national interests are at stake, and this should seldom occur.

The problem is that American "national interests" touch ALMOST EVERY country on Earth. For example, current long-range American military preparations are aimed on future invasion of Russia and China. Will Russians tolerate American attack to grab resources of Russian part of Kaspian Sea? Grabbing Russian oil resources in Siberia? Installing puppet anti-national goverments (Gorbachev-Yeltsin-Putin dynasty) to prevent Russia from becoming superpower again?
SoCaliente_1
QUOTE(Engineer Kimov @ Sep 22 2003, 11:31 AM)
QUOTE(Hugo @ Sep 22 2003, 10:16 PM)
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Sep 22 2003, 11:36 AM)
.

And even if you are correct, it doesn't negate the point about blowback. Even if our intentions were honorable, and our hearts in the right place, those decisions were still made; real people died as a result. Entire governments were toppled.

The fact is even if 97% of the population of the world supports your actions the remaining 3% can be ticked off enough to resort to violence against you. The best policy is free trade and a military that protects your borders. Our intervention across the world provokes antogonism. It is time to intervene only when our national interests are at stake, and this should seldom occur.

For example, current long-range American military preparations are aimed on future invasion of Russia and China.

WOW Kimov, could you please substantiate this claim of yours?
Hugo
I guess the term national interests can be defined over a broad range. In my mind the primary purpose of government is to defend it's citizens against internal and external aggressors. If energy is such a national interest that billions must be spent and Americans must be forever at the risk of increased terrorism and deaths of civilians and soldiers, both at home and abroad, then it would be better to subsidize alternative energy sources at home. Personally I don't see either step as needed. There are plenty of countries that import oil that do not have a military presence in oil rich countries.

I really do not take seriously the claims that America plans to invade China or Russia. Any credible sources to this claim?
Beladonna
QUOTE(Danya @ Sep 22 2003, 06:21 AM)
However, some might argue 9/11 could have been prevented if we had never gotten involved in Afghanistan's war. Maybe if we had never gave weapons to bin Laden or trained him in military and covert attacks (some would call them terrorist attacks) we wouldn't have ever had them turned back on us 20 years later. Even if someone else gave him those things he might have focused on them instead of us.

QUOTE
...It is time to lay to rest the nagging doubt held by many Americans that our government was somehow responsible for fostering bin Laden. It's not true and it leaves the false impression that we brought the Sept. 11 attacks down on ourselves. While it is impossible to prove a negative, all available evidence suggests that bin Laden (search) was never funded, trained or armed by the CIA .

Bin Laden himself has repeatedly denied that he received any American support. “Personally neither I nor my brothers saw any evidence of American help,” bin Laden told British journalist Robert Fisk (search) in 1993. In 1996, Mr. Fisk interviewed bin Laden again. The archterrorist was equally adamant: “We were never, at any time, friends of the Americans. We knew that the Americans supported the Jews in Palestine and that they are our enemies.”

Mr. Miniter is the author of “Losing bin Laden: How Bill Clinton’s Failures Unleashed Global Terror” (Regnery, Sept. 2003) and a senior fellow at the Centre for the New Europe in Brussels.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,98115,00.html
Robin_Scotland
As a non American, I think I can safely say Israel is one of the most important issues.

In Britain, there is more anti American (government) feeling than youd think. And most if the intelectual hatred (as Id call it) is because of Americas support for Israel. We see the Israeli army as a terrorist organisation just as much as Hamas, except that the Israel army is funded by American dollars.

50% of American foreign aid goes directly to Israel, which really does annoy people who live in nations considered Americas Allies, especially when the US Government tries to prove its dedication to the world by saying it spends so much each year on foreign aid. When half of it goes to a 1st world nation who are actively oppressing a race of people, people who have more right to the land that was taken from them after the 2nd World War than the Israelis do, it stirs up hatred for America all over the world, not just those declared 'evil'

The constant use of the term 'evil' is also a personal irritance. By simply branding people 'evil' means that the US Government does not need to back up their claims to the American people. Bush has spoken, these people are evil, nothing more has to be said. It also implies that America is always and has always been a force for good, which is certainly far from the truth. Military interventions and occupations are never going to be accepted by foreign nations. Why would they?

Consider this.

