Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Why we think we hate america. watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    another example of U.S. impearilism is japan after WW2 and south korea. Whta do you call it when a country invades another country and installs a pupet leader. That is impearilism, and the U.S. has done it many times. They used these puppet dictators to secure their own interests. American troops occupied South korea, japan, cambodia, and south vietnam. To look like the werent colonizing the bloody countries, they made it look like the were protecting them from communism.

    What the U.S. did in asia is what the U.S.S.R. did in eastren europe, i call these tactics a modern form of impearism.

    The war in Iraq is just the case of today it follows the examples of above. Everyone knows by now that the U.S. went in for oil, and if you still dont think that your either a american, or a ingorant person.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am sure most will agree on that the US government probably does not have the best foreign policy or peoples interest at heart and yes it is probably more about selfpreservation rather than preserving other nations and their respective interests. Yes, there most definetely are the motives of money, power and oil involved and mascarading these interests as samatarian interests is just a tactic and most people know better. Sure its hardly news.

    Yes the Vietnam war, the war on Iraq, the war on Afganistan and the following insertion of the Northern Alliance (Read: power at the hands of rapits and violent lunatics), the war against Russia and so the list continues are probably again about self preservation and acting on this illusion that US is Gods land and the super mightiest power around in the universe here to save all and yes they don't really care what the world thinks or does. They do what they feel is right. And their definition of right is indeed open to discussion. And in light of recent revelations I think its safe to say that the motives and tactics and methods of the US government are highly questionable.

    But - in light of all that and how hidious it may all be - is it really fair to say you hate America? American as a nation that is? They are probably not too enlighted about their government and their doings around the world thanks to certain figuring medias but still why are the people of American being targetted? Somebody opened a ridiculous thread asking whether you hate americans? If you are going to hate anybody, hate their government but their people surely not. Yes they vote for their government and may so be indirectly a cause to the problems but tahts democracy for you.

    This concept of hating an entire people be that jews, Americans what ever is just beyond ridiculous. Can we at least distinguish here and make it clear that the american people does not necessarily support everything their government does? As Michael Moore, the stupendous author and documentary director said at his oscar winning speech - We live in a fictionous world, with a fictionous president (...)...shame on your Bush, shame on you.

    You can hold his people responsible for his actions. And perhaps this thread did not mean to do so but this is how is percieved. Same is applicable to the other thread.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Outrageous have you read the whole thread?
    if you had made this post on the first page you would of been a saint
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can't say I read every single post, Speciez. Well no harm in highlighting something again.

    The thing is, my landlord, is so antisemitic. And he too holds the entire people of israel + all other non israeli jews responsible and seems very preoccupied with them and diverts every possible conversation to be about jews. He also hates America because of course they are run by jews and they are causing all the wars etc. Such simplistic views and such hate. Pfft. It bugs me - this costant generalization. It is leading to hate and animosity. And never mind the absence of logic in such generalizations. Is it really that difficult to coexist?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UTH)
    Chinese imperialism - Tibet


    I repeat U.S. Atrocity – toppling Saddam Hussein

    …maybe you didn’t catch that - U.S Atrocity – Toppling Saddam Hussein
    OK, that's a totally completely different debate. But I can't see how toppling Saddam Hussein is atrocious. It's one of the best things (maybe the only good thing) that came out of the war in Iraq. If you think that organising a mass genoicide (the kurds) is acceptable, then so be it.
    As for me, Saddam Hussein was a ****ing sick man. Good riddance to him.

    The way that his removal from power was done is a totally different issue... indeed, like many other people, I don't agree on the methods that were used. But when you become so anti-US (because it's what the media tell you to be) that you start thinking that people like Saddam Hussein are ok, then you have a serious problem of thinking for yourself, or you just have a sick mind.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Outrageous)
    Can't say I read every single post, Speciez. Well no harm in highlighting something again.

