Why we think we hate america.

As much as you may disagree US policy in the main has not changed much, its governed by the a very few simple principles
1. our national intetests first

As much as you may disagree US policy in the main has not changed much, its governed by the a very few simple principles
1. our national intetests first
2. the americas to be free of governement which are intolerent of our system
3. protect our trade as much as possible since trade is good for the US

Vietnam is an example of the US interfering in the affairs of another country illegally, something that the US has done many times to try and infulence the situation for its own gain. Personnally if the US has done that in the past and nothing has changed in the aims of the policy why shouldnt it do it again? That makes vietnam a very powerful arguement

but is the media free? the newspapers are owned by the rich with set political agendas, and i doubt they do,

For every newspaper that is owned by some rich fat cat politician, there are at least 5 others that aren't. Nothing printed in the media is unbiased. There just aren't enough good writers to write such a thing, but if you piece together several accounts then you will get a pretty good picture.

thats not really what i was suggesting.



circles. we will be going around in them sooner or later.

My point? The story about Vietnam shows that American instincts tend to promote freedom of speech and specifically of the media. Having not had any significant experience with free modern-day media coverage of war, they decided a priori to go for a liberal stance.
It turned out to have practical disadvantages, that's why they don't apply it in wars anymore.
Yet, it goes to show, that fundamentally, Americans value freedom of speech greatly.

The very fact that you saw those pictures of children suffering in Vietnam proves that the US media is free. Those "large corporations" certainly did not have any interest in showing the suffering of war.

BTW, you're probably referring to the famous picture of the little girl running away from her village after it was bombed. It is the most famous image of the Vietnam War. The girl was not covered with Agent Orange, but with napalm.

Name ONE nation that does not give priority to its national interest!

Does it not make perfectly sense to do everything you can to avoid to have neighbours who are intolerant towards your system? If they do not tolerate your systems, it means they can't accept it is there, and hence their aim is ultimately to destroy your system. Therefore, there surely can be nothing wrong to try to get rid of those who won't tolerate you.

There is nothing wrong with protecting trade. Trade is a condicio sine qua non for economic success. Besides, it generally benefits both sides of the transaction, which surely is a good thing. In addition, it gives you contact with other cultures, which is incredibly enriching. The reason Ancient Greek became what it was, was that it was a trading country; it got in touch with many different cultures.

How do you define "illegally" in the international context of the 1960s? Is it illegal to use military force without the consent of the UN Security Council? In that case, you always need the consent of the USSR... What is wrong with acting illegally, if those who determine what is illegal or not are the masters of an authoriarian regime that is the single most important cause of human suffering in that period of time?

Which nation does not try to promote its own gain?

So, in conclusion, I think that the reasons you give for disliking US foreign policy are either not valid or they do not justify singling the US out for having a particularly bad FP.

As for Illegal interference, the UN has failed to makeinterference in several cases legal. Vietnam stoped pol pots massacre in cambodja by an illegal invasion.

The UN failed to react to teh massacre in Rwanda. Many lives could have been spared had NATO interfered in Kosovo earlier. You mention vietnam, but you forget to take into consideration what the same US policy has done for many nations around the world where it has been successful. Look what Stalin did to Eastern europe. Look what communism has done to china. Look at what communism has resulted in in North Korea. 11 million died by the hands of the Sovjet communism in the USSR. Why was it illegal to fight against this? Vietnam was a great mistake, Il give you that. But What if the US had consequentely adopted a policy of isolationism, letting each country deal with their own problems? Then Europe would be under Nazi ot Communist rule, Taiwan would not have a fraction of the human rights it has today. South Korea would have been occupied by communist dictators and Japan would also be in deep shit.

People keep telling the US to stop acting as if they were a world police force. But what if they did? That would force the rest of teh world to defend themselves, it would force every democratic state in teh world to build up heavy military defenses and it would give dictatorships a lower threshold for invading neighbouring countries. Is that preferable?

every nation puts its national interests first, but not every nation claims to be the home of democracy and rights

vietnam showed the US Gov. the damage the media can do, this has limited to greater resrictions of the US media in times of War, the whole embeded thing during the Gulf War II was a joke and the media could hardly said to be free and it wasnt because of revealing the tactics either.

I realise that compared to alot of countries the media is very free so i understand your point, however i still don't think it is as free as the US claims sometimes
in the US how many papers questioned the war at the time? this isn't a debating point, i don't know and would like too.

That still does not justify the singling out of America. France for instance also claims to be the home of democracy and rights, yet it is a nation and hence it puts its national interest first. (according to your statement that every nation puts its national interests first).
Greece claims to be home of democracy, yet it is a nation and hence puts its national interest first.

So, to justify the singling out of the US, you need to show that the US are the only nation that claims to be the home of democracy and rights; not just that there are nations that do not claim to be the home of democracy and rights ("not all nations...).

