anti american sentiments

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by sun-star
In Britain we blame America for making us fat. It's all your fault...

Oh yes - American's are standing over you and forcing food down your thoat. I guess we do really push our weight around.

[jerseydevil]

July 17 — As leader of the world's most powerful nation, President Bush gets to set the agenda.

Bush has committed the United States to action against terrorism around the world. He has defined countries like Iraq, Iran and North Korea as an "axis of evil." He has demanded a new Palestinian leadership as a condition of peace in the Middle East. And he has refused to sign various treaties, including the Kyoto Protocol on the environment.

With the collapse of the Soviet Union more than a decade ago, no single countervailing power is left to balance American might and influence in the world. This leaves some observers to ask: are these the actions of an empire, or umpire?

"The most powerful country in the known world has always pursued its own interests, often ruthlessly, as Rome did," said Oxford University professor Timothy Garton Ash.

In the year 530, when the Romans attacked the Persians, they didn't first clear it with Greece. The French emperor Napoleon showed no particular concern for international law when he sought to weaken the British by excluding them from international trade. And there is no record of Queen Victoria having lost sleep over the summary executions of Indian mutineers by the British Army in India.

History records that dominant world powers have always been guided, first and foremost, by their own national interest. They do what they believe to be necessary because they can. If anything, it can be argued that the Bush administration, in asserting its interests, has been more benign than any of its predecessors.

Powell: We Are Being Multilateral

Secretary of State Colin Powell, in an interview with Nightline, says that the Bush administration is pursuing a multilateral foreign policy partly because it continually discusses situations and options with its allies.

"When we talk [with] our friends, that's being multilateral. It doesn't necessarily mean we will get them all to agree with us or that we are at the mercy of their agreement and their consensus," Powell said.

For more of Powell's interview, click here.


Still, in recent months Washington has voided or refused to sign:

* The Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty, because it ran counter to development of the missile defense shield.

* The biological weapons test ban, because it opened American anti-biological weapons labs to inspections that could have risked the spread of dangerous top-secret technologies.

* The international prohibition on land mines, because, the Bush administration believes, there's currently no more effective defense in the event North Korea's massive army marches south.

Critics find little comfort in those decisions. "He's a cowboy," said Simon Hoggart of England's The Guardian newspaper. "He could risk all our lives, he could set on fire a conflagration which he would be incapable of stopping."

"Americans have to realize," Dominique Moisi of the French Institute of International Relations adds, "that they cannot go it alone in the world, because the world is becoming much too complex even for Americans."

The phrase used in Washington to describe all this, is euro-whining.

But is the Bush administration making these decisions based on a single, clear dogma of unilateralism, or are they taking these issues one-by-one and it simply appears that the United States is contemptuous of world opinion?

Tony Cordesman, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, believes on most issues, the critics have it wrong. "Unless the U.S. asserts leadership," he said, "nothing will happen. Nations will follow if we lead in the right direction and we lead decisively."

But some decisions are clearly made for domestic, not international, audiences. The increase in farm subsidies and tariffs on steel imports are two examples of trade moves that have infuriated allies and foes alike.

"It goes against everything the United States stands for, which is free, untrammeled world trade," Hoggart said. But despite a cavalcade of similar criticism from around the globe, the Bush administration weighed the political value of these moves with an eye towards the elections, and like the Frank Sinatra of geo-politics, they did it their way.

A Court Without Borders

Such was not the case with the International Criminal Court, and this is perhaps as clear a distinction between today's superpower and yesterday's empire as can be found.

The United States, after much bluster about not wanting its soldiers to be hauled in front of a hostile court for war crimes or causing civilian casualties during peacekeeping missions around the world, backed down from a threat of removing its peacekeepers from the Balkans. U.S. officials agreed to a yearlong exemption from prosecution as it tries to work out a compromise.

Powell acknowledged the strong disagreements over the court. "When you have a principled position you should fight for it. You should try to present the case. And when they have a principled position, we should listen to them. But we shouldn't go along with the consensus just because it is the consensus if we believe it is inconsistent with our principled position," he said.

Would an empire have agreed to such a compromise as that worked out in the U.N. Security Council? Not likely.