America is not the biggest super power, lets say another (Russia for arguements sake) is far far more poweful. It has a larger military, controls the economy, and has its own ideas of liberty and democracy - ideas that arent similar to Americas. because they are different does not make them invalid, but they believe that their way of thinking is the best way, and believe the rest of the world should be made to think the same.

then one day, America elects someone who assumes the role of dictator (is this far from the truth tongue.gif). this dictator harrasses and abuse his own people, much the same way as Saddam Hussein is alledged to have. After a while, he decides to Invade Canada, and Russia and her allies intervene, crushing the American military. American people are not thankful for the Russian intervention, as they leave them under the rule of the dictator.

years later, Russia decides it wants a war. It makes several claims, such as America supporting terrorism (which it never) and that it is actively developing WMDs (which it isnt). They invade America preaching democracy, after ignoring the democratic UNs decision against invasion. After winning and removing the dictator, the Russian military occupy America, and fail to get public services up and running even after months pass by. American people live in squalor. 3500 Americans die as a direct result of the Russian invasion.

Now. Do you think American people would be thankful for the Russians? Do they think they would love them and follow their lead? Of course they wouldnt. Some may even hate the Russians.

And thats an example of where hatred can come from. Of course I was comparing that scenario to the Iraq invasion, but it is the same all over the world. The South Koreans have violently protested their American occupation. has that been shown on CNN? thoussands of innocents have died as America has fought, unprovoked, against nations with different economic policies or social ideals. Do their familes thank god for America?

There are countless reasons for feelings of hate towards America, and I can assure you that hardly anyone that truly hates the American government does so because of petty jealousy. My guess is less than 1% of people who hate America feel that way because America is richer or more powerful. Personally, I am not jealous of Americas success, as I believe my country has a better health system, and we have lower levels of unemployment and less pollution.

But dont get me wrong. Nobody hates American people or American culture, unless they are just barmy. Every American I have met has been friendly and generally good natured, as good as can be expected anyway from a person who comes from a nation whos media is incredibly biased. I like Hollywood as much as the next person, and although I oppose american capitalism and do not think companies (partticularly oil companies, McDonalds, Coca Cola, pepsi, General Motors et al) should be so involved in the running of the world, I do love American products.

My advise is to seek out books on why people feel the way they do. read up on American military interventions and the effects they have had on people in other countries. In particular, check out Michael Moore. Even if you are not left wing, he makes some very good points about Americas place in the world, and what could be done to make America and the world get on well.

Final point - please make friends with the French! I found the anti French campaign after they refused to agree with America (how dare they!) very pathetic, just as pathetic as people opposing Americas culture because they think differently. For one thing, France certainly knows what its talking about. Its been around a long time and seen its fair share of wars, and has also spent some time as an Imperial nation, the kind that it is so clear to Europeans that America is trying to imitate. Britain, Spain, Italy, France, Germany.... we all have terrible Imperial pasts that we are embarrased of, oppressing people and trying to rule the world. We have learned from them, and we dont want to see America, which is a young nation in the scheme of things, following the same path. Learn from our mistakes!
nighttimer
thumbsup.gif Thanks for a interesting post, Mr. Scotland.

You make a good point that as a powerful, but still quite young nation, America is prone to act with both great charity and great arrogance at times. It seems to many Americans that we don't get credited for our charity but we are condemned for our arrogance.

It's through our discussions on boards such as America's Debate that we gain a better understanding of how the world sees us. I hope that you will continue to share your thoughts and insights here.

Welcome aboard. smile.gif
wm009
Very nice post Scotland. Sometimes you need to step into the shoes of other people to understand.
Robin_Scotland
thanks nighttimer and wm009

Believe me, I support America in every way that I can, and think that the world is a better place because of its existence, despite the negative effect it has also had on more ancient cultures and ways of life. So much has been given to us because of America. thats why my final point was to learn from European nations mistakes, and not try to conquer the world. And that it should also listen to everyone else and make compromises. In fact add Kyoto to that 'hate' list.

Of course there are two sides, and Ive covered above a number of reasons why hatred is felt for America all over the world. I myself sometimes find it hard to swallow when the US government takes certain actions I can't possibly agree with or cheats to get in power.

Anyway this is a great thread, Ive read most of it now and everyone makes a good point. This is such an important topic for Americans in this post 9-11 world, and they really need to be asking these questions and finding out the truths that the US government and media doesnt make widely available.