I agree that none to my knowledge do, and i think that is sad thing, however that doesnt make it right tho. The US is a more developed country can we not expect the rich and educated to expect in a more civilsed way when they have both the opportuinity and resources to.

I agree there are many worse but none richer. Isolationism would be awful for the world as well, but at the moment on the balance of things i think the US has for the 2nd half of this century being trying to do too much. I think that it often fails to consider the full consequences of its actions, afterall how can you ever justify supporting a dictator who is commiting human rights abuses just to prevent the spread of a ideology which is obviously spread for a reason.

That's Realpolitik for you!
Sometimes, you have to work with bad guys to win against even "badder" guys. Roosevelt and Churchill made an alliance with Stalin in order to overthrow Hitler. The US even gave money to the USSR in that time, knowing full well that the URSS was a totalitarian regime that caused a lot of suffering. Yet, it was the only way to beat Nazi Germany, which at that time posed the greater threat.

Unfortunately after that came the cold war. Have you noticed how so few people appreciate the 1,000,000+ (I think I read somewhere) russians who died on the eastern frount. Is that a legacy of the cold war?

According to your criterion for the legitimate level of expectation we are entitled to have towards countries' foreign policies, we can expect as much - if not more - from European nations. Yet, their FPs are just as "selfish" and they pursue their national interests just as vehemently.
So, that does not justify the singling-out of the US.

I agree however that just because this "selfishness" in FP exists univerally, it is not necessarily right. That's something that applies to nature as a whole: I personally feel that the world, the universe is extremely immoral, it is a world that should not be. Its fundamental laws are such that they create suffering. What is more cruel than to plants fighting for a place in the sun; what is more cruel than the survival of the fittest?

If those governments do not tolerate your system, it means they're a threat and hence it is legitimate to remove them.

What's the IMO? Do you mean the IMF (International Monetary Fund)? If so, this is what I think:
The US give money through the IMF to other countries. I think it is perfectly legitimate for them to require those countries to use this money in a way that the US thinks is most beneficial to the world economy. The IMF is not meant to be a samaritan; it is meant to help countries get out economic problems.

If it gives money to people, it is perfectly normal that it has a certain influence on economic policy. Otherwise, it is likely the money will be poorly managed.
The Marshall-Plan was not unconditional either, yet (I'm sure you'll agree) it is one of the best pieces of US FP ever.

You allege that the US not only seek to influence these countries' policies not only in order to seek the most favourable outcome for the concerned country and the world economy, but also in order to seek a favourable outcome for itself. You even go further and allege that the US seeks to benefit itself more than the country it gives money to.
I'm not quite sure about that. I would like concrete examples and good sources.

It may have been immoral, but it was not illegal. Morality is always relative, whereas legality is not. Something is either illegal or it's not. If it does not say somewhere that it is forbidden, than it is not illegal.
Can you show me a law that outlaws interventions such as the one conducted by the US in Vietnam?

I suppose you mean US FP here. I can't answer that question in general. Some of it is, some of it isn't. It's not black-and-white. The US have done good things for the world, they also have done bad things.
On the whole however, I think that the world would be worse-off without the US.
I suppose you mean extreme self-interest here (as that was one of the main points of your post).
Yes, I do. In fact, many go much further and have less consideration for other countries' interests and the US.
I think one concrete example will suffice. I think it is pretty obvious that many states have a more extreme FP than the US.
Take Iran: They are actively seeking to destabilise Iraq in order to establish an Islamist regime there. They have done so before the war in trying (successfully) to fool the US into believing there were WMDs so they would attack Saddam's regime. Now, they are trying to get the Shiites to start a civil war.

That policiy is utterly irresponsible as (if successful) it will result in huge suffering for the Iraqi people. The damage done to Iraq would be massive, incomparable to the damage done by the US.
I think you will agree that Iran's FP is far more extreme than the US's. And I think you will agree that there are many other countries like that.
What do you mean "to do differently". To act less in self-interest and to act more morally? In that case, I think power is more of a burden and a help. It is far easier for Luxembourg (army of 450 soldiers) to have a "moral" FP than for the US: It's easier to make nothing wrong if you haven't got anything to do.
The mere fact that the US is powerful does not justify disliking it's FP. That would mean that someone who has power is automatically bad and worthy of dislike. Doesn't make much sense to me...

Given what I said above, my conclusion is different from yours. I don't think it is legitimate to bear a particular dislike at US FP.

I'm concerned with the volume of comments about USA recently in quick succession. How many threads have there been already?

A little OT but is Taiwan actually independent? I skimmed the papers some time ago and it said something with independence from China.

I'm concerned with the volume of comments about USA recently in quick succession. How many threads have there been already?

A little OT but is Taiwan actually independent? I skimmed the papers some time ago and it said something with independence from China.