Article: "Why so much resentment against the U.S.?"

[AnitaPeterson]

From the Toronto Star, February 21, page 23:

President George W. Bush's first nine months in office were marked by an alarming hostility toward the rest of the world. He sneered at the United
Nations and rejected international treaties on global warming, biological weapons, and the establishment of an international court.

Then came Sept. 11 and along with it a new openness in the Bush administration's approach to other nations. Overtures were made to Europe,
Indonesia, Russia and Pakistan.

The White House began receiving foreign heads of state. Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair was hailed as a great friend of America. Canada's
troops were put under U.S. command. The war against terrorism, it was said, was a global one.

Sept. 11 brought new openness but now all that has changed

Now, it seems, all that has changed. The first signs that the Bush administration was back to its old tricks? Its withdrawal from the 1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, its reluctance to provide financial aid in the rebuilding of Afghanistan and its defiance of the Geneva Conventions on
prisoners of war. Now, with the Taliban vanquished, Washington has announced it still isn't ready to give up the fight, with a proposed expansion
of the war on terror to the "axis of evil" a.k.a. North Korea, Iran and Iraq. And the rest of the world, including some of America's closest allies
and partners, is furious.

French Foreign Minister Hubert Védrine has called Washington's approach "simplistic." European Union Foreign Affairs Minister Christopher
Patten wrote in The Financial Times that America's victory in Afghanistan had reinforced the dangerous belief that "the projection of military power
is the only basis of true security."

Joschka Fischer, Germany's foreign affairs minister, said, "the international coalition against terror does not provide a basis for doing just anything
against anybody and certainly not by going it alone." Chinese leaders have threatened "serious consequences" if the U.S. attacks Iraq, and South
Korea is furious over North Korea's inclusion on the "evil" list, fearing that it has compromised years of that nation's diplomatic overtures to its
isolationist northern neighbour.

And in a joint media briefing last week, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Prime Minister Jean Chrétien said unilateral action in Iraq "will lead
nowhere," with the Prime Minister adding that Canada "is not implicated in any plans for Iraq or for other nations."

So, what do you do when your friends and supporters say, "Enough is enough, this is no longer the appropriate approach to terrorism"? Do you
listen to their counsel? Do you smooth ruffled feathers, and seek co-operation? Do you step back and receive direction from the United Nations?

Washington's message and tone seem purposely antagonistic

Not if you're Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in a speech over the weekend that "America has friends and allies in this cause, but only we
can lead it. Only we can rally the world in a task of this complexity against an enemy so elusive and so resourceful. The United States and only the
United States can see this effort through to victory."

And not if you're President George W. Bush, who, also over the weekend, stated that the U.S. "would not blink" in its fight against terrorism, and
added that Canada stands with America on this "incredibly important crusade to defend freedom." (This despite the fact that National Security
Adviser Condoleezza Rice called up the Prime Minister's foreign affairs adviser for a clarification of Chrétien's remarks.)

Washington's message and tone seem purposely antagonistic. As New York Times reporter David Sanger noted this past weekend, "in
appearances across the country, (Bush) has built on the "axis of evil" phraseology of his State of the Union address, knowing full well that each
repetition irritates and divides the countries he once hailed as his great coalition partners."

Since Sept. 11, some Americans have, with regard to Muslims in the Middle East, rather naively wondered, "why do they hate us so much?" As
allies in Europe, Asia and North America have once again been alienated by Washington, they may now wonder why the rest of the world dislikes
them, too. In a nutshell: for their government's arrogance and presumptuousness, for its isolationism and its dangerous foreign policy, for its refusal
to compromise or co-operate, for its expansion of military action despite the rest of the world's advice and interests.

The real question that should be asked now, however, is not why the rest of world doesn't like or doesn't support America, but rather why does
America care so little about the rest of the world?

 

[ed21x]

ok, so you hate the United States.... why do you have to go to a board choked full of americans to express your beliefs?

 

[Mitzi]

<< ok, so you hate the United States... >>



Where was that said?



<< why do you have to go to a board choked full of americans to express your beliefs? >>



Because this is a discussion forum perhap, besides, read the first line of the post...

From the Toronto Star, February 21, page 23:

AnitaPeterson was quoting the text, it was not an expression of her (???) beliefs.