Id also like to hear more opinions about my own country of course, as I only know about Britain what our media tells us. For all i know, I could be under a dictatorship (which I suspect I am after recent events)
wm009
I don't agree with what you said there, but I think we can both agree that killing fellow men is wrong.
M4rLFoX
QUOTE(Robin_Scotland @ Sep 24 2003, 06:23 PM)
3500 Americans die as a direct result of the Russian invasion.

Just about that many died roughly 2 years ago if you'll recall, please keep that in mind.
Robin_Scotland
Yes I do realise that, I never intended to say anything to the contrary, so of course Im sorry if thats how it sounded.

But please realise that 3000 odd civilian deaths in any nation is just as important. This would account for another reason why people may hold a grudge against America. Sure the attacks 2 years ago were horrific, but the main reason it was horrific was because it was America and those were American citizens. Thousands more civilians have died around the world in ways just as brutal and shocking, but they tend not to get as much coverage as an attack on the worlds most powerful nation.

Im sure Americans wouldnt want to hear that their government killed around 93,000 civilians when they dropped two atomic bombs on Japan every time death is brought up. It is not a contest. Nations are attacked, innocent people die. It does not justify doing it unto others, as it will breed hatred.
SoCaliente_1
QUOTE(Robin_Scotland @ Sep 24 2003, 02:03 PM)
Thousands more civilians have died around the world in ways just as brutal and shocking, but they tend not to get as much coverage as an attack on the worlds most powerful nation.

Im sure Americans wouldnt want to hear that their government killed around 93,000 civilians when they dropped two atomic bombs on Japan every time death is brought up. It is not a contest. Nations are attacked, innocent people die. It does not justify doing it unto others, as it will breed hatred.



I would assume that hearing about our loss of 3,000 constantly was the fault of your media?

Also Robin, I'm curious, as 911 was not the first attack on either US soil or interests abroad by the same people or group, what in your opinion would have been the way to go...rather than confront an enemy to NOT garner additional hatred towards us?
Robin_Scotland
What enemy?

Im sorry you may have been confused. Before I posted a scenario replacing Iraq with America and America with Russia. I was not referring to any backlash against Al Qaeda. If you believe Iraq has any connection with Al Qaeda, then that is an error. Even Donald Rumsfeld has admitted there was no connection, and that it wasnt the reason for war.

Nobody is questioning Americas right to fight back. Of course I support the hunt for those who commited attacks against America.

And I wasnt actually referring to UK media or any other media, and in my opinion it wasn't mentioning it constantly. In fact, I was responding to someone who had posted a reply bringing up 9-11 when it had nothing to do with what I had said. It had seemed to me that what was implied was that 3500 Iraqi civillians being killed in the Iraq invasion wasn't so bad, as America had lost 3000 odd just 2 years ago. A rather disturbing attitude if that was what was meant.

Revenge is not a just cause for killing. As I said this is not a numbers game. If it is treated like this, however, and not just by the American government but by its people also, then that is why I mentioned that this breeds hatred. By all means go after your enemies, but please don't try and say when it comes to innocent peoples lives its a case of an eye for an eye. This thread is about why people hate American. Please take my advise as a non American - that attitude will only make people think less of American people. Not just the government, but its people.
SoCaliente_1
to be honest, the media plays a great part in why America may be hated.

example:
Iraqi council banned Al Jezeera from Iraq for biased reporting. The selectivity of the reporting incited the militant element there.

This is but only one example.
M4rLFoX
QUOTE(Robin_Scotland @ Sep 24 2003, 10:03 PM)
Yes I do realise that, I never intended to say anything to the contrary, so of course Im sorry if thats how it sounded.

But please realise that 3000 odd civilian deaths in any nation is just as important.

Yes this is true. But the topic at hand here is "Why do they hate us?" And my point is that I believe 9/11 has a lot more to do with things that go on today than we may take notice to.

For example, I'm sure you have a pretty good core or group of friends, or maybe you're older and you have a family that takes up most of your time. But I'm sure one day you DID have or you still DO have a core group of your best friends that you do things with. Imagine that one day you get a phone call and one of your friends tells you that 2 of your friends in your group just got jumped(beat up) by 5 guys. So you and your group a few nights later go to confront these guys, there's only 2 of the guys there out of the 5 that jumped your friends, but it doesn't matter, you all decide to beat the hell out of those 2 guys. Of course the other 3 guys that are with the 2 guys you are jumping get involved and your group of friends end up beating the poo-poo out of 5 guys you didn't even know a few days ago. Now it turns out that 10 girls that you knew were good friends with a few of the guys that you just beat the poo-poo out of, and now they're *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** and hate you because you jumped their friends. They tell their friends about what you did to these guys and now it seems like everyone hates you, except for your 5 good friends.

