What a Letter

ORIGINAL: ron2

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.

Very good point there, my wife is from the Phillippines, USA helped them to get their independence from Spain and because that reason they loooooooooooooooooooove USA, they love it so much that they talk english and Tagalog (their natural lenguage) at the same time (something like spanglish) even on TV, they give the news in both lenguages

In the game TV shows they dont give away trips to their beautiful beaches, they give trips to San Francisco, this time Spain didnt keep a grudge against USA.

I still feel USA would save a lot of headaches by letting the ONU handle those situations, is like doing it myself because i'm a big guy instead of calling the police when my neighbor is doing something against the law. It was worth to help Phillipines but it was not in Vietnam, i think it depends on if your relatives die or not, i dont know any mother who lost a son in the war that is still pro-war

Send the Bush twins first so George can feel what all those mothers, fathers, sons, daughters feel when he send their relatives to war, there is congressmen that have kids on the right age to go there, only one did it

Yes, send troops to hunt for Osama, he did it, Iraq? "oh well just in case", there has not been one single decade since WWII that USA has not been in a war, i dont know if that is a good fact to brag about, today are the terrorists, yesterday were the comunists, tomorrow someone else

Why not using all that money to have free medi care like Canada?, why not use that money to help Africa? you name it, there is more urgent stuff to do that going to war "just in case someone that hast not do anything yet plans to do it", USA is mad because Iran is testing nuclear energy, why they cant do it? they have as many rights to do it as anybody else

My neighbor does not like me, he has knives in his kitchen, should i go and kill him "in case" he plans to do it? should i be the only one with the rights to have knives?

I dont know but when USA went to the ONU to ask for help against Iraq 98% of the countries said no, you dont have to be Einstein to realize that if more than 150 countries say one thing and you say the opposite then maybe, just maybe, they are right

Thank God China pulled North Korea ears after their nuclear test because Bush was thinking to jump in that one also

This is why i like dogs more than most people..[]

I can admit the US has made mistakes. We started the UN. Look how effective that is today. We still make mistakes. The sovereignty we grant native nations is lip service. For example, the indian nations were exempt from cigarette tax. So, a lot of people would drive to Oklahoma to buy cigarettes on the reservation. Well, 1-1-07 saw the expiration of that exemption and now the nations have to pay tax to Oklahoma and so they will raise their prices and people will quit driving there to buy them, which will reduce their revenue. You could pick any product but cigarettes was a quick, easy example. The govt. says it grants sovereignty to indian nations yet don't want to allow some to have their peyote ceremonies, which is a religious thing, because peyote is an hallucinogenic and the govt would love to consider it a controlled substance and put it in the crosshairs of the DEA.

We didn't go to Iraq to find Osama. We went there to kick Saddam Hussein out of power and break up his part of the terrorist network that facilitates people such as Osama. He did have WMDs. Even the democrats were saying so when Clinton was in power. Clinton, himself, had ordered air strikes against Iraq when they would violate no fly zones, etc. Well, WMDs don't just disappear. I give you three guesses as to where they are.

One might also look at the integrity of the terrorist network. They left Saddam hanging in the breeze but Osama is still free. Why? Because people are hiding him and supporting him. I think Iraq will be another Korea. When we leave, they will be in a stalemated civil war, as they are now. But we cannot give up on fighting terrorism because they will strike us regardless of what we do or don't do. And the only way to survive that is stop them before they do it. We have to get CM on their backsides at the first sign of escalation, to put it in terms you might understand.

ORIGINAL: ron2

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.

And that's great. But having been born in the US and lived there all your life, you also don't have the perspective of someone outside the US and that's always the main criticism of the US - that in a very large sense, it policies and its people don't acknowledge or care about the rest of the world outside its own economic interests.

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?

I know a number of people who are grateful for American intervention in their country, military or economic. I read a huge variety of media and history sources - I do not feel this way because I am ignorant of other views. We are talking specifically about the sources of terrorism and people who are happy about US presence in their countries aren't becoming terrorists - we're talking about the millions of people who are unhappy, whose lives have been devastated, who do not know how to voice their grievances, who sometimes turn to violent revolt. I have never meant to imply that the views of these people are the only views of American intervention, but I feel these views usually go unacknowledged and misunderstood in the US. I do not see anything anti-American about acknowledging the history of the US and the true impact it has had on so many people, nor do I think it is anti-American to be sickened by the killing and maiming of people, even if those people happen to not be American. I think US foreign policy is a huge problem and should be re-examined for the betterment of people and cultures all over the world, including the US.

And I'm not sure if you know this, but since the invasion and occupation of Iraq, there has been a deep return to fundamentalism in Iraq. The position of women in particular has been completely altered - in many areas, women are now not able to go outside alone, not able to attend school or work, not able to choose the hijab but wear it as mandatory. Assuming that US intervention leads to the improvement of human and women's rights is very dangerous because there have been countless cases in which US presence - military or economic - has actually lead to the crumbling of existing rights, either in direct or indirect ways.

And I have been able to speak freely in all the countries I have lived in. It is not a right unique to the US. I don't see why I should thank the US military for my right to voice my opinions in Canada, on the internet.

And I have been able to speak freely in all the countries I have lived in. It is not a right unique to the US. I don't see why I should thank the US military for my right to voice my opinions in Canada, on the internet.

inne,

I think in terms of historical perspective, the world would be in a completely different form right now if it weren't for the US's intervention in WWII.  The world wouldn't consider English as the language of commerce and flight-those would be German, most likely.  And the Eastern Hemisphere would have an Emperor. 