    The thing is, my landlord, is so antisemitic. And he too holds the entire people of israel + all other non israeli jews responsible and seems very preoccupied with them and diverts every possible conversation to be about jews. He also hates America because of course they are run by jews and they are causing all the wars etc. Such simplistic views and such hate. Pfft. It bugs me - this costant generalization. It is leading to hate and animosity. And never mind the absence of logic in such generalizations. Is it really that difficult to coexist?
    difficult to coexist? say that to the palestinians who had the name 'palestine' replaced with israel, find me one website which lists 'palestine' as a country in the drop down menu, It DOESNT EXIST, then speak about coexistence
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    it means that the US relinquishes supreme political power(if it ever obtained it). in the cases above, the US had no dream of obtaining or retaining colonial power over W.Germany or France, god forbid Yugoslavia. its reasons for entrance were not ones of Imperial intent and occupation here was on very different basis than the British ventures in India or the reach of the USSR.
    I just love the fact that if there's anything negative said on the Americans, you just point to the fact that the Brits did the same a hundred years before and feel comfortable that you've proved something.
    The reason why the US didn't keep control over its "colonies" or maintain the influence on other countries is because it went against public opinion.
    The US didn't relinquish the Philippines because they were any nicer, it's because all the powers were giving up their colonies at the time. Public opinion was starting to put pressure on governments. There didn't seem to be any need to maintain colonies that were becoming more and more unpopular among the population of the colonies (who were realising, it was possible to survive without being a colony) and among the population of the European powers and the USA.
    The UK understood that first (as they did with slavery) and avoided as much as possible any serious wars between their army and the indigineous population. Although, because of this, they caused civil war and unrest in India and in Palestine and many African countries. The War of Indonesia, The Indochina War (though there's the issue of Vietnam and communism which makes that war more than just a basic colonial war), the War of Algeria, The War of Angola were all pretty useless and didn't lead to anything really good for the colonial powers apart from the scorn of the public opinion.

    You can't compare events that took place in the 18th or 19th centuries to events that happened in the 20th century. Back then, no government was better than any other. If a country had the power to have colonies, they used it to get colonies. If they didn't have the power to oppress any population, they didn't. It wasn't about being nice or not.

    And if you think that the US colonies were obtained and maintained in a nicer way than the British or French obtained theirs, you're badly mistaken.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swatfa)
    difficult to coexist? say that to the palestinians who had the name 'palestine' replaced with israel, find me one website which lists 'palestine' as a country in the drop down menu, It DOESNT EXIST, then speak about coexistence
    Wasn't that person just talking about people who hold all jews responsible for the trouble in Palistine. So why are you laying into them. He/she wasn't really condeming palistine in that post.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Wasn't that person just talking about people who hold all jews responsible for the trouble in Palistine. So why are you laying into them. He/she wasn't really condeming palistine in that post.
    Actually some people say that the Israel-Palestine issue is Britain's fault: they left the country as fast as possible without a true solution. They had promised a state to the Jews and to the Arabs during WW2. Bad idea!
    But then again, imagine if they had sticked around, maintained order, they would have been reproached for that to. When you have power, you can't win. No matter what you do with it, people will only see the negative aspects.
    Palestine was the pre-1947 name of the terrority which now comprises Israel and the Palestinian terriorites.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Wasn't that person just talking about people who hold all jews responsible for the trouble in Palistine. So why are you laying into them. He/she wasn't really condeming palistine in that post.
    yes but im trying to say thats its difficult to coexist when its not really fair on the palestinians side, its like 'you invite a friend to stay at your house for a few days, one day you wake up and find that he's declared the whole house as his and leaves one small room as yours and he even removes your name from the front door and replaces it with his and then after all this he asks you to be friends and coexist.

    Its not a fair situation for 'coexist' to take place.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swatfa)
    yes but im trying to say thats its difficult to coexist when its not really fair on the palestinians side, its like 'you invite a friend to stay at your house for a few days, one day you wake up and find that he's declared the whole house as his and leaves one small room as yours and he even removes your name from the front door and replaces it with his and then after all this he asks you to be friends and coexist.

