Oh god, its the freakin forum policewoman again...
Hey it's my newest stalker again, good morning Swick
Anti-Americanism
by Englishman 105 Replies latest jw friends
-
Stacy Smith
-
Mulan
It's not anti-American to criticise.
Very true. Too bad "Real Time with Bill Maher" is on hiatus for a few months. If you saw that show, (Simon and Mike) you would see some REAL criticism.
Mind you, when I go to America, I wouldn't be so vulgar as to offer ANY criticism at all. When you're a guest, it's not polite to find fault with the host
Good plan. Thanks. You might hear all of us being critical though. Be careful about joining in. You know the example? "I can complain to you about my kids for hours, but don't you dare say anything negative about my kids".
-
ozziepost
"I can complain to you about my kids for hours, but don't you dare say anything negative about my kids".
Ozzie smiles and nods approvingly. How true, Mulan.
-
Mr. Kim
Most of the time, if not ALL of the time, the common everyday person is the last to know that once again, the politicians have made the world angry at the United States and everyone that lives here.......Perhaps the anger and outrage should be directed at "those in power" and NOT the average American.
Mr. KIM
-
Abaddon
Redneck:
There is a big differance in saying I dont agree with lets say, the attack on Iraq ..That would be imho not AA however when you go on and start insulting the president and trashing the US Administration and accusing them of all kinds of things it becomes AA...
Er... only IF you would not criticise another leader or administration under the same circumstances.
jwbot:
I am fond of the country I was born into (America) and because of that, and being humanist...I always want to strive to make it better. I think someone would be anti-american if they are satisfied with the way things are when things clearly need to change for the better.
Outstanding comment
Stacey Smith:
As soon as I hear a plan to fight terror I'll listen.
Seems you've already supped at the table of propoganda: if by 'fight terror' you mean the 'War Against Terrorism', I cannot see how you think attacking Iraq can be counted as a plan to fight terrorism; a corrupt and evil reigeme yes; one provably linked with 9/11? No. A dangerous reigeme yes; one representing a clear and present danger to the USA or the UK? No. A country that was oppressing its inhabitants yes; a country endangering its neighbours in the near future? No.
All I've ever heard is Bush lied about Iraq. Of course Bush's "lies" were exactly the same things as Clinton was saying about Iraq. The same things as Hillary said right after 9/11.
... but Bush used the 'lies' to start a war that, although the big-time shooting is over, will continue to demand money and lives. Are you such a Republican you can't see the difference?
Oh and by the way, if you say something anti soldier here during a time of war then I myself consider you anti american.
Define anti-soldier; is calling My Lai a war crime anti-soldier? Does time of war remove the neccesity of soldiers mantaining discipline and conforming to the various international agreements regarding conduct of troops in war? Obviously not, so your statement is unreasoned and invalid; it's jingoism Stacey... my country right or wrong is a morally bankrupt stance.
I have read many threads here where people like Trauma (yeah I know he's gone) have referred to soldiers as baby killers and war criminals. No problem there. It was accepted here.
Was it? Oh, so some people accept an unreasonable argument and that means you can ignore everything anyone on that side of the political divide says? On your logic Stacey, we can ignore the entire Republican agenda because some Republicans oppose abortion under any grounds. Again your statement is devoid of reason.
I also suggest that those of you who don't live in America come off sounding anti american almost every time you talk about America. I don't want people outside of my family badmouthing my family. Same goes for those outside America. Sure you can badmouth it all you want but then don't come back saying your aren't anti american. You are.
You are just ignoring the logical definition of anti-American to suit your political agenda; I'm suprised at you! If you were not so blindly jingoistic you might analyse criticisms of America against some kind of logical standard to see if they were fair, rather than rejecting them out-of-hand. It's also an immensely hypocritical attitude, as America are all too happy to criticise those outside their country. I am SO suprised that you take this stance; normally it's the Republican Male Voice Choir, I thought the Republican women on the board were more reasonable!
It's funny you agree that you don't see why people get so worked up, when it seems YOU get worked up if someone criticises the USA, without even looking to see if the criticism is fair! Where the hell does that make sense?
