Hatred of America Internationally?

nobody likes the big guy....

 

There are OTHER countries?

 

I like Yao.

 

I was listening to Tavis Smiley and he was talking about the . . .disdain most countries have for America.

I wonder WHY?

Just look at some of the recent threads on foreign policy. Everything is justified around what's best for <I>us</I>. For example, supporting ruthless dictators when it helps us fight communism. Or supporting Iran or Iraq alternatively, depending on how it benefits us. Putting in place the leaders that we want, rather than what the people of those countries want. etc, etc.

That's fine for us, but we shouldn't be surprised that the people in those countries don't appreciate being treated likes pawns.

Edit: We do a lot of good things too, certainly, but people remember the bad more than the good. I think that's just human nature. Most countries aren't hated simply because they leave everyone else alone. The US takes the lead in these things, and as such, gets the brunt of the criticism.

 

I've visited many other countries while serving in the navy, and most have a great opinion of us. My time in the Middle East, was very different. You feel an unmistakeable dislike, almost like it's floating in the air. This was while visiting two of our "allies", imagine how they feel about us in other places.

 

What Major said.


I work overseas a lot and the biggest thing that other countries fear is that America will dictate to them how they should live.

Well, guess, what? We do that all the time.

DD

 

Good post Major.

I think we should strive to do what's right, not what's self-serving, but that takes a leader with guts. It seems like Clinton's team polled and determined that the best course was only to take action if it served the US. GW? I don't delude myself by thinking that he can comprehend much more than 'what benefits the US financially'.

Think about how you treat your own friends. If you constantly look out for your own interests at the expense of all others, do you think that you will have any friends left? Not EVERYTHING has to be competitive or survival of the fittest. Sometimes its friendship and teamwork.

Our foreign policy sucks.

 

Sure. That explains why everyone hates France and the UK and Germany for selling weapons to the Israelis and the South Africans .

Even the most simplistic criticism of our Iraq policy, which is that we are only trying to secure cheap oil, ignores the ramifications to the WORLD economy if Saddam threatens supplies again as he has in the past. Major thinks these policies are always in OUR interest, despite the fact that in plenty of interventions we don't HAVE a STRATEGIC interest, like in Bosnia or in Somalia. Despite the fact that American aid goes out everytime there is a big earthquake or flood or other natural calamity in another country, even (gasp) to regimes we don't 'like' such as Cuba. Despite the fact that the idea for the UN itself grew from Wilson's failed League of Nations.

When Arab leaders say 'you should not attack Saddam because he is Muslim' it has nothing to do with supporting Pinochet in Chile. That is silly. When the 'Christian' Serbs were committing genocide on MUSLIMS in Bosnia, there was no surge in hatred for the Europeans. Can you imagine the Pope saying 'don't attack Milosevic because he's christian? What would the response have been on this board and elsewhere? Would people take that seriously? No, and yet we're supposed to be hands of Saddam because he poses as a Mulsim? Ridiculous. When the UNITED NATIONS attacked Iraq, it wasn't all those countrues involved that drew the ire of the Arab masses, it was the US.

Envy, jealously, false scapegoating all combine to stoke the hatred that burns in the anti-American heart. Of course our belief that the American way is the best contributes undoubtably to that. But since its true that isn't a reason to change WHAT we do, only maybe how we go about it. Unfortunately, whatever we do we are in the Superpower Catch-22. If we DO act (Iraq) then we are bludgeoning to death the free will of other peoples everywhere. If we DON'T act (Rwanda) then we are insulated primadonnas unwilling to use our power for the 'right' causes.

Edit: Cohen, I DO agree we shouldhave one consistent foreign policy framework or criteria by which we determine which actions to take. This would increase the transparency and predictibility for our friends and those that could be friends. Personally I think it is in our SECURITY interests to increase democratic systems in the world, and a policy that reflected that would pay better dividends than an ad hoc policy as followed by Clinton and Bush.

 

Major - it is easy to criticize US Policy, but very hard to create it. I am not an expert on Iran, but after they took our embassy hostage how could we back them in the Iran-Iraq war. So we back Iraq and it backfires on us to. The US had a string of bad decisions in the 60's and 70's. Let's hope we have learned from them... Fighting Communism did work out for us in the long run.

 

That explains why everyone hates France and the UK and Germany for selling weapons to the Israelis and the South Africans .

When is the last time these countries physically intervened in those countries? Selling weapons is very, very different from what we do. The US and, to a lesser extent, the UK are the ones that tend to take the leadership roles and thus are the ones that are most "hated".

Major thinks these policies are always in OUR interest, despite the fact that in plenty of interventions we don't HAVE a STRATEGIC interest, like in Bosnia or in Somalia.