 

[Czar]

good article

 

[kazeakuma]

Not a bad article. It poses some good questions, and doesn't seem to be an article full of blatant anti-americanism. More of a perspective on current events.

 

[sandorski]

Since Bush has come into office, he regularly has told the rest of the world, "Screw you!". Anyone familiar with ATOT knows by now that directing comments like that usually gets an equal contradictory response. Bush seems to be like many posters here who make an inflammatory post, then become astounded by the response.

 

[xyyz]

anyone who posts anything that questions the US... even as a joke will be demonized as "anti-american." be warry of this fact.

those members of this campaign have their heads too far up their ass to see anything clearly... i guess they forget that it's a right to disagree with US while residing in the US... they outta consider this when they talk about how they value freedom so much.

 

[AU Tiger]

I am in favor of how Bush and his advisors are handling the "War On Terror" and I don't care what other nations think, they are not the ones that will be targeted by the next group of terrorists. Backing down now will not improve the situation, it will only give those countries that harbor terrorists more time to prepare the next big attack.

 

[charrison]

THere is alot of spin in that article.

The article basically says, If the US does not do what the rest of the world wants, we are bad.

ABM treaty is outdated.

We have full right to go after the terror network that attacked us, no matter what country they hide in.

kyoto was not accepted by any country until it was heavily watered down and the rest of world would not sign unless the US signed. Kyoto was voted down 98-0 under clintons term, why would today be different.

Afganistan was not part of the geneva convention, but I believe the prisoners are being treated fairly(fair better than they would if left in afganistan).


The person that wrote has a right to their opinion, but they really should be honest with the facts.

 

[xyyz]

I agree on the POW decision. President Bush was wise to give the Taliban members POW status because they were part of the former govermnment of Afghanistan. As for the Al Queeda, they have no national alliegance, therefore they can't be given the rights that a member of a goverment you've declared war on are to get.

 

[brxndxn]

This is all normal... Other nations want what's best for the other nations. When America finally does something that is good for America - it's not always best for the other nations.

 

[burnedout]

those members of this campaign have their heads too far up their ass to see anything clearly.

Nice generalization. Thankfully our country isn't ruled by a bunch of damn bleeding heart, liberal nutcases.

Now, it seems, all that has changed. The first signs that the Bush administration was back to its old tricks? Its withdrawal from the 1972
Anti-Ballistic Missile treaty, its reluctance to provide financial aid in the rebuilding of Afghanistan and its defiance of the Geneva Conventions on
prisoners of war.

ABM: Sure. Let's just sit back on our asses while Chinese generals threaten to nuke LA.

Financial aid to Afghanistan: $290 million is being reluctant?. So what if Japan pledges more? Who sent the hardware in order to rid the world of the scumbag Taliban. I just so admired all those aircraft carriers and warplanes Canada sent over.

US defiance of Geneva Conventions regarding POWs: Previously debated here How many more of those SOBs have we seen on Al Jazzira screaming "Jihad!" since we locked their asses up?

 

[xyyz]

<< Nice generalization. Thankfully our country isn't ruled by a bunch of damn bleeding heart, liberal nutcases. >>



It's true. IF you disagree with US policy on ATOF you are hammered as an "american-hater," or an "anti-patriot" or like you said "bleeding heart" and all other sorts of nonense.

I'm of the school where I don't feel the universal answer to our problems if to vilify nation who disagrees (please be clear about this, I'm saying disagree not attack) with US policy is to isolate them and then "nuke 'em" like some hawkish members seem to advocate.

Liberal does not equal bleeding heart.

 

[glenn1]

<< The real question that should be asked now, however, is not why the rest of world doesn't like or doesn't support America, but rather why does America care so little about the rest of the world? >>



Perhaps the better question to ask is, "why does the rest of the world care so much about what the U.S. does, since the American government 'cares so little about the rest of the world' (by your own estimation)" ?

The EU in particular, is acting like a co-dependent girl, whose so-called "boyfriend" runs around on her and routinely makes fun of her behind her back, yet she sticks to him and tells everyone "he just loves me in his own way." And in return, the "boyfriend" despises the girl even more for not having the guts to stand up to him.

So, rest of the world, my advice to you, is stop your whining about how the U.S. ignores you and your input, and if you really feel so strongly on the way you think things should be, ACT on it. Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way. You're doing none of the above. Because right now, you're just being ankle biters, and particularly annoying, whiney little ones at that.

