What a Letter

Our secret is poutine. Why would you want to destroy the country that brings you this tasty treat?

I suggest you take a much closer look at the news then, because it has certainly happened. Except the flag burning part - I haven't seen that. At the same time, you might want to look at exactly why Canada isn't hated in the way the US is; start by looking at foreign policy and military action.

what changes would you like to see?

i remember several years ago, a chinese student stood against a chinese tank in tienamen (sp?) square. he and his compatriots were crushingly defeated by the chinese government. at the time there were a lot of people around the world that thought the UN should have taken military action against the chinese government and help the protestors (assumedly to install a democratic government). we did nothing. should we have? maybe. would the world have liked us better if we had helped those protestors?

currently there is a civil war taking place in darfur. as i understand it (and i could be wrong), the largely muslim population is killing anyone who isnt muslim. a growing faction of people in the US think we should step in and help the people of darfur. what exactly should we do (if anything) so that we could help the people and be see in a good light on the world stage? if we provide aid and assistance to the people who are dying, the oppressors will hate us. if we do nothing, the people dying will hate us. some of the people we intend to help will hate us either way anyhow.

i think a lot of the animosity towards the US is because we are the big kids on the block. we hold a large arsenal (including nuclear weapons), have a thriving economy, and for the most part a happy public. so i see how it is easy for a poor person in a third world country could hate us.

regardless of what anyone may think, i didnt think we should have invaded iraq either time. however, we are there and i, as a taxpayer, expect that if we go to fight, we go to win.

Yay, Doug. Thanks, Billy. I have studied different religions and I respect everyone the same. But this is a holy war, whether America realizes it or not. What really bothers the people is that we support Israel. That's not a bad thing, just that we need to accept that reality, keep supporting Israel, and be prepared to decimate the enemy in entirety. Quit titptoeing around, quit lettting congress tell soldiers how they must "engage." Let the military do what they are good at. Killing lots of people and blowing things up. And I don't say that flippantly. It is what they are good at, so let them do it. It's either that, or we pull out.
 
If we pull out, we won't have soldiers dying over there. We will have soldiers dying over here. That is, action over there keeps trouble concentrated over there and that's the way soldiers want it.

By the way, I have lived in the US for 15 years

 
I have lived in the US all of my life, where as you live in Canada.
 

I disagree with torture as used for interrogation. Drugs work much quicker and more effectively. And if I were a soldier or CIA and a suspect was linked to a plot to poison the water of my county, I'm not going to care if I hurt his feelings. I'm going to peel his mind back like an onion. I will do things I despise in order to protect my country.
 
Evidently, we're supposed wait to be attacked over and over again, like 9-11-01, as opposed to going out and engaging the terrorists where they live. That thought might work if you live in Canada but America is all about kicking butt and taking names. We are the super power because we engage the enemy without hesitation.
 
That being said, I don't see where long-haul occupation is going to help. The terrorist mindset is too ingrained in some cultures. It's their cottage industry. Wake up, say prayers to Allah, blow up innocent civilians. I think the war on terorrism is better served by surgical strikes and special forces. Send a sniper imbedded in a SEAL or AFSOC team, a 1,000 yard guy with a .50 cal. Get in, take the shot, get out. Now, we will have to do this over and over, again, as each despot rears his ugly head. Who knows, we may accidently get bin Laden, travelling in a cell that is targeted.

inne, first of all great post!  Of course I will counter it as much as I can and as effectively as I can here.  I think we're either providing too much entertainment or boring all the other readers to death with our posts-oh well.  I'm enjoying this debate greatly-and learning some things in the process-as I hope you are too.
 