Now some of you may or may not exactly understand this example, but basically I'm trying to explain to you that when you're the leader of the biggest power in the world, and something as tragic and devastating as 9/11 happens, you feel as if you MUST do something. No one is going to just sit back and do nothing when their good friends get their *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** kicked (or your country has 3000 of it's innocent citizens killed). You're going to react. You're going to do things that you never would have done before this event. What you do is going to make you enemies. And once you're in so deep, it's very hard, almost impossible, to just stop and pull out.

Of course with all of this I'm not at all suggesting that 9/11 is solely responsible for all the things that America has done since then, I'm just throwing it out there. Think of all this that 9/11 created, plus the brutal dictatorship that Saddam was running, plus the suspicion of WMD, plus many other things. And maybe you'll begin to grasp the ideas behind why America does what we do.

And finally there is the opinion of some, WM009 for example, that believe that 9/11 was a set up event by the US government ourselves to give us a reason to go to war and do whatever we want with the sympathy of the world backing us up. I honestly believe this is complete cow-poopie and unrealistic, but you never know. And beyond all, it makes you think twice about the world we live in.

-Sam

P.S. I'm only 16, so some of my ideas may be a little incomplete, but I think you get the idea. smile.gif
wm009
QUOTE
And finally there is the opinion of some, WM009 for example, that believe that 9/11 was a set up event by the US government ourselves to give us a reason to go to war and do whatever we want with the sympathy of the world backing us up. I honestly believe this is complete cow-poopie and unrealistic, but you never know. And beyond all, it makes you think twice about the world we live in.

Hitler did it. Roman leader(Can't remember which one) did it. You purposely bombed one of your own ships to get into the Spanish-American war. You let Japan attack Pearl Harbour to get into WW2. You let a navy boat slip into North Vietnamese water knowing it would be attack to justify more troops. Doesn't seem far fetched to me.

QUOTE
For example, I'm sure you have a pretty good core or group of friends, or maybe you're older and you have a family that takes up most of your time. But I'm sure one day you DID have or you still DO have a core group of your best friends that you do things with. Imagine that one day you get a phone call and one of your friends tells you that 2 of your friends in your group just got jumped(beat up) by 5 guys. So you and your group a few nights later go to confront these guys, there's only 2 of the guys there out of the 5 that jumped your friends, but it doesn't matter, you all decide to beat the hell out of those 2 guys. Of course the other 3 guys that are with the 2 guys you are jumping get involved and your group of friends end up beating the poo-poo out of 5 guys you didn't even know a few days ago. Now it turns out that 10 girls that you knew were good friends with a few of the guys that you just beat the poo-poo out of, and now they're *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** and hate you because you jumped their friends. They tell their friends about what you did to these guys and now it seems like everyone hates you, except for your 5 good friends.

Now some of you may or may not exactly understand this example, but basically I'm trying to explain to you that when you're the leader of the biggest power in the world, and something as tragic and devastating as 9/11 happens, you feel as if you MUST do something. No one is going to just sit back and do nothing when their good friends get their *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** kicked (or your country has 3000 of it's innocent citizens killed). You're going to react. You're going to do things that you never would have done before this event. What you do is going to make you enemies. And once you're in so deep, it's very hard, almost impossible, to just stop and pull out.

Of course with all of this I'm not at all suggesting that 9/11 is solely responsible for all the things that America has done since then, I'm just throwing it out there. Think of all this that 9/11 created, plus the brutal dictatorship that Saddam was running, plus the suspicion of WMD, plus many other things. And maybe you'll begin to grasp the ideas behind why America does what we do.

What does Saddam and Iraq have to do with 9/11? Didn't you kill enough civilians in Afghanistan and get enough opium to satisfy your needs?
SoCaliente_1
woah! wm, you are way off track here.
wm009
QUOTE(SoCaliente_1 @ Sep 25 2003, 12:49 AM)
woah! wm, you are way off track here.