The issue is not whether America has the economic and military clout to impose its will on the rest of the world; but whether, in the long run, it's prudent to do so. The United States has never engaged in empire-building, nor does that seem now to be the intent of the Bush administration.

But gradually, piece by piece, a new strategy is being formulated; and what direction that will ultimately take is far from clear.

Going It Alone: Bush Foreign Decisions Leave Allies Puzzled - ABCNews.com

As I said - countries work in their self interest.

[mirrille]

An interesting observation that supports my theory that overexposure to Americans (through personal association or media exposure) just give them more chance to make us go "Wha?? ":
The newspaper I subscribe to is in the middle of some kind of labour dispute. I think the printers' union is on strike or something. (That's how I know it's summertime!...ahh... I think people prefer not to strike in the dead of winter. Picketing is not fun in rain or snow. Only teachers do not strike in summer. ) Consequently, I have read no newspapers in the past...oh...2-3 weeks, I'd estimate. I'm quite busy with work and courses and don't really watch TV, so I'm quite in the dark as to what's going on internationally.
My puzzlement (occaisionally approaching exasperation - in only the more extreme cases) with the goings on south of the border has decreased noticeably. If it goes up when I start receiving regular news again, then it will lend further support to my theory.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by mirrille
An interesting observation that supports my theory that overexposure to Americans (through personal association or media exposure) just give them more chance to make us go "Wha?? ":
...I'm quite in the dark as to what's going on internationally.
My puzzlement (occaisionally approaching exasperation - in only the more extreme cases) with the goings on south of the border has decreased noticeably. If it goes up when I start receiving regular news again, then it will lend further support to my theory.

Support for what theory? Do you deny that Canada acts in it's self interest? Why do you seem to feel that unless the US does what every other country thinks it should - that's it's wrong?

[mirrille]

My theory that anti-anything sentiments are proportional to the amount of knowledge or exposure you get to that thing. The more you see a group, the more chance that group has of intentionally or accidentally doing something to annoy you. Kind of like how I couldn't care less what someone halfway across the city that I never see does around the house, but constant exposure to my kid brother means that the two of us have unlimited opportunity to get in each other's hair. Not that we don't get along most of the time, but annoying things are harder to ignore. America, as a very high profile nation, is hard to ignore. We've established that. Ergo...

Anyways I am merely speculating that, right now, my ignorance allows me to ignore things that would otherwise cause me concern. Of course, when the downstream effects really start to take hold, I guess I'll have to take notice eventually. But I have alot of other things to worry about.
I've touched on this before. Do you always put words in people's mouths? I thought it was quite clear. I mentioned nothing about self-interest. That's a different point entirely. This is more of an interesting sampling issue.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by mirrille
Do you always put words in people's mouths? I thought it was quite clear. I mentioned nothing about self-interest. That's a different point entirely. This is more of an interesting sampling issue.

No I don't always put words in people's mouths. But I was trying to figure out what you were talking about. You seem to keep saying that if other countries don't agree with the US - then US should listen to them and do what they say. And that's not going to happen.

And I agree - over exposure does make a country or person more of a target. Does that mean that they should change their beliefs because others don't agree - not necessarily.

[mirrille]

Hmmm...that was very far from the objective of my post. You may be overthinking.
If it makes you feel any better, I'm much more kindly disposed towards Chretien (our PM) and Campbell (our premier) lately too, for the same reason. Although Campbell not as much because the relevance of provincial politics is such that I will feel the effects quite soon whether I read them in the news or not. Federal politics...yah.. not as much. International stuff...even farther down the line.
And just to make this clear, I think I have a perfect right to be happy or dismayed by anything that happens internationally. I'm very limited in what I can do about it, naturally, but it's important as a person who lives in this world to think about what goes on. There's alot of stuff going on in the world that I don't have to like, and to be completely egalitarian about it, I don't exempt America. Or Canada for that matter.

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by jerseydevil


No I don't always put words in people's mouths. But I was trying to figure out what you were talking about. You seem to keep saying that if other countries don't agree with the US - then US should listen to them and do what they say. And that's not going to happen.

No sorry, I gotta agree with mirrille on this. All she was talking about was the degree of exposure, or lack therein (via the written media). At no point in time was she even talking about "self interest" in her post. I understand that you are passionate about your country, but for gods sake, don't let it completely blinker you to what other people are saying.