  You'd be 'singing a totally different tune' about America is if you'd walk a mile in the shoes (or crutches, depending or disability due to injury) of a person affected by American military aggression (Korea, Vietnam, Lebanon, Libya, Grenada, Panama, Nicaragua, or Iranians living under the US/UK supported Shah, Iranians [500,000] killed by war with US supported Iraq, Iraqis affected by years of punishing sanctions and bombings, or anyone currently living in places like Uzbekistan under the current US supported dictator

 
The area that I live in, adjacent to Washington DC, is one of the most diverse in the nation, in terms of race, ethnicity and religious beliefs.  The majority of my coworkers are immigrants from Vietnam, Korea, Sudan, Lebanon, Ghana, Iran, Iraq, South and Central America and a very large majority of my customers are from the middle east-Pakistan, India, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Oman (and other Gulf States,) Egypt, Turkey, Afghanistan and many other places as well.  I talk to them about this very subject.  The overwhelming majority, 99 of 100 that I talk to, have been very supportive of the role that the US is playing in "freeing my country" and "taking those people out of power."  For as they say to me "those people take everything from my family."  Not so much the Koreans, as the overwhelming majority of them absolutely HATE the communist regime of North Korea-and down to a man would fly back to Korea and don a uniform should a war break out. 
 
So maybe I haven't turned it around and "walked a mile" in their shoes, or their combat boots.  But I do frequently discuss policies and opinions with them, as well as with the political dignitaries that frequent my dealership.  (Kennedy, Buchanan and Dole-to name three that come to mind quickly.) 
 
I personally am not a supporter of American Imperialism, nor a fan of spreading democracy for the sake of spreading democracy.  But I can certainly understand the justification of such.  Throughout history countless thousands have died trying to spread democracy and recognize the legitimacy of human rights-and denigrate the governments that deny those basic rights. 
 
Ever since the writing of the Magna Carta the debate surrounding basic human rights has been waged-and nurtured by the spilling of human blood.  That war will continue long after we have become worm food.  There will always be regimes that deny basic rights and those that fight haplessly, benignly against those regimes.  And then there will be those whose fight is joined by the US, after pleading to the UN and watching the UN forces idly stand by-doing nothing.    There will always be those Jimmy Carter's and John Kerry's of the world who would rather talk about it than do anything about it. 
 

  I think you misunderstood what I was saying. "Ahistorical evil" means evil that comes out of nowhere - rootless, context-free evil with no cause. It has no history.

If you want to be relative about vaporizing people, while Osama can and has vaporized thousands, America is the country with the largest (by far) nuclear arsenal of which thousands of warheads are ready to be launched within minutes of an order with the effect of vaporizing many many millions of people. think about that... if George Bush decided to, many millions of people would be dead within hours. America is also the only country to have ever used nuclear weapons against a civilian population.

 
Agreed, but that situation was a bit different and also in a different time. 
 
Sure America has a large nuclear arsenal.  But that doesn't scare me.  What scares me is the nukes that are in the hands of several former soviet republics.  These nukes are the most likely to be detonated.  These nukes are the most likely to be stolen.  Besides which, the amount of refined U238 and U235 in the world today is not under as tight control as one might think.  Not to mention that you or I could easily build a low grade weapon with instructions that we could download from the net.  I don't even need instructions to build a small yield bomb-it's not as difficult as one might think.
 
Here in America the majority of law abiding citizens have firearms.  Just because they have them doesn't scare me-but that's what you're saying on a global scale.  The US has nukes and the world should be scared.  Using that logic I should never drive in TO on a weekend night-since the drinking age is 18 and there's some mighty strong beer there.  I mean I don't want to end up getting into a MVA due to some drunk 18yr old that couldn't keep a 3 chevron distance from my bumper on the motorway.
 

  At the time Saddam gassed the Kurds the US had nothing against it, and provided the chemical components in the first place for the war against Iran. Not a single politician in the US has ever had the courage to say anything about a decade of support for Saddam and apologize to the Iraqi people, or at least acknowledge it and admit the mistake.

 
Agreed.
 
Though the US did allow many Kurds to seek polital asylum here and waived alot of the normal pursuant requirements so that they could bring their families over as well.
 

  Regarding the Imam... do you think that comments made by leading Israeli politicians about the 'destruction' (mass murder) of Palestinians and Iranians warrants US military intervention?