 

[Czar]

This article is not about who is right or who is wrong, it is about do you want your friends to listen to you or not. If you went them to listen to you and take into accont what you have to say you have to do the same with them. And as this article clearly points out the US has not been listening to their friends ever since Bush came into power.

 

[Nemesis77]

<< The EU in particular, is acting like a co-dependent girl, whose so-called "boyfriend" runs around on her and routinely makes fun of her behind her back, yet she sticks to him and tells everyone "he just loves me in his own way." And in return, the "boyfriend" despises the girl even more for not having the guts to stand up to him. >>



Huh? EU has criticized USA on numerous occasions on several different subjects. They have been arguing in WTO over trade. How is that "not sticking up"?

It's funny, when Europe cricizes USA about something they are leftist anti-americans. If they don't say anything, they are "co-dependent".

😕

 

[ScottyB]

I just have to say on the record, Bush is a moron. A stupid, ignorant, inbreed, illiterate, lying, sack-o-poop who stole the election. HE is now, along with his other moronic republican friends, destroying our economy and starting fights with people that he shouldn't. H is like that dumb bully from the forth grade. You remember the one. He would still your money and pick fights but in class he would get stuck on words like "and" when reading.

 

[AnitaPeterson]

My point in pasting the article here was simply to provide a possible answer to the question in the thread title, especially since I've seen it raised by many AT members.

It was not my intention to raise a flame war.

I must point out that the information according to which the "rest of the world" (an expression which, IMHO, hints at some feeling of contempt) would not sign Kyoto unless the U.S. does is false. I have seen much opposition to Kyoto expressed in the U.S. media, so this is not a surprise, though.

As to the observation the the U.S. must do whatever it thinks best, I agree. The idea of dragging other countries in this is debatable, though, and those who say "it's easy for you to preach, you're not a target" need to be reminded that before September 11, Europe and the Middle East that had seen many more terrorist incidents than the people who wrote "Black Sunday" and "Invasion U.S.A." would dare to dream.

It's interesting to see reactions like "why do you look at us so much if you don't like us?", since they denote a narrow view on things, and a lack of awareness of the fact that the U.S. is also continuously meddling in other countries' lives - the example are too numerous to be listed here. Arguably, some involvement is extremely positive (despite claims of hidden reasons of publicity gain), and altruistic, but there are also dark moments that cannot be expected to be forgotten.

The ABM treaty was not just a guarantee for the U.S. and U.S.S.R., for them to be free to get out of it at any time, unilaterally. It was also seen as a guarantee for "the rest of the world" that the self-styled super-powers know how to impose limits on themselves and do not hint at global domination, under a military umbrella. Those who advocate steps that can lead to another arms race, thinking China would bomb L.A., need to think in a global perspective. Otherwise, this nothing more or less than insular thinking, although it's a pretty big island. But whether "Size Does Matter" (to quote a movie slogan) it's another story.

All in all, this is an honest perspective of the U.S., as seen from the outside. It is not the only one, and it is far from comprehensive. You can choose to ignore it, but you can't seriously expect everyone to like you. If knee-jerk reactions like the one immediately following my first post become doo dominant, instead of allowing for a calm, pleasant and relaxed dialogue, then the hatemongers win, and we'll see more September 11, Gulf Wars, Bay of Pigs, and Munchen conferences in the years to come.

 

[busmaster11]

<<

<< The real question that should be asked now, however, is not why the rest of world doesn't like or doesn't support America, but rather why does America care so little about the rest of the world? >>



Perhaps the better question to ask is, "why does the rest of the world care so much about what the U.S. does, since the American government 'cares so little about the rest of the world' (by your own estimation)" ?
>>

You really don't know why, or is that question for effect? As a democratic nation, and the most powerful one in the world, we have inherent choices if not obligations, which directly and indirectly affect the course of actions for other countries.

As such, our leadership has become arrogant and isolationist, caring more about protecting our freedoms when we have more freedom than anyone to begin with. This isn't about who's a bleeding heart liberal or whose a tree hugger - its about being honest about our global position and how influential it is, and keeping that in mind when we make decisions, whether we like it or not.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

<< I just have to say on the record, Bush is a moron. A stupid, ignorant, inbreed, illiterate, lying, sack-o-poop who stole the election. HE is now, along with his other moronic republican friends, destroying our economy and starting fights with people that he shouldn't. H is like that dumb bully from the forth grade. You remember the one. He would still your money and pick fights but in class he would get stuck on words like "and" when reading. >>



An example of ignorance in action. Let's hold this up as an example of how not to post, unless the aim is to create flaming.
I sense great angst here, but I'll let the psychology majors work on this sad illogical rant.