Care to expand on that.
SoCaliente_1
QUOTE(wm009 @ Sep 24 2003, 04:40 PM)
Didn't you kill enough civilians in Afghanistan and get enough opium to satisfy your needs?

explain that.
wm009
QUOTE(SoCaliente_1 @ Sep 25 2003, 01:01 AM)
QUOTE(wm009 @ Sep 24 2003, 04:40 PM)
Didn't you kill enough civilians in Afghanistan and get enough opium to satisfy your needs?

explain that.

More civilians were killed in Afghanistan then in the WTC. Afghanistan is the "golden crown" for heroine. It produces the most in the world before 911 and the most after 911. Today the US government is preparing to give the Taliban a part of the Afghanistan government.

Care to talk about my offtrack comment in the other post?
SoCaliente_1
WM, you're throwing an awful lot of interesting accusations out here, some of which I'm trying to determine if they are topic relevant. I'm going to have to bite on this last one,wm, and ask you to provide some kind of evidence as to the taliban getting part in the Afghan govt. Perhaps it's true. I have no idea though. So if you would.
Dontreadonme
OK enough of the one liners please, it makes it extremely hard to debate!
Let's get back on track with the original question:
QUOTE
Why do they hate us?
wm009
QUOTE(SoCaliente_1 @ Sep 25 2003, 01:40 AM)
WM, you're  throwing an awful lot of interesting accusations out here, some of which I'm trying to determine if they are topic relevant. I'm going to have to bite on this last one,wm, and ask you to provide some kind of evidence as to the taliban getting part in the Afghan govt.  Perhaps it's true. I have no idea though. So if you would.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/EI23Ag02.html
Robin_Scotland
Ok to help get this a little back on topic, I earlier mentioned american military interventions and how they have helped spread hatred for the US over the last hundred years - not just in the counties invaded, but among people in allied nations and even the US itself.

Here is Zoltan Grossmans 'A Century of US Military Interventions from Wounded Knee to Afghanistan'

QUOTE
OVER A CENTURY OF U.S. MILITARY INTERVENTIONS
Compiled by Zoltan Grossman (revised 5.16.99)
Additional revisions (see endnote) by poster 9.30.02

The following is a partial list of U.S. military interventions from 1890 to 1999. This guide does not include demonstration duty by military police, mobilizations of the National Guard, offshore shows of naval strength, reinforcements of embassy personnel, the use of non-Defense Department personnel (such as the Drug Enforcement Agency), military exercises, non-combat mobilizations (such as replacing postal strikers), the permanent stationing of armed forces, covert actions where the U.S. did not play a command and control role, the use of small hostage rescue units, most uses of proxy troops, U.S. piloting of foreign warplanes, foreign disaster assistance, military training and advisory programs not involving direct combat, civic action programs, and many other military activities. Among sources used, besides news reports, are the Congressional Record (23 June 1969), 180 Landings by the U.S. Marine Corps History Division, Ege & Makhijani in Counterspy (July-Aug. 1982), Daniel Ellsberg in Protest & Survive, and "Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad. 1798-1993," by Ellen C. Collier of the Library Congress Congressional Research Services.

LOCATION/Period/Type of Force/Comments on U.S. role

SOUTH DAKOTA/1890 (-?)/Troops/300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.

ARGENTINA/1890/Troops/Buenos Aires interests protected.

CHILE/l891/Troops/Marines clash with nationalist rebels.

HAITI/1891/Troops/Black workers revolt on U.S.-claimed Navassa Island defeated.

IDAHO/1892/Troops/Army suppresses silver miners' strike.

HAWAII/l893 (-?)/Naval, troops/Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.

CHICAGO/1894/Troops/Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.

NICARAGUA/l894/Troops/Month-long occupation of Bluefields.

CHINA/l894-95/Naval, troops/Marines land in Sino-Japanese War.

KOREA/l894-96/Troops/Marines kept in Seoul during war.

PANAMA/1895/Troops, naval/Marines land in Colombian province.

NICARAGUA/l896/Troops/Marines land in port of Corinto.

CHINA/l898-1900/Troops/Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.

PHILIPPINES/l898-1910(-?)/Naval, troops/Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos.

CUBA/l898-1902(-?)/Naval, troops/Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.

PUERTO RICO/1898(-?)/Naval, troops/Seized from Spain, occupation continues.