If Israel is able to advocate pre-emptive nuclear attack on Iran because of a perceived threat, why is it not justified for Iran to think the same when faced with Israel's existing nuclear arsenal?

 
Israel has had nukes for how many years?  How many times have they used them? 
 
Iran has what kind of history, with respect to waging guerilla warfare or state sponsored terrorism? 
 
Perhaps the percieved threat is all that stands in the way of Iran attempting to finally fulfill Xerxes dream of actually ruling the world.(That's the historical Xerxes, not my dog.)
 

  And isn't the US government currently on a huge campaign to recruit people to carry out and support their military missions by portraying Iraqis, Arabs, Muslims, etc. as threats that warrant the suppression of international law, human rights, civil rights and due process? Isn't the US dehumanizing Iraqis, not even acknowledging the extensive and methodologically impressive studies of civilian deaths? Isn't the US dehumanizing Iraqis by calling them "jihadists" and "terrorists" when in fact they are resistance forces? Terrorist organizations certainly have no monopoly on propaganda.

 
If an Imam is preaching jihad and I call those who follow his teachings "jihadists" is that dehumanizing them?  It's not any more dehumanizing than the things they say about us.  Are they truly resistance forces?  Not as much as you might think.  The majority of the combatants now are imports, immigrants who come from Syria and other nations to take a chance on killing US personnel, and civilian workers.  They like to wield their knives in front of cameras and show the world how strong they are...they like to take the bodies of their enemies and desecrate them.  Is that humane? 

I did not say it is impossible. I absolutely think it is possible to make informed and effective policy, but I think the way in which terrorism has been framed by the US prevents that from happening because the US wishes to absolve itself of its own responsibility for terrorism.

 
No you didn't say impossible.  Those are my words.
 
Let me explain.  If I'm a zealot-which I am-and I want to wage a war-which I don't, but if I did, there's no way to stop me.  Especially if I have a bully pulpit from which to preach.  How do you make policy against those who would fight in unconventional ways, that are not represented fully by any government?  You don't.  If it were possible you'd see no abortion clinic bombings, no laboratories blown up because of animal testing, no logging sites vandalized and equipment ruined, and no IED detonations on the hiways and byways of Iraq.  You cannot eradicate terrorists and jihadists if the very children that you seek to free are enslaved by corrupted teachings of the Koran by imams or supposed teachers.  You cannot because those children are going to grow up within the strictures of their cultural belief systems-and if those systems promote violence then those children will grow up thinking violence is a logical end and a correct means with which to achieve goals.
 
If you want to talk about responsibility for terrorism, it goes back a lot further than the creation of the nation of Israel in  1948 (I think.)  Let's go back to the "conversion" of the masses to Islam via the trade routes of the middle ages.  The Crusades.  Heck we could even blame Shakespeare for part of this as well.  All of this "terror" concept spreads from misconceptions and notions and miscommunications, as well as the laying of blame. 
 
The absolution of blame is never going to happen.  The US protects it's political allies as well as it's capital interests.  Economics is the goverment of the world now-and alot of countries and cultures blame the US for having the "chutzpah" and the ability to back itself up. 
 

  American soldiers in Vietnam were also worked in to a 'frenzy' when dealing with people who were completely dehumanized to them. Troops working themselves into a frenzy and dehumanizing the enemy is a routine part of war, including for Americans. There are countless videos of American troops doing exactly this in the US, videos captured by the troops themselves, by journalists and filmmakers. There is an ever-increasing number of troops testifying to their own participation in human rights violations and objecting to the tactics used in Iraq, testimony they give at their volition in public spaces to voice their disagreement with the occupation.

 
BINGO!  Gen. Sherman said it best.  "War is hell."
 
My own quote regarding war.  "War is total." 
 