And I agree - over exposure does make a country or person more of a target. Does that mean that they should change their beliefs because others don't agree - not necessarily.

And nobody is discussing whether or not America should adopt this or that policy - check the thread title - it's called "anti-american sentiments" ergo, a discussion on WHY they exist. And as mirrille has pointed out, one possibility could be a linear relationship based on the amount of exposure a country receives.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
No sorry, I gotta agree with mirrille on this. All she was talking about was the degree of exposure, or lack therein (via the written media). At no point in time was she even talking about "self interest" in her post. I understand that you are passionate about your country, but for gods sake, don't let it completely blinker you to what other people are saying.

And nobody is discussing whether or not America should adopt this or that policy - check the thread title - it's called "anti-american sentiments" ergo, a discussion on WHY they exist. And as mirrille has pointed out, one possibility could be a linear relationship based on the amount of exposure a country receives.

An interesting observation that supports my theory that overexposure to Americans (through personal association or media exposure) just give them more chance to make us go "Wha?? ":

Well I was trying to figiure out what she meant about this. And I realise this thread is about anti-american sentiment, but I'm not going to just let statements go by without some comment.

Now that she's explained herself - I agree we get put under the microscope more for what we do because of the exposure.

I haven't seen anyone so far criticise Moroco's and Spain's action on entmoot concerning The "disputed island" in the Straits of Gibralter - now if the United States had done something like this - there would be an uproar on this board about it - along with around the world. And part of the reason is that America's actions get reported more heavily than other countries.
Spain Army Ponders Clash Over Island - ABCNews.com
Spanish offer on disputed isle - CNN.com
And this is all over a 320 acre island.

So I do agree with her statement that the US gets more exposure and therefore criticised more.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by mirrille
Hmmm...that was very far from the objective of my post. You may be overthinking.

I didn't necessarily say that in terms of that post - but overall it seems as though that is how many people and sometimes you feel America should be. I've gathered this from the various posts on this board.

I also thought that maybe you were responding to the ABCNews.com article I had posted - which was basically about how the US is going to weigh what it's allies want - against what the US wants. Then we'll go in the direction we think is best after weighing the two.

[elendili]

- which was basically about how the US is going to weigh what it's allies want - against what the US wants. Then we'll go in the direction we think is best after weighing the two

America tends to do what it wants to regardless of what it's allies want e.g. in the 2nd world war the US only got involved after the Japanese bombed pearl harbour

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by elendili

America tends to do what it wants to regardless of what it's allies want e.g. in the 2nd world war the US only got involved after the Japanese bombed pearl harbour

Yeah - and England didn't get involved until after Hitler started invading various countries. It was against popular opinion to get involved until after Pearl Harbor. Europe dragged us into a previous World War less than 20 years before - Americans weren't to thrilled to fight for Europe again. BUt even so - the US was supplying arms to Europe - we just weren't a direct participant at the time.

[Comic Book Guy]

Yeah - and England didn't get involved until after Hitler started invading various countries.

Britain declared war on Germany two days after the invasion of Poland, Germany only invaded Czechoslovakia before Poland.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Comic Book Guy


Britain declared war on Germany two days after the invasion of Poland, Germany only invaded Czechoslovakia before Poland.

But still there was a lot of military action going on before Germany invaded either country. There were also many things going on within germany - but it didn't prompt England to take action - other than to meet with Germany.

The point I was trying to make anyway - is that Americans felt it was your war - not ours. The American people were not behind the government in getting involved. America was however sending secret supplies and working behind the scenes in support of the allies. Japan attacked us and got us involved in the war. Of course today one to the conspiracy theories is that the US government let that happen so American public would change and support going to war. Today many people say that our government allowed 9/11 to happen for the same purpose. I personally don't believe that the US government let Pearl Harbor (or 9/11) happen - but it did get us into the war.

Looking back on history it's easy to say we needed to get involved - it would have been a disaster if we didn't. Hindsight is 20/20. On the other hand - the result of WW II made us an international player, got us out of our isolationist stance and made us the world power and the country we are today - which is what most people seem to have a problem with.