Oh, re. gun kissing; that may sound cute and funny where you come from. Where I am sat it would make people think you were a freak even if it was a joke.
dubla:
maybe this is too simplistic, i just think that attitudes (toward the u.s.) come accross over and beyond what the specific criticism may be.
You are right, that is too simplistic.
You pay lip service to the idea that if someone criticises the USA for x activity, but not another country, then there is grounds for citing anti-American behaviour, but that if the person would criticise other countries for the same activity, then it's NOT anti-American.
Then you seem to imply that if someone does it all the time, they must be anti-American NO MATTER WHETHER THE ABOVE STANDARD APPLIES.
I might be wrong though, please clarify.
Oh, and 'Enduring Freedom' is a lame name; I think it sounds like a District Convention title.
When the Hollywood film indistry stops appropriating war stories from WWII featuring other nations and re-writing history with Americans in the starring role (like U-571), I think you can get picky about English people laughing at the rather over-the-top mentality bespoken by such things; America almost sets itself up for criticism sometimes.
We do it in England too; I mean, there is a guy in the House of Commons called Black Rod - that sounds like a porn star too me... and all he does is knock on a door once a year. But when America does it often it speaks of their attitude about themselves NOW, rather than it being an anachronism. Find me a bulletin board where you have Brits claiming that Britain is the best country in the world, or French people claiming that of France. The US do have a partial monolopoly on angrandisment.
It's very easy to be biased against blatent jingosim. I mean, do you seriously think re-writing history to blow the trumet of natiuonalist fervour and self-satisfiedness is a sane action? It's like 1984! What next, the USA defeat Napolean? The US marines turn the battle in favour of Cleopatera? Don't you see that things in the USA are a little whack?
Amazing:
I wold call it extremely unhealthy obsession over the fact that one is jealous because America is the lone super-power, and the country of the plaintiff is a little dip-crap has-been nation that gave up its super status.
Just like dubla, you seem to brush over the logical standard of whether someone is being anti-American or anti-whaever the action is, to get to the bit where it is not America's fault and the other countries are being unfair.
One thing I never get is how some Americans see to never understand that, as de-facto world super-power, it is reasonable people expect a higher stanbard of conduct in the international arena than (for example) Burkino Faso. As the country that coined the expression, "the buck stops here", it sees ironic that there is no recognition of the fact often the buck does stop in the USA. A world power that only likes adulation? You tell me. But I know other countries realise they are VERY affected by the actions of the USA, and are as cognistant of their own interests as the US is, and will protest as it suits their agenda. Because the US affects so many countries, they stir up more protests. It's maths more than jelousy, but of course, making it out to be jealousy suits the 'bawwwaaaah! the world hates America' argument better.
Big Tex:
Good post.
Mr Kim:
Most of the time, if not ALL of the time, the common everyday person is the last to know that once again, the politicians have made the world angry at the United States and everyone that lives here.......Perhaps the anger and outrage should be directed at "those in power" and NOT the average American.
Very good point, but you guys did vote Bush in... well, I suppose 1/2 million less voted for him nationwide than for Gore, so in a way you are right, it ISN'T the fault of most Americans.
But on a day-to-day basis, waking American's up to facts that they either don't know or won't accept is the only way most of us have a chance of seeing change for the better in the most powerful nation in the world.
I know I would re-consider my attitude towards my country's leader if it was apparent that much of the world saw hiom as a strategically shaved chimp... but to many, just putting it down to Anti-Amercianism requires less effort.
-
franklin J
yes, Englishman, I respect your opinions and would like to try.
-
Englishman
Cheers for that, Franklin.
I think that this thread has been really productive and helpful, so I'm moving it to "Friends".
Englishman.
-
Stacy Smith
but Bush used the 'lies' to start a war that, although the big-time shooting is over, will continue to demand money and lives. Are you such a Republican you can't see the difference?
So Clintons lies about Iraq were acceptable because he only bombed a civilion target in Iraq instead of dragging it out to the proper conclusion, the removal of Saddem. Or are you such a democrat you can't see the difference?
-
dubla
abaddon-
Then you seem to imply that if someone does it all the time, they must be anti-American NO MATTER WHETHER THE ABOVE STANDARD APPLIES.