The American psyche, as such, needs to have justification to kill.  Working one's self into a frenzy to kill another human being is a necessary evil.  Having been in combat situations myself I know that I could kill if necessary.  Having to deal with my actions later, however, would be very hard.  War is total because it's not as simple as aiming at paper targets, squeezing the trigger and going home that night.  War rages in one's mind, in one's soul, in one's nostrils, in one's guts and in one's heart.  And then you get a two week leave and go home and they expect you to say please and thank you and could you please pass the salt.  Then you're back and covered in sweat and grease and blood and grit.  War is total and it should be the most terrifying spectacle and the most grotesque of all human endeavors.  It should be terrible, total and complete.  So that those who have experienced it should never want to experience it again. 
 
Dehumanizing? You bet.
 

  The preaching of radical religious views is not the threat. The threat emanates from people affected by American military action, almost always taken for economic interest

 
I already agreed with the latter portion of that excerpt.
 
As for the former part.  You're right preaching religion, no matter how radical isn't the problem.  However preaching violence and destruction certainly is. 
 
One of the fundamental rights of man is to be able to practice religion in their own way.  Those who preach violence along with the teachings of Mohammed would seek to interfere with that right.  And they seek to interfere violently with that right.  That certainly is a fundamental part of the problem.
 
I find that the Abrahamic faiths have cause almost all the bloodshed in this world as it applies to belief systems and religion.  Such an exclusive group yet such a violent group as well.
 

  How do people in Middle Eastern countries orchestrate effectively against destruction by the US?

 
One word.  SURRENDER.

I think the biggest problem that USA has is playing "world police", that is what have bring too many enemies to USA, if they support a country on its fight against another then is that other country that joins the "hate fan club" against USA, they dont hate Canada, they dont hate Latin America, etc. because those countries mind their own business

I think the real "world police" is the ONU and USA step on it after the ONU deny permission to attack Iraq

There should be a rule in USA that if they want to go to war then the president and congressmen children should be the first ones to go, i bet they would think about it twice before sending other people's family also but since is not their children then is not such a big deal to think about going or not  

ORIGINAL: ron2

By the way, I have lived in the US for 15 years

I have lived in the US all of my life, where as you live in Canada.

And? I have no idea what point you're trying to make. That i'd agree with you if I lived in the US? That my perspective would be different? I lived in the US from 1986 until September 11, 2001. Yes, that was the day I moved to England for university. My parents still live in the US, I visit it frequently, all of my best friends live there, I read American media, watch American television, etc. I have lived in Canada for one year (officially). I am not American by birth, I am Swedish, but I am a naturalized American citizen.

I'm just going to respond to this first part quickly, then I have to run out and do some stuff.

So maybe I haven't turned it around and "walked a mile" in their shoes, or their combat boots. But I do frequently discuss policies and opinions with them, as well as with the political dignitaries that frequent my dealership. (Kennedy, Buchanan and Dole-to name three that come to mind quickly.)

Right, you discuss it with people who obviously like America enough to come to America (a really hard process - you have to REALLY want it). That's like discussing America with my dad and thinking that it reflects how Swedish people feel about the US; it doesn't. My dad's view of America is very different than most in Sweden and that's exactly why he's an immigrant. This is totally divorced from those who disagree with America so much that they would never live there and, in fact, wish to protest its actions in the form of violence (just as America "protests" in the form of violence, but they have a huge military with which to do it so it is seen as legitimate). Those are the people I'm talking about.

Also, when you're an immigrant in the US, there's a huge expectation that you should be grateful and even a white girl from Sweden like me can get a lot of nasty comments if I, as an immigrant, criticize the US. I can only imagine how much more difficult it is for less privileged people, people who are already presumed to be potentially dangerous, to voice these opinions to an American. If nothing else, the "then go back to where you came from!" (you have no idea how many times I've heard this) that seriously comes in 99% of such conversations gets really old. None of which means that your conversations are meaningless or don't offer some perspectives on these issues, but you're also talking to a primarily self-selected group of people and, well, immigrants often self-censor around Americans, at least in my experience.

ORIGINAL: probe1957

Success is sweet too, isn't it Amy?  Especially when it is captured on video.  []

 
I guess Im slow today.... or just hungover... but I need clarification lol... I dont get it.  You mean his death on video? 