GUAM/l898(-?)/Naval, troops/Seized from Spain, still use as base.

MINNESOTA/l898(-?)/Troops/Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.

NICARAGUA/l898/Troops/Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.

SAMOA/1899(-?)/Troops/Battle over succession to throne.

NICARAGUA/l899/Troops/Marines land at port of Bluefields.

IDAHO/1899-1901/Troops/Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.

OKLAHOMA/1901/Troops/Army battles Creek Indian revolt.

PANAMA/1901-14)/Naval, troops/Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone 1914.

HONDURAS/l903/Troops/Marines intervene in revolution.

DOMINICAN REP./1903-04/Troops/U.S. interests protected in Revolution.

KOREA/1904-05/Troops/Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.

CUBA/1906-09/Troops/Marines land in democratic election.

NICARAGUA/1907/Troops/"Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.

HONDURAS/l907/Troops/Marines land during war with Nicaragua.

PANAMA/l908/Troops/Marines intervene in election contest.

NICARAGUA/l9l0/Troops/Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.

HONDURAS/1911/Troops/U.S. interests protected in civil war.

CHINA/1911-41/Naval, troops/Continuous occupation with flare-ups.

CUBA/1912/Troops/U.S. interests protected in Havana.

PANAMA/l9l2/Troops/Marines land during heated election.

HONDURAS/l9l2/Troops/Marines protect U.S. economic interests.

NICARAGUA/1912-33/Troops, bombing/20-year occupation, fought guerrillas.

MEXICO/l9l3/Naval/Americans evacuated during revolution.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC/1914/Naval/Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.

COLORADO/1914/Troops/Breaking of miners' strike by Army.

MEXICO/1914-18/Naval, troops/Series of interventions against nationalists.

HAITI/1914-34/Troops, bombing/19-year occupation after revolts.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC/1916-24/Troops/8-year Marine occupation.

CUBA/1917-33/Troops/Military occupation, economic protectorate.

WORLD WAR I/19l7-18/Naval, troops/Ships sunk, fought Germany for1 l/2 years.

RUSSIA/1918-22/Naval, troops/Five landings to fight Bolsheviks.

PANAMA/1918-20/Troops/"Police duty" during unrest after elections.

HONDURAS/l9l9/Troops/Marines land during election campaign.

YUGOSLAVIA/1919/Troops/Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.

GUATEMALA/1920/Troops/2-week intervention against unionists.

WEST VIRGINIA/1920-21/Troops, bombing/Army intervenes against mineworkers.

TURKEY/1922/Troops/Fought nationalists in Smyrna (Izmir).

CHINA/1922-27/Naval, troops/Deployment during nationalist revolt.

HONDURAS/1924-25/Troops/Landed twice during election strife.

PANAMA/1925/Troops/Marines suppress general strike.

CHINA/l927-34/Troops/Marines stationed throughout the country.

EL SALVADOR/l932/Naval/Warships sent during Faribundo Marti revolt.

WASHINGTON DC/1932/Troops/Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.

WORLD WAR II/1941-45/Naval,troops, bombing, nuclear/Hawaii bombed, fought Japan, Italy and Germany for 3 years; 1st nuclear war.

DETROIT/l943/Troops/Army puts down Black rebellion.

IRAN/l946/Nuclear threat/Soviet troops told to leave north (Iranian Azerbaijan).

YUGOSLAVIA/l946/Nuclear threat, naval/Response to shooting-down of U.S. plane.

URUGUAY/l947/Nuclear threat/Bombers deployed as show of strength.

GREECE/l947-49/Command operation/U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.

GERMANY/l948/Nuclear threat/Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.

CHINA/1948-49/Troops/Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.

PHILIPPINES/l948-54/Command operation/CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.

PUERTO RICO/1950/Command operation/Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.

KOREA/l951-53(-?)/Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats/U.S.& South Korea fight China & North Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in l950, and against China in l953. Still have bases.

IRAN/l953/Command operation/CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.

VIETNAM/l954/Nuclear threat/Bombs offered to French to use against siege.

GUATEMALA/l954/Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat/CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalizes U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.

EGYPT/l956/Nuclear threat, troops/Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners.

LEBANON/l958/Troops, naval/Marine occupation against rebels.

IRAQ/1958/Nuclear threat/Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.

CHINA/l958/Nuclear threat/China told not to move on Taiwan isles.

