Evangelical Disconnect

Originally Posted by Bro Deal

If you oppress people all over the world then you have to expect that a few will occasionally fight back. It's the price of doing business and nothing to get worked up over.

Originally Posted by garage sale GT

Ahh. the "Superpower as Scapegoat" syndrome.

Originally Posted by wolfix

But isn't the death of people just the cost of doing business? Who said that?

Originally Posted by garage sale GT

Should the US tell other countries what governments they are to have? Did someone say something about "endless war"?

I suppose the hijackers wanted to establish a liberal democracy? Perhaps they belonged to the Green party?

Originally Posted by Crankyfeet

As is evident from your post... you have no clue about the motivations of the hijackers. Before you can fight an enemy... you need to understand them. That was very frustrating in the aftermath of 9/11... that the whole response/analysis of what happened on 9/11 was so deranged and also influenced by hidden Neocon agendas. And the US people, media and politicians just lapped up anything they were told. The whole effort IMO helped the cause of Islamic radicalism ("terrorism" is just a method/strategy of fighting) rather than combated it. Then the American people were faced with the paradox of being labeled traitors if they spoke up against the arguably fascist actions of the government. Free speech and liberty my ass. It was almost the return of McCarthyism. And further Americans were asked to die for a faulty cause... otherwise the others who had died would have died for nothing (and the government would have to admit they made a mistake and a black mark would be permanently etched on a President's legacy). The actions followed the President's consistent credo: a mistake is only a mistake if you admit to it. Remember Vietnam?

What about the US response to France and Germany's reluctance to endorse the Iraq invasion? What a bunch of tossers the French and Germans were to not be as gullible and irrational as the loudest American fist-pumpers.

The irony is that you will probably deduce that these views make me an "enemy" sympathizer. From my perspective... I see the militant right wing of the US as inadvertently helping the cause of militant Islamics and a major threat to world peace and stabilty. And I consider myself a believer in free enterprise, small government and the principles that the US was founded on.

Originally Posted by Crankyfeet

As is evident from your post... you have no clue about the motivations of the hijackers. Before you can fight an enemy... you need to understand them. That was very frustrating in the aftermath of 9/11... that the whole response/analysis of what happened on 9/11 was so deranged and also influenced by hidden Neocon agendas. And the US people, media and politicians just lapped up anything they were told. The whole effort IMO helped the cause of Islamic radicalism ("terrorism" is just a method/strategy of fighting) rather than combated it. Then the American people were faced with the paradox of being labeled traitors if they spoke up against the arguably fascist actions of the government. Free speech and liberty my ass. It was almost the return of McCarthyism. And further Americans were asked to die for a faulty cause... otherwise the others who had died would have died for nothing (and the government would have to admit they made a mistake and a black mark would be permanently etched on a President's legacy). The actions followed the President's consistent credo: a mistake is only a mistake if you admit to it. Remember Vietnam?

What about the US response to France and Germany's reluctance to endorse the Iraq invasion? What a bunch of tossers the French and Germans were to not be as gullible and irrational as the loudest American fist-pumpers.

The irony is that you will probably deduce that these views make me an "enemy" sympathizer. From my perspective... I see the militant right wing of the US as inadvertently helping the cause of militant Islamics and a major threat to world peace and stabilty. And I consider myself a believer in free enterprise, small government and the principles that the US was founded on.

Originally Posted by Bro Deal

It is when you are running an empire. Most countries don't want to be empires. They are content to be left alone. But that is sort of hard when there are nutters in America who fantasize about murdering millions with nuclear weapons because those people resent living under the thumb of the U.S.

Originally Posted by nns1400

I agree with a lot of what you're saying...but I chafe a bit at the idea that all other nations are somehow more altruistic or have nobler intentions or whatever. France had their oil deals that kept them from wanting any part of deposing Saddam Hussein...the UN was involved in serious corruption over Oil For Food, involving officials from different countries, who were influencing their nations' policies...everyone is doing what suits them and profits them.