Right, you discuss it with people who obviously like America enough to come to America (a really hard process - you have to REALLY want it).

 
Actually the majority of them don't really like America.  They like the economics here.  Most plan to work for 20-25 years and then retire in their home countries, presuming there is enough of their home countries left to retire in.  The majority of my South and Central American friends have already gone back to Honduras, Nicaragua, Argentina, Columbia, Panama-taking with them a sizeable chunk of American currency-in some cases hundreds of thousands of dollars.
 
The main problem is that the heartland Americans don't get to see that this truly is a world economy and that rainfall in Indonesia directly affects the price of their shirts, of imported woods.  That a sunken ship in the straits of Malacca has a causal relationship with their ability to get replacement parts for their widget.  But the converse is true as well; a drought in Iowa has a direct effect on the price of grain in the world market. 
 
Fortunately the access to information is much more readily available than it was when I was growing up.  People are learning to care and to understand the world dynamics, both economic and political.
 

even a white girl from Sweden like me can get a lot of nasty comments if I, as an immigrant, criticize the US. I can only imagine how much more difficult it is for less privileged people, people who are already presumed to be potentially dangerous, to voice these opinions to an American. If nothing else, the "then go back to where you came from!" (you have no idea how many times I've heard this) that seriously comes in 99% of such conversations gets really old. None of which means that your conversations are meaningless or don't offer some perspectives on these issues
 

 
Point taken.
 
I am not one of those who would say "love it or leave it" and I actually am one of the few that embrace emigres from other lands.  I like a fresh perspective and I will banter and debate with anyone-seemingly about anything []- in order to gain that perspective.  I am opinionated, but I will not judge those who don't share my opinion.  I realize that my ancestors came to this country and were faced with a much tougher challenge:  adapt or starve.  They even capitulated to the mass hysteria surrounding the Irish and dropped the "O" from their name to fit in.  So I do not denigrate those from different cultural backgrounds or heritages.  I try to understand their viewpoint-so I can learn something.
 
Inne, I'm working on a blog entry, I'll PM the link to you when it's finished.  I'd be interested to hear your comments on it.  It's has some contextually common content to our discussion here.

I am not one of those who would say "love it or leave it"

 
I, however, am one to say it. I have a bumper sticker on my camper top that says "if you must burn our flag, please, wrap yourself in it, first." And I mean it sincerely.
 
Family and friends of mine have almost all been military vets, most with combat experience. And they did what was required so that we have peace on our shores. We have it better in America than anywhere else in the world and we can change our leader any time we want to. Either wait for an election or impeach. We did that before. Bye-bye Nixon, hello Ford.
 
I am not a knee-jerk patriot and this country could fix somethings and do them better. Here's a test for democrats. As far as I can tell, the next president will be a democrat, partially because the republican party doesn't have a strong runner equal to Bush. While in office, do you think that a democratic president and congress will repeal the Patriot Act, which was only a move to legitimize what the govt. does, anyway? Bigger question - do you think they will want to? Power is intoxicating. I do not agree with the Patriot Act. I'd prefer those actions to remain illegal as a control. They will happen, anyway, but at least we have a check against power hungry despots.
 
One of the reasons we play "world police" is because we are the only nation that has the cajones to do something about the wrongs. It's easy for someone outside this country to criticize what we do. How come I don't hear anything from them about the cyclic genocide that goes on Africa?
 
Here's another test.
 
You have two candidates for president.
 
First one always says what he means and means what he says and will do whatever he thinks the nation needs. Is faithful to his wife, and is a vegetarian and doesn't smoke.
 
Second one lies every time he opens his mouth and even can screw some things up. Sleeps around on his wife every chance, eats meat and smokes cigars.
 
First one: Adolf Hitler.
Second one: Bill Clinton.
 