Now for the article.
Anita- I have no problem with the post and your stated intentions. Indeed, the US does interfere with the internal affairs of many countries. If we may be dispassionate for a moment, countries do what is in the best interest of themselves. If Canada or anyother country was in our position and had our resources, I believe they would do the same. Now we in the US benefit from certain policies or position that other countries dislike. Therefore they dislike us. However, to expect that Bush would change to a policy contrary to what he believed was best for his country would be a betrayal of his oath of office. Granted, there may be other approaches to a given situation, but a President hasn't the luxury of debating policy in retrospect on a computer board. He must make decisions as best he may after receiving input from his advisors, and act. History then gets to make the judgement.

I find the article somewhat simplistic, but since it largly reflect the bias of the writer (who at least doesn't try to hide too hard, making it easy to see where he is coming from) this is a given.

Remember it is human nature to dislike anyone else who you percieve to be in a superior position. Granted this is a generality, but in this case it applies. In other words, envy is indeed a factor. Envy of power, wealth, relative freedom, and a few other things. That is a consideration.

Also I must say many Americans are remarkable in their desire to remake the world in our own image. Case in point- Veils worn by Muslim women. There was a flap about this a little while ago about this. What I found interesting was the desire to "enlighten" "liberate" "educate" (and other high ssounding words) these women. Well has anyone asked what these people really want? No not just interviewing those who share the same view, but the entire spectrum of women? Sounds like we are forcing our world view on people who might say "No thank you we are just fine" Sort of our moral Manifest Destiny. Now not all Americans want to do this, but there are enough to cause hard feeling around the world. It reminds me of a statement by NOW that they represent all women in a fight for freedom. So what if a woman does not agree with abortion, their concept of family or anything else? Why they must be repressed, because otherwise they would have the same viewpoint. That attitude never went far with my wife, who I can assure you is anything but repressed 😉

We are also hated or disliked because it is in the best interest of some who need a target to vent hatred or anger. We are a convient excuse for their problems. Bin Laden of course. Iran- "The Great Satan" Failed or failing policies in Europe can be blamed on those damned American. We are conviently the worlds scapegoat. We are responsible for all the ills of the world. How nice.

This could go on and on, but my point is made.

Now do I care if we are hated/disliked/used? Not really, because we have leaders who understand this and I am sure a lot more, and we have the ability and will to defend ourselves if needed.

 

[busmaster11]

<< I find the article somewhat simplistic, but since it largly reflect the bias of the writer (who at least doesn't try to hide too hard, making it easy to see where he is coming from) this is a given. >>

I find a foreign policy that doesn't make any attempts, or even pretenses to better relations simplistic. Whats better for the world is generally better for America in the long run.



<< Remember it is human nature to dislike anyone else who you percieve to be in a superior position. Granted this is a generality, but in this case it applies. In other words, envy is indeed a factor. Envy of power, wealth, relative freedom, and a few other things. That is a consideration. >>

I don't doubt this for a minute, and I'm sure thats why many countries dislike the US. But how often does one get past his anger and thnink about the resons behind September 11th? It would be awfully myopic for anyone to think jealousy is the reason behing those attacks.



<< Failed or failing policies in Europe can be blamed on those damned American. We are conviently the worlds scapegoat. We are responsible for all the ills of the world. How nice. >>

Why is any criticism invariably considered hatred or anti-american? I criticize our country's policies, and I challenge anyone to tell me I'm anti-american. Anyone whose about to flame me - believe that I care - atleast give me that. Forget about those who only dog our country because they dislike it. But you should know constructive criticism when you see it, instead of brushing it off as rhetoric.



<< Now do I care if we are hated/disliked/used? Not really, because we have leaders who understand this and I am sure a lot more, and we have the ability and will to defend ourselves if needed. >>

I think the attitude, "F@#$ the others. We're stronger and thats all that matters!" is the most awful and dangerous one to have. Even the greatest nation isn't the greatest forever, and in the event of a downfall, this is the arrogant attitude that damns us.