PANAMA/1958/Troops/Flag protests erupt into confrontation.

VIETNAM/l960-75/Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats/Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; [over] one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.

LAOS/1962/Command operation/Military buildup during guerrilla war.

CUBA/l961/Command operation/CIA-directed exile invasion fails.

GERMANY/l961/Nuclear threat/Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.

CUBA/l962/Nuclear threat/Naval/ Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union.

PANAMA/l964/Troops/Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.

INDONESIA/l965/Command operation/Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC/1965-66/Troops, bombing/Marines land during election campaign.

GUATEMALA/l966-67/Command operation/Green Berets intervene against rebels.

DETROIT/l967/Troops/Army battles Blacks, 43 killed.

UNITED STATES/l968/Troops/After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.

CAMBODIA/l969-75/Bombing, troops, naval/Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.

OMAN/l970/Command operation/U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.

LAOS/l971-73/Command operation, bombing/U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside. SOUTH

DAKOTA/l973/Command operation/Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.

MIDEAST/1973/Nuclear threat/World-wide alert during Mideast War.

CHILE/1973/Command operation/CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.

CAMBODIA/l975/Troops, bombing/Gas captured ship, 28 die in copter crash.

ANGOLA/l976-92/Command operation/CIA assists South African-backed rebels.

IRAN/l980/Troops, Nuclear threat, aborted bombing/Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.

[IRAN/ Nuclear threat of "Carter Doctrine" reaffirmed by Reagan.]

LIBYA/l981/Naval jets/Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.

EL SALVADOR/l981-92/Command operation, troops/Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.

NICARAGUA/l981-90/Command operation, naval/CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.

HONDURAS/l983-89/Troops/Maneuvers help build bases near borders.

LEBANON/l982-84/Naval, bombing, troops/Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions.

GRENADA/l983-84/Troops, bombing/Invasion four years after revolution.

IRAN/1984/Jets/Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.

LIBYA/l986/Bombing, naval/Air strikes to topple nationalist gov't.

BOLIVIA/1986/Troops/Army assists raids on cocaine region.

IRAN/l987-88/Naval, bombing/US intervenes on side of Iraq in war.

LIBYA/1989/Naval jets/Two Libyan jets shot down.

VIRGIN ISLANDS/1989/Troops/St. Croix Black unrest after storm.

PHILIPPINES/1989/Jets/Air cover provided for government against coup.

PANAMA/1989-?/Troops, bombing/Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.

LIBERIA/1990/Troops/Foreigners evacuated during civil war.

SAUDI ARABIA/1990-91/Troops, jets/Iraq countered after invading

KUWAIT/540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.

IRAQ/1990-?/Bombing, troops, naval/[Nuclear threat], Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and

Kuwait; no-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south, large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.

KUWAIT/1991/Naval, bombing, troops/Kuwait royal family returned to throne.

LOS ANGELES/1992/Troops/Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.

SOMALIA/1992-94/Troops, naval, bombing/U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.

JUGOSLAVIA/1992-94/Naval/Nato blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.

BOSNIA/1993-?/Jets, bombing/No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.

[NORTH KOREA/ 1993-4/[Nuclear Threat] and preparation for nuclear attack.]

HAITI/1994-?/Troops, naval/Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.

CROATIA/1995/Krajina Serb airfields attacked before Croatian offensive.

[CHINA/1996/Nuclear threat/responding to Chinese missle tests, nuclear capable aircraft carriers to Tiawan Strait.]

ZAIRE (CONGO)/1996-97/Troops/Marines at Rwandan Hutu refuge camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.

LIBERIA /1997/Troops/Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.

ALBANIA/1997/Troops/Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.

SUDAN/1998/Missiles/Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.

AFGHANISTAN/1998/Missiles/Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.

IRAQ/1998-?/Bombing, Missiles, [Nuclear threat]/Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.

YUGOSLAVIA/1999-?/Bombing, Missiles/Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo.

AFGHANISTAN/2001-?/Bombing, Missles/troops and occupation.


source: http://www.redrat.net/thoughts/criminal_be.../interventions/
Dontreadonme
Robin, that's great that you list nearly the entire recent history os US troops deploying to different nations, but any serious student of history will tell you that many of those interventions and incursions were welcomed and requested. So how exactly does that tie into why some people around the world hate us?
Robin_Scotland
Oops, yeah good that you pointed that out.