I might be wrong though, please clarify.
im not sure how you got that out of my post.?. show me the specific passages that confused you, and ill try to explain them better.......i just read it over again, and couldnt figure out how anyone would get to that conclusion.
When the Hollywood film indistry stops appropriating war stories from WWII featuring other nations and re-writing history with Americans in the starring role (like U-571), I think you can get picky about English people laughing at the rather over-the-top mentality bespoken by such things; America almost sets itself up for criticism sometimes.
yes, hollywood opens up the titles of our war missions to criticism. um, please pass it my way, i could use some of whatever youre smoking. the jason and freddy flicks show what a lack of respect america has for human life too, so that leads to extra scrutiny on our soldiers in battle.
Find me a bulletin board where you have Brits claiming that Britain is the best country in the world, or French people claiming that of France.
i dont think the brits or the french are that delusional, come on.
aa
-
Abaddon
stacey:
So Clintons lies about Iraq were acceptable because he only bombed a civilion target in Iraq instead of dragging it out to the proper conclusion, the removal of Saddem. Or are you such a democrat you can't see the difference?
Stacey darling, you are confusing the Sudan with Iraq. I hear that there is a job for a Republican shock-jock whose not too hot on getting their facts straight going at the moment. You interested?
Oh, and I'm not a democrat. 41 words, two mistakes... hell, you could make dossiers on WoMD with skills like that!!
Oh you didn't respond as to the fallacious connection you made between Iraq and a war on terror I commented on, or whether calling My Lai a war crime was anti-soldier, or whether ignoring everything anyone on one side of the political divide says because some of them are unreasonable is reasonable or not.
All you did was invert a sentence; great technique, I use it myself, but when it shows that you don't know what you are talking about it does make one look a trifle silly.
Let alone you confusing two countries in different continents and my political affiliations, you also seem to be claiming a war that has cost billions, and will cost billions more, a war that has cost thousands of civilian casualties and will carry on claiming the lives of US and UK soldiers, is equivalent to a single air raid. And I suppose a blow job in the Oval Office is equivalent to vote-rigging...?
Will you now tell me your avoidance isn't an attempt to maintain your political dogma?
Hell, ALL politicians lie, people, wake-up for Christ's sake; that's why we need to use them as Christmas tree ornaments.
Example; the Chinese Embassy in Sarajevo that got blown up by the US. After aplogising they said it was 'cause they had an old map, and thought the target was something else.
This was a lie; I am sat five yards from someone who played football there when he was a kid, before there was the Chinese Embassy, and all it was before then was waste ground.
dubla;
Your post of 2nd October 21.01
Paragraph begining "imo, a lot of it has to do with attitude," you basically say what I said in longer form; whether it is anti-American or not is based on is it ideological or based on disapproving of an action rather than adoer of the action.
Paragraph begining "opposing the war doesnt make you anti-american," I agree with the first part, but think you miss the point about American jongoism in the second half, as I covered in my last post.
And then here;
"i personally think its easy to tell the difference between someone simply opposing some american policies, and someone making it a point to oppose and criticize damn near everything america has done, is doing, and will do. do we really need a definition to spot these patterns?"
You say here you can tell the difference between someone opposing some American policies and someone making it a point to oppose American policies, without qualifying the statement in any way, so seem to take back what you've said above.
If someone makes a point of opposing American policies, but is not using a double standard to do so, i.e. would criticise another country for the same things, then the are still not being anti-American, as their criticism is based on actions of America rather than on an anti-American ideological stance.
yes, hollywood opens up the titles of our war missions to criticism. um, please pass it my way, i could use some of whatever youre smoking. the jason and freddy flicks show what a lack of respect america has for human life too, so that leads to extra scrutiny on our soldiers in battle
Well, you don't have to agree with me. Jason and Freddy do not address America's presentation of itself as a nation or its self image as a nation in the same way as war movies, so, nice dodge, but your quarterback is still eating Astroturf. Answer me this, (as I gave you too much wriggle room last time);
Do you think that it is normal for the USA to change the nationality of heros in war movies so they are American?
In answering this to show 'normality' you would have to show other co8untries do it to.
Similarly, you can't really answer my last question, so turn it into a joke, as admitting that American are in some way responsible for setting themselves up for criticism is anethema to your stance.