    Its not a fair situation for 'coexist' to take place.
    I agree completely. I am not sure that the tactics the palistinians are taking are the best ones. But when in this situation what else can they really do?
    I think that Isreal are being unfair to Palistine and I think they should have their inderpendance and land back.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    ok avoid the question
    sorry my post wasn't a direct response of that message or any other. Just thought I'd mention that.
    The problem in Israel is such a messed up problem that you can start talking about it and it will never end. There seem to be so many strong arguments to criticise both Palestinian actions and those from Israel action.
    The Israel government uses its strong position too much and its attempt at colonizing territories that contain mostly Palestinians is just stupid. I can't see how they think they'll ever achieve anything that way.
    But then again, the Arab League have always wanted Israel to be wiped off the map. Do you realise how many times the country has been attacked (during the Six-Day war, the Yom Kippur war), even just after being declared an indepent state. When you're surrounded by millions of people who'd like to see you all decapitated, it's not a reassuring feeling.

    Oh thought I'd mention, the promise of a Jewish state came from the British government during WW1, just looked that up.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    But when in this situation what else can they really do?
    stop killing innocent people and accept a deal that would give them 90% of their land back?

    I think that Isreal are being unfair to Palistine and I think they should have their inderpendance and land back.
    independance? Palestine hasnt been independent since before the Ottoman Empire...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    I agree completely. I am not sure that the tactics the palistinians are taking are the best ones. But when in this situation what else can they really do?
    I think that Isreal are being unfair to Palistine and I think they should have their inderpendance and land back.
    A lot of people in Israel want that to happen too.
    At the same time, check out Israel's history too. When your adult population have all experienced the hatred coming from the Arab League, how can you just bend to every single request by the Arabs? Their policy is to ensure Israel's safety. If they just said "OK all that terrorism stuff is fine with us, we're totally wrong. We should never have been pissed off at you when you invaded us several times and attempted to make our country disappear". I mean, get real. You don't just change a policy like that.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    stop killing innocent people and accept a deal that would give them 90% of their land back?
    llama boy pretty destroys that arguement on this thread along with most of the other i think you put forward. read his last few comments as well
    http://www.uk-learning.net/t30589.html
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    stop killing innocent people and accept a deal that would give them 90% of their land back?



    independance? Palestine hasnt been independent since before the Ottoman Empire...
    sorry but rubbish, 90% of their land back is too much of an exaggeration, more like 2 %.

    in times of war innocent people die. Those that kill the families and women are wrong to do so, but technically every israeli man at the age of 18 is made to join the israeli army. So essentialy most are soldiers, and in war soldiers die. The media is the one which turns it into a kamakazi barbaric act when personally i dont let media influence me....how different is the situation to movies like braveheart or patriot where pple die for their land? do u see pple criticising these movies?

    OK, that's a totally completely different debate. But I can't see how toppling Saddam Hussein is atrocious.
    Again...sarcasm

    There was a pattern in the thread - One country that's widely hated, others which aren't. I find it funny given what constitutes atrocities and imperialism in all these cases.

    I'll leave it at this-

    These Japanese do not envy a country that's thrown off the yoke of American imperialism like Vietnam.

    I'd rather live right now in places like South Korea, western Germany, Hawaii, Yugoslavia, Chile, Panama, (and even modern day Iraq, outside of the Sunni triangle at least) than North korea, eastern Germany, Tibet, Chechnya, and the Ivory Coast. The country that's been involved with the first group is hated. The countries that were/are involved with the second group aren't.

    The U.S. didn't have a U.N. sanction for their actions in Kosovo. I don't lose sleep over it. If I'm being murdered because of my race, my beliefs, or my religion, a country that comes in to topple the dictator may have completely self-serving motives. I still prefer them to one that doesn't come in at all.

    I think late '70s Vietnam was far more brutal and authoritarian than America could ever hope to be. I don't begrudge that country the fact it invaded Pol Pot's Cambodia. With some of the examples being listed as imperialism on here, I get the impression others would.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by swatfa)
    sorry but rubbish, 90% of their land back is too much of an exaggeration, more like 2 %.
    whatever you say
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    llama boy pretty destroys that arguement on this thread along with most of the other i think you put forward. read his last few comments as well
    http://www.uk-learning.net/t30589.html
    good for him, although i dont believe i took part on that thread. personally i dont share his opinions, mostly because he starts from an entirely different premise.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    yes like that (god this is a waste of a effort)
    - the lack of post-war planning in Iraq
    - the line between religion and politics beginning to blur.
    - the gay marriage issue, their(the administration) argument and the use of the religious masses to generate support for it.
    - his 'large' government conservatism.
    - weakness over medicare entitlements
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.