How many people in the world hate us for our actions in Bosnia? By the way, we did have strategic interests in Bosnia - the stability of Eastern Europe.

Despite the fact that American aid goes out everytime there is a big earthquake or flood or other natural calamity in another country, even (gasp) to regimes we don't 'like' such as Cuba.

Again, as stated originally, people are going to remember the bad rather than the good. When evaluating Iraq, does anyone here consider that he had a price on Osama bin Laden's head? Hell no. We only look at the bad, because that's what we're most concerned about.

Of course our belief that the American way is the best contributes undoubtably to that. But since its true that isn't a reason to change WHAT we do, only maybe how we go about it.

Again, there's nothing wrong with doing what's in our own best interests. You just shouldn't be surprised that when we do treat other countries like crap, their people will be annoyed. And when we do it many times over, we will gain a negative reputation from it. And when we have the power and desire to intervene in other countries' politics, people will fear and hate us for it.

 

When was the last time we 'intervened' in Israel? I don't remember any US troops displacing Palestinians on the West Bank to make way for new settlements. But thanks for admitting selling weapons is totally different, which proves my point that they should hate the French and Germans and Chinese just like the US, if its the weapons provisions that trigger the hatred.


Major thinks these policies are always in OUR interest, despite the fact that in plenty of interventions we don't HAVE a STRATEGIC interest, like in Bosnia or in Somalia.

That's my point. All this 'US war on Islam' crap is exactly that. Crap. If it were true then we would not have acted in Bosnia to save MUSLIMS. Its a smokescreen. In fact, Iran made a big to-do in 94 that they were going to send Army regulars to aid Bosnia. Did they? Nope.

C'mon. That is completely far fetched. And the chances of increasing instability were just as good with intervention as the Russians (because of their orthodox backgrounds) were AGAINST the intervention. And Russia is a much bigger concern re: stability in eastern europe than Serbia. And that is beside the fact that the US intervention was driven by US public opinion, not by analysis from the Rand Corp about instability spreading out of the immediate area.

Despite the fact that American aid goes out everytime there is a big earthquake or flood or other natural calamity in another country, even (gasp) to regimes we don't 'like' such as Cuba.

I will admit they remember the bad and not the good. Are you suggesting we stop the aid also. It IS us intervening in internal affairs. Should we not oppose Female Genital Mutilation? Should we not oppose women being stoned to death (as RR pointed out)?

Of course our belief that the American way is the best contributes undoubtably to that. But since its true that isn't a reason to change WHAT we do, only maybe how we go about it.

I agree in principle with that. I certainly think there are policies in hindsight we could have done differently. But I think its simplistic to say that this anti-Americanism is all the result of wrongs done.

YES. ABSOLUTELY. But that in and of itself has nothing to do with an evalutation of the effects of our policies.

 

When was the last time we 'intervened' in Israel? I don't remember any US troops displacing Palestinians on the West Bank to make way for new settlements.

We intervene in Israel by very directly being involved in the peace process. If we tell Israel not to do something (in very strong terms), they basically won't do it. Neither Germany, the UK, or France has that kind of influence anywhere.

That's my point, genius. All this 'US war on Islam' crap is exactly that. Crap. If it were true then we would not have acted in Bosnia to save MUSLIMS. Its a smokescreen.

Of course it is. Does anyone here actually think we're at war with Islam? That doesn't change the fact that we've earned a reputation for meddling with other countries' politics. Nor does it change the fact that we're a predominantly Christian nation whose values don't really fit well with many Middle Eastern nations. Are you surprised that they fear us meddling with them?

C'mon. That is completely far fetched. And the chances of increasing instability were just as good with intervention as the Russians (because of their orthodox backgrounds) were AGAINST the intervention. And Russia is a much bigger concern re: stability in eastern europe than Serbia. And that is beside the fact that the US intervention was driven by US public opinion, not by analysis from the Rand Corp about instability spreading out of the immediate area.

At the time, there was immense concern about the war spreading to the various other Yugoslav republics. Russians were against intervention, but what were they going to do? We already have millions in aid going there, they were a fledling Democracy, and we had very good relations at the time. You can ignore it and just say we did it on moral grounds, but the fact is that the Europe-factor had a great deal to do with our intervention. Just look at the fact that we didn't touch Rwanda and let hundreds of thousands die there.

I will admit they remember the bad and not the good. Are you suggesting we stop the aid also.

Where did I make ANY suggestions about US policy? You need to recognize that it is possible to analyze and recognize effects of US policy without saying it's evil.

I agree in principle with that. I certainly think there are policies in hindsight we could have done differently. But I think its simplistic to say that this anti-Americanism is all the result of wrongs done.