It just happens that America has a lot more power and ability to affect other countries... and I am not defending those policies. I'm just poking a little pin in the bubble of all the happy good countries that only do what's right for the world... (not that you are saying that necessarily, I'm just making a general statement)

Originally Posted by Crankyfeet

I'm not really saying that other countries are more altruistic. They all act in their own self interest. My argument is that the US IMHO is often acting against their own best interests... while they think they are acting for them. I think a lot of America thinks it can give the middle finger to the rest of the world... but don't realise the full negative impact of acting unilaterally, often with an FU attitude.

Originally Posted by nns1400

No, I appreciate your opinion and have thought a lot about your perspective on different things, which is interesting to me because you've lived in different parts of the world INCLUDING here...and you don't even hate us .

I'm not even disagreeing with you. I'm just saying there's a bit of an assumed stance on this forum (not you specifically, I was just responding to your post) that the US is all bad and everybody else is just swell...or that the reasons other countries were against the idea of war is just because they're so "progressive" or something instead of that their vested interests, including OIL interests, were in not going to war. Not because they want to hold hands with Obama and sing give peace a chance and put a flower in the barrel of a gun.

Which is a separate thing from whether or not it was in America's interest to go to war.

And also, the "moral equivalency" stuff gets old...I mean, someone starts a thread about organ harvesting in China and immediately gets slapped by someone who seems to believe an American has no right to comment on such a thing, because of...Iraq. ??? It's tiresome.

Originally Posted by Crankyfeet

I'm not really saying that other countries are more altruistic. They all act in their own self interest. My argument is that the US IMHO is often acting against their own best interests... while they think they are acting for them. I think a lot of America thinks it can give the middle finger to the rest of the world... but don't realise the full negative impact of acting unilaterally, often with an FU attitude.

Originally Posted by nns1400

I'm not even disagreeing with you. I'm just saying there's a bit of an assumed stance on this forum (not you specifically, I was just responding to your post) that the US is all bad and everybody else is just swell...or that the reasons other countries were against the idea of war is just because they're so "progressive" or something instead of that their vested interests, including OIL interests, were in not going to war. Not because they want to hold hands with Obama and sing give peace a chance and put a flower in the barrel of a gun.

Originally Posted by limerickman

I don't think that anyone here has suggested that the US is all bad.
Nor has anyone suggested that every country, except the USA, is 100% good/altrusitic.

The problem I believe comes down to what your country's leaders say and what they actually do, in terms of foreign policy and all actions deriving from those foreign policies.

In this and other fora, a lot of Americans get extremely defensive when points are made about how the US uses it'd foreign policy to suit it's own ends.
When challenged about their countries foreign policy, many Americans go on about the WW2 or the fight against communism or the perceived terrorist threat etc.
They trot out "US bailed out Europe 1939-1945", "landlease/marshall plan rebuilt Europe" etc.

These defensive arguments are based upon a (mis) perception that somehow America did what it did out of altrusim.
America has never acted out of altruism.
And that's the point : I think a lot of non-Americans who have have less of an issue with US foreign policy if America was perhaps more frank in it's statements.

Not to dwell on Iraq, but if America said "we're invading Iraq to get it's oil" many foreigners, while still opposing US policy, would at least concede that America was at least frank about it's reasons for being in Iraq.
Or if America had said in 1945 "we're giving the Euros loans to rebuild their countries and we expect to be repaid that money" - Germany repaid it's loan with interest in 1961, Britain paid her loan with interest in 2006 - instead the notion was put about by the US that it was somehow giving europe a loan based on charity/altruism.

I know and have worked with many Americans and it never ceases to amaze me how many of them are completely unaware of the British loan repayments for example (and that's just one example)

Originally Posted by limerickman

In this and other fora, a lot of Americans get extremely defensive when points are made about how the US uses it'd foreign policy to suit it's own ends.
When challenged about their countries foreign policy, many Americans go on about the WW2 or the fight against communism or the perceived terrorist threat etc.
They trot out "US bailed out Europe 1939-1945", "landlease/marshall plan rebuilt Europe" etc.

These defensive arguments are based upon a (mis) perception that somehow America did what it did out of altrusim.
America has never acted out of altruism.