Appearances can be deceiving. If it appears that America is doing wrong, then are we really doing wrong and from what perspective? I am not one to criticize another country, even if I don't agree with some of their politics. I understand alternate perspectives yet remain true to my country. In the same breath, I don't want to see another terrorist attack on this country and will do whatever it takes to see that doesn't happen again. When flying up to New Jersey in 2005, I had full resolve that if a terrorist stood up on the plane and tried to do something wrong, I wouldn't care what his viewpoint is or how many anti-american diatribes he's read. The end result is that I will walk off the plane after it lands safely and he will be carried off in a body bag. And that's the fact, Jack (sorry, I saw "Stripes" too many times.)
 
As Ed has pointed out, the people who are actually involved in the countries where we take action are appreciative of what we do. The only people that have a problem with it are those who have not walked a mile in someone else's shoes.
 
So yeah, I've got big cajones. My country is the United States of America. Love it or leave it. This country was founded on that slogan and it's still good enough for me.
 

Ron...Hitler was himself the inventor of "The big lie." He also said, or I'm told it was attributed to him, that "the bigger the lie, the more people will believe it." 

Also he may have been physically faithful to his wife but he had some really disturbing "tastes" from what I've heard.
 
I totally understand where you are coming from Ron.  Great post.  I'm also with you that the Patriot Act is wrong, but it does legitimize programs that have been ongoing since satellites have been used to transmit/recieve long distance phone calls. 
 

but I am a naturalized American citizen

Then, as american citizens, we have the right disagree. A right protected by the US Constitution and physically secured by soldiers that fight against tyranny so that it doesn't happen here. Being born here, to me, means a few things. This is my country of origin and I think it's the greatest on Earth and nothing can sway that, in spite of our mistakes.

I think it gives me a different perspective than yours. I have several family and friends that were and are military vets. I know why they did what they did. Short of actually being there, I have walked a mile in their shoes and would readily do so now if I weren't an old fart.


After 9-11-01, I looked up enlistment info. I was too old. Then they raised the enlistment age, and I was still too old. But given the chance, I would have gone over there, borrowed a .308 and walked into whatever hole in the ground, er, I mean, cave, and find bin Laden and splatter his brains all over the rock. Without hesitation, without remorse. The same way a farmer shoots a snake headed for the chicken coop. Except that I think a snake has more honor and integrity than bin Laden.

Perhaps, in the interest of fairness, you might read opinions from people who's country we helped. I think there were a few Kuwaitis that were glad to see us. Would you care to read anything positive from the Iraqi Govt? How about the leader of Somalia, who has profusely thanked the American surgical strikes for getting rid of terrorists in their country? Or is that too pro-american? It would diminish the thunder of an anti-american rant if you included those things.

So, I won't ask you to do so. You're on a roll and enjoying it and thanks to the sacrifice of american military, you have the right to do so. In some of those countries you think we shouldn't have gone to, women are not allowed to vote, go to school, or express public opinion. Wouldn't that suck?

does legitimize programs that have been ongoing since satellites have been used to transmit/recieve long distance phone calls.

 
To me, the movie, "Enemy of the State," with Will Smith and Gene Hackman was almost a documentary. The fact is, our government and all technologically savvy governments have been doing that for a long time. The only check against it is that, if caught, there are penalties, such as the Watergate hearings and the impeachment of Nixon. That hasn't stopped illegal surveillance but it is a control on it to keep it illegal. Yes, the Patriot Act is just trying to make legit what  a govt. does, anyway. The problem with the Patriot Act is in trying to impose military procedure on a civilian process. The military is not a democracy. It is a dictatorship and must be so in order to be effective. That was something Clinton could not understand since he did not serve. He went to college in Europe during the Viet Nam War. Bush, at least, was in the National Guard, so at least he understands how military operates. In the military, you have prisoners of war and they do not have civilian rights. A prisoner of war can be held without representation for as long as necessary and in a tribunal or court-martial, the accused is presumed guilty until proven otherwise, kind of like the popular media.[] The Patriot Act is trying to codify this military standing into civilian law and I don't think it should happen. I also don't think the democrats have the backbone to dismantle it. Why? Because they will use it for their own purposes.