It's just basic leadership and human response. It doesn't even have anything to do with politics when you get down to it. Leaders will always be hated by some portion of the people they lead - you can't make everyone happy, no matter how well you lead. The more powerful the leader, the more active role they play, the more they will be hated by some.

This applies in any leadership / follower situation - companies, personal relationships, whatever. It's even more true when the leader doesn't have direct authority over you. I think it's simplistic to think that anti-Americanism results from anything but our policies that directly affect people around the world. To think (as Bush keeps repeating) that they hate us because we're free and all that is just plain nonsense.

If you want to add more to it, you can add that their medias are anti-American because their governments hate us, and thus the people are influenced that way. But the governments hate us for the exact same reasons as mentioned above. It all goes back to our policies and how we relate to other countries.

 

I don't think its true that we can dictate policy to Israel. I think that is just misperception of how it works.

Interesting. If your just being descriptive then I agree. If you're making normative evaluations then I don't.

Well, the Russians INTERNAL problems, including the same scenarios you hear bandied about now with concern to 'fundamentalists' sweeping the current regimes out. There are plenty of the same sentiments in Russia where people like Zhirinofsky use US action to drum up support for themselves. They even use the same theme: 'We should return ourselves to our former greatness.' It is far more probable that there would have been adverse effects on the internal situation in Russia than the Yugoslavian conflict spreading across Eastern Europe sans Russia. And you are just wrong about the motivation for the US to act. If it was cold analysis about the probability of the war expanding then we would have acted MUCH sooner, when Croatia and Bosnia and Serbia were ALL engaged in the conflict, as opposed to later on when the conflict only contained Serbian-supported Bosnian-Serbs and the Bosnian Muslims.

As per Rwanda, that is another much ballyhooed misperception and it proves my point. We had intervened in Somalia and gotten bloodied. There was no public support for US action in the heart of Africa, while there was for Bosnia because the ten year barrage of media coverage on the genocide/rape camps etc.

Cool.

I agree.

To say the hate us because of our system may not be that far fetched, although Bush certainly oversimplifies. As you said, our values are not particularly consistent with the sentiment in the ME, anymore than it would be of the Spanish Inquisition. But this also contradicts your above statement, that people will hate and/or fear the leader. That does not necessarily come from our policies that directly affect them. For instance, there is much hatred over our Israeli policy, even though that certainly does NOT affect Saudis or Iranians or Iraqis or Afghans.

Yep. Again if you're being descriptive I've got no problem with that.

BTW: I edited my silly 'genius' comment, but you responded before I edited it. I'm trying folks.

 

People who hate the US do so because our standard of living is the highest on the planet. Our system has worked for the most part. Because of our success and strength, we are very visible in world events. When we become visible, those people have the US in their face.

Do I care? No. In fact, not at all. So long as nobody launches attacks, they can go on hating us all they want.

 

People who hate the US do so because our standard of living is the highest on the planet. Our system has worked for the most part. Because of our success and strength, we are very visible in world events. When we become visible, those people have the US in their face.

! u serious??? thats too simplistic
u think ppl are willing to blow themselves up because of tall poppy syndrome???

u don't see poorer countries like nigeria, burma, laos, cameroon the list goes on and on burning US flags.

it's countries that have been affected negatively by US foreign policy (and sometimes rightly so). That harbour a hatred.

 

You mean that you are trying to be a kinder and gentler HayesStreet??

Faints



[size=1/2]just ribbing you, HS - I aint mad at cha[/size]

 

Hayes - I wasn't criticizing the policies themselves. I do believe that our policies create the hatred in many countries. If we had policies that were primarily based on other countries' needs, I don't think the hatred would be there. However, then our own people would be unhappy with our leadership.

People who hate the US do so because our standard of living is the highest on the planet. Our system has worked for the most part. Because of our success and strength, we are very visible in world events. When we become visible, those people have the US in their face.

Refman,

I disagree with the first part of your statement. I think some people envy our standard of living, others really don't care. No one is going to hate a rich person. What they will hate is when that rich person "taunts" them with how great they are. And we tend to do that with our "we're better than you" attitude.

There are many other countries with very very high standards of living and quality of life, but no one hates those countries, because those countries pretty much leave everyone else alone. It's when we start interfering with other nations that the hatred builds.

Just think of it this way. Suppose we had a really crappy, psycho President, and Canada came in and assassinated him for us. I don't care how much "better" it would be for the US, our country would still be pissed at Canada. Same principle applies here - people want to handle their own internal affairs for the most part. The exceptions are things like genocide (Bosnia), but for the most part, countries just want us to leave them alone politically.

That's not to say we <I>should</I> leave things alone -- I'm just saying that it will generate hatred and we need to understand and accept that. Hopefully, the benefits of whatever we do outweigh the drawbacks.

 

Hey now. A thousand points of light and all that...