[Cirdan]

The image problem with Britain on WWII was Neville Chamberlin's appeasement approach. It's not fair. hawever, to describe them as uninvolved. The were 100,000+ REFs evacuated from Dunkirk. The US made Britain's survival possible through supplies during the BoB. Many US seamen were killed by U-boat attacks prior to the US entering the war as a combatant.

[BeardofPants]

Looks like Israel overstepped the mark with their air strike on a building with known civilians. Eight or nine children dead. When will the petty fighting stop?

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/...ast/index.html

[Sween]

Is this forum here so we can bash americans? America has a lot going for it but unforntally you send out an image of selfishness and been self richious. This is to be expected of such a young country i suppose with so little cultural heritage oh and been led by the most powerfull hillbilly the world has ever know (and b4 u start blair bashing u should of seen who he was up agsinst at the last election).

America would be liked by the world if it relised it wasnt so important. Started playing against other nations at sport. When you come to england not call everything quaint. Oh and drop them silly liencing laws 21 to drink no wonder we all think ur odd.

Oh and sort ur kids tele programs out they only have a few topics oh no hes smoking he will die in the next 24 hours. I was once watching hang time and it just gave out completally unsubastanted comment about dope i think the drug barrons shud sue.

[Sween]

Delcaring war is not a simple business at all you know. Britian and France had made a promise to poland that if the germans attacked we would delacare war. Unforntally war did ensure and many lost there lives including 20 members of my family (long time ago i know).

But anyway america did not get involved till they were directally attacked not simply caught in the crossfire. this was the same in ww1 and ww2. we were glad for the help but we would of won the war anyway if you hadnt joined us for it was neither britian or america that turned the tide of war it was the russians who lets not forget lost 23 million people in ww2.

Britian would not of fell till the last bristish person was dead such is the character of the country

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Sween
Delcaring war is not a simple business at all you know. Britian and France had made a promise to poland that if the germans attacked we would delacare war. Unforntally war did ensure and many lost there lives including 20 members of my family (long time ago i know).

But anyway america did not get involved till they were directally attacked not simply caught in the crossfire. this was the same in ww1 and ww2. we were glad for the help but we would of won the war anyway if you hadnt joined us for it was neither britian or america that turned the tide of war it was the russians who lets not forget lost 23 million people in ww2.

Britian would not of fell till the last bristish person was dead such is the character of the country

Okay - whose being self righteous and doesn't feel they need help from the rest of the world? Believe me - if Germany kept bombing London - Britain would have folded. And why should we have gotten directly involved sooner? It WAS Europes war. There is a lot more involved with getting into a war in the US than people realise - Congress has to declare war. Of course we haven't been in a declared war since WWII. Still Congress must be consulted, whether it's declared or not. Everyone outside the US seems to think that the President can just do anything - and he can't. The Preisdents hands are tied by congress - all bills and laws and taxes get passed by congress - then they go to the President for either approval or rejection. If it's rejected - then Congress can still overturn the Presidents's decision. And If Congress passes something the Supreme Court can overturn it if it determines it's unconstitutional.

And before you complain about the US - have you ever been here to know what your complaining about? I disagree with the 21 year drinking laws (I think it's stupid and should be 18) - but sorry - but you have no vote in US domestic situations since you don't live here and that complaint has no effect on you. And what do you mean we don't participate in world sports? We do - we're just not that interested. Why don't you guys start taking up baseball and American football before you start the lame complaints of what sports we compete in or who we compete against.

[jerseydevil]

Oh and BoP - I think Bush should have condemned and related the US's outrage to the F16 attack in Gaza a bit more forcefully. This is the type of stuff that will turn American's against Israel if they're not careful. It was like killing a fly with a cannon. No one really seems to believe that Israel did not think there would be citizens around when the F16 attacked - like Sharon claimed.

And the petty fighting isn't going to quit until BOTH sides grow up. I still side more with Israel than the Palestinians though. The Palestinians CONSTANTLY talk and brag about killing innocent Israeli citizens. Where is there outrage in those deaths? - no instead they cheer in the streets. When the Twin Towers were destroyed - the arab world cheered in the streets. They seem a bit hypocritical there. They only condemn the deaths of their own people but view everyone else as less than human.