I did mean to say after the quote that of course, several of these interventions were welcomed as you said. But the thing about intervention is, no matter how many people are grateful for it, there are always going to be people who oppose it.

Many of the foreign nations in this list were engaged in civil issues, for example Angola, and as such it was a breach of UN protocol for any other power to become involved.

There are examples of America backing one side against another. Now, people may think that America chose the 'right' side, and maybe they did. But the problem is, you see, that there are other nations too who struggle against their governments. People look at this list in places like Zimbabwe and think 'you helped out these people, why wont you help us?'. There are a lot of interventions, but there are a lot more groups of people being oppressed who think the US is being selective in who it helps.

It all suggests to others that the US only helps nations when there is something of US interests to protect. Whether it is true or not, it does look fairly hypocritical. For example, preaching democracy and removing dictatorships by force - yet supporting Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Then there are instances, like Chile, where the US has assisted in overthrowing democracy, resulting in dictatorship. I doubt those opposed to Pinochets rule were grateful for the removal of their elected president.

I admit I dont know a lot about most of the names on this list, but it is certainly a good start if people want to try and find out why people may hold resentment towards America. I can also confidently say that people who have nothing to do with any nation listed, people from US allied nations, resent America for actions it has taken abroad.

As a foriegner, domestic issues in America are of little importance to me. What is important, considering Americas position in the world, is its foreign policy. Its what it all boils down to in the end. Its understandable that you cant please everyone all the time, but Im not suggestion solutions, merely pointing out a major reason why America is hated.
Horyok
QUOTE
As a foriegner, domestic issues in America are of little importance to me. What is important, considering Americas position in the world, is its foreign policy. Its what it all boils down to in the end. Its understandable that you cant please everyone all the time, but Im not suggestion solutions, merely pointing out a major reason why America is hated.


I agree with your stance, Robin. That's one of the reasons why I think Americans can benefit from sharing and learning from foreigners like us. smile.gif
Mrs. Pigpen
QUOTE(Robin_Scotland @ Sep 25 2003, 03:15 AM)
Ok to help get this a little back on topic, I earlier mentioned american military interventions and how they have helped spread hatred for the US over the last hundred years - not just in the counties invaded, but among people in allied nations and even the US itself.

Here is Zoltan Grossmans 'A Century of US Military Interventions from Wounded Knee to Afghanistan'


Any time we defend ourselves or others, it's an unjustified military intervention? Many of those engagements were requested and/or complete acts of self defense. And I think you know, there are a lot more skeletons in most other closets than ours if you choose to go that far back in time.

Look at some of the 'interventions' on the list. In Somalia, we went in because a warlord was hording all of the food for his military and letting the population starve. We went in to make sure that humanitarian aid was distributed effectively. Real nefarious purpose. wacko.gif

Edited to add: Now, for all those who advocate military intervention for humanitarian (un-selfinterest related) causes, this is a perfect example why that's a bad idea. Someday, that intervention will be used on a list of reasons why we deserve to be hated. AND we will have endangered the lives of our own people and expended our own resources for it.
ikeaboy69
QUOTE(Mrs. Pigpen @ Sep 25 2003, 01:42 PM)
Any time we defend ourselves or others, it's an unjustified military intervention? Many of those engagements were requested and/or complete acts of self defense. And I think you know, there are a lot more skeletons in most other closets than ours if you choose to go that far back in time.


Mrs. P.

I agree it isn't fair to include the whole list in this discussion. But this isn't a contest.

National defense is a sick joke the U.S. faces no direct threats from other countries, and spends more on "defense" than the entire world combined?!? Most countries want to be friends, there are however organizations especially these days that have all but declared war on the U.S. But that does not justify this elephant in a china store the U.S. has become.

Let's give ourselves that my statement that the U.S. faces no threats from other countries is true, then you have to ask yourself... What do they do with all that money. Well that's easy and plays a big role in why America is hated, the American government is spreading democracy, by supporting "friendly" dictators and client states. U.S. foreign policy ,which is impossible to comprehend if you believe everything the media tells you, has a pattern. But it has nothing to do with spreading democracy. In country after country, not only in Latin America, but in Iran, greece, the Philippines, and Indonesia to name a few, the U.S. supported brutal, democracy-repressing military dictatorships in the interest of establishing and protecting "Client states".
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2022 Invision Power Services, Inc.