 

[ViperXX]

It's really simple to understand why no other country wants to support America has she kicks ass and takes names. We were the ones attacked on our own soil and the majority of the victims we're Americans. We are the ones being targeted not them. So these other countries don't give a flying fvck about the war on terrorism. I think they felt obligated to do something when we invaded Afganistan so they sent 5 troops per country (excluding the UK) to guard the water truck in Kabul.

 

[Kev]

give me a f***ing break. the rest of the world are a bunch of dickless wimps who are afraid to do anything about terrorism. china wants to support iraq? f*** china. we'll kick their f***ing asses too, and all the other little s***hole countries who want to mind our business. i hate do-nothing whining crybabies. wtf do they expect us to do? sit on our hands while we're under attack by terrorists? don't they remember ww2 when europe sat on their ass while hitler plowed through eurpope? goddamn idiots.

I agree with the following quote from the article:


<< The real question that should be asked now, however, is not why the rest of world doesn't like or doesn't support America, but rather why does America care so little about the rest of the world?
>>

what has the rest of the world done for us lately? f*** them all.

 

[burnedout]

The ABM treaty was not just a guarantee for the U.S. and U.S.S.R., for them to be free to get out of it at any time, unilaterally. It was also seen as a guarantee for "the rest of the world" that the self-styled super-powers know how to impose limits on themselves and do not hint at global domination, under a military umbrella.

I see. So what are we supposed to do with non aggressive"visionaries" such as Saddam Hussein and KIM Chong-il? Coddle and appease them perhaps? Ha! Have you ever seen large numbers of oil wells burn ala' "up close and personal"? It's easy to rant and rave about the reasoning behind the DMZ, Freedom Bridge and Panmunjon when you've never been there.

Problem is that the two aforementioned "visionaries" have decided to engage in the devolopment of WMD. And furthermore, the cancellation of said treaty signed with a superpower in 1972 was neither unexpected nor out of place with a world which has evolved since 1972. Simply stated, Putin wasn't blindsided with the proposal.

Those who advocate steps that can lead to another arms race, thinking China would bomb L.A., need to think in a global perspective. Otherwise, this nothing more or less than insular thinking, although it's a pretty big island. But whether "Size Does Matter" (to quote a movie slogan) it's another story.

We ARE thinking in a global perspective my dear. It's called prevention. Would you rather we nuke them all right now or develop an active defense and allow them to pursue more "peaceful" avenues of insidious prolifieration?

All in all, this is an honest perspective of the U.S., as seen from the outside. It is not the only one, and it is far from comprehensive. You can choose to ignore it, but you can't seriously expect everyone to like you. If knee-jerk reactions like the one immediately following my first post become doo dominant, instead of allowing for a calm, pleasant and relaxed dialogue, then the hatemongers win, and we'll see more September 11, Gulf Wars, Bay of Pigs, and Munchen conferences in the years to come.

To begin with, what kind of "knee jerk" reaction did the United States exhibit following September 11th? Even the Russians have admitted that US combat operations in Afghanistan were not based upon an immediate, emotional response. US reaction to the situation in Afghanistan wasn't a "knee jerk", but rather a measured response. For if it were a "knee jerk" as you so imply, then Afghanistan would no longer exist.

Next point being is that who started the Persian Gulf War? The United States invaded Iraq, right? Should you believe that, I continue to propose thousands of square kilometers of swamp land in the Mojave Desert for sale. But please, don't let the facts get in the way of a good whine.

The Munich Conference.... The Germanic spelling of M&uuml;nchen has an "umlaut" by the way. Are you implying the conference in which Chamberland sold out the Sudetenland, and ultimately the remainder of Czechoslovakia to Hitler? Appeasement, perhaps? To view the United States in either context (Chamberland or Hitler) borders on ridiculous.

There have been wars for centuries. Unfortunately, there will probably continue to be wars and there will continue to be those with the "Blame America First" attitude as well.

 

[JohnnyReb]

ok, so you hate the United States.... why do you have to go to a board choked full of americans to express your beliefs?

Man, this is typical. Anyone who questions what the government does "hate(s) the United States..." Well, I submit that anyone who DOESN'T question the government hates the United States. A brief look at our history shows plenty of stuff the American people should not have allowed.

BTW, a question can be answered in the affirmative. Questioning doesn't mean disagreeing.