What I got out of Ron's comments was that historical perspective.  And I also think that's a viable point, whether or not millions of lives were destroyed in the process.  There are countless regimes and nations and local municipalities that do not allow free speech, nor borderless travel within bordering provinces or states or counties. Nor do they allow the ownership of firearms, or internet. 

In another way, 90% of all internet traffic runs through the very county, in fact the very area of this county that I reside in.  Without the US you actually wouldn't be able to post in such an expedient manner, you'd still probably be able to post though.

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

I think in terms of historical perspective, the world would be in a completely different form right now if it weren't for the US's intervention in WWII. The world wouldn't consider English as the language of commerce and flight-those would be German, most likely. And the Eastern Hemisphere would have an Emperor.

Canada also fought in WWII and made great contributions, as did many other nations of course. In non-US history books, you generally find a much more extensive account of multinational collaboration and contribution; yes, US contributions were great, but to single it out as the sole factor isn't looking at the entire context of the conflict. (Look at how the war is portrayed in Russian history, for example - there is a quite different picture of who "won" the war - here are some views about Russian influence: http://www.faqfarm.com/Q/What_did_Russia_do_during_World_War_2 ) And there's no real way of knowing what would have happened if the US didn't come in (very, very late). The attitude that the entire world owes all its freedoms to the US because of WWII gets kind of old and is, historically speaking, inaccurate. Canada, the UK, Sweden, etc. all have extensive, rich histories of its own civil liberties and civil rights struggles, complex histories concerning the right to expression and it is frustrating when we are told that our rights are all thanks to the US. It is also frustrating when the right to expression is brought in as a justification for all US military action. Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with anyone threatening freedom of speech in the US, for example, yet it is common to say that we should be grateful for the military that *currently* protects this right. But this right isn't being threatened by anyone but the US government itself.

While English is the international language of commerce, French is the international language of diplomacy

In another way, 90% of all internet traffic runs through the very county, in fact the very area of this county that I reside in. Without the US you actually wouldn't be able to post in such an expedient manner, you'd still probably be able to post though.

Now I have to be grateful for the US for the internet too (which, again, there's huge international involvement in the developing and maintenance of and if the US wasn't involved in the primary infrastructure, the project would gladly be taken up by many others, as is actually widely advocated - see this for example: http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,16376,1585288,00.html andhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/5388648.stm )? You know what I was saying.

Also, the inventor of the WWW is British:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Berners-Lee

Do you feel grateful to the UK every time you're able to have an internet fight? Or the 11 European countries that established CERN? Or EDSAC in Cambridge for getting a computer up and running in the first place? And Alan Turing for inventing modern computer science? And, in turn, are you grateful for the British military for securing the country in which this took place, so that eventually you could use your freedom of expression on the internet? I mean, where does it end?

Does the US military feel grateful for Nobel and Sweden as a whole for inventing dynamite, creating endless explosive opportunities? Or the the Chinese for inventing explosives in the first place? It is odd to me that there is such a common attitude that people must be 'grateful' to the US for various things, yet the US benefits constantly from the cultures, work, ideas, etc. of other countries and I don't see anyone saying "gosh, I am so grateful for Greece" or demanding that you should be.

it was stated in one of the previous posts that american's opinions maybe different if we had been in the shoes of the people in the various countries that hate the US.

to turn that around, maybe if those people had walked in the shoes of an average american they wouldnt be soo quick to condemn and hate an entire country. it seems the world just accepts their hatred without expecting change on their part, but expect the US to bend and adjust to everyone else out there.

it is a safe bet no iraqi or french or swedish or ... knows what it is like to live as an average US citizen struggling to make ends meet. just like i dont know what it is like to live as an iraqi, french, swedish, or....

as to the US's contribution to WWII.... we may not have won the war single handedly, but from what i remember about world history things were going poorly for the allied forces before the US entered the battlefield. so while the US may not have won the war alone, it seems easy to see that the US was a decisive factor in the allied forces winning the war. but what he hell do i know, i am just a dumb american making life difficult for all the world's people. [8D]

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

to turn that around, maybe if those people had walked in the shoes of an average american they wouldnt be soo quick to condemn and hate an entire country. it seems the world just accepts their hatred without expecting change on their part, but expect the US to bend and adjust to everyone else out there.

The vast majority of people don't have an issue with American people trying to make ends meet. They oppose policies and military intervention and the hatred is for governmental and corporate action - institutional action - not you or me as individuals. This is made quite clear in many statements issued by terrorist organizations, by interviews with terrorists and their families, etc. I think the way a lot of images of dissent are portrayed in the US is inaccurate - the burning of the flag, for example, is a common form of protest of the government, of ideology, not of a population. Hatred of or opposition to America is not the same thing as hatred of or opposition to the American people, although you certainly can argue that in a democracy the government and its actions theoretically represent the will of the people and the people are ultimately responsible.

I don't mean to keep bringing Robert Pape up over and over again, but he wrote a really fantastic book that I think is extremely enlightening and should be read by anyone with an interest in why terrorism (specifically suicide terrorism) happens. His findings contradict most popular assumptions about terrorism and I think it's a very important work because we can't change anything if we misunderstand the problem in the first place. You can read about it here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_to_Win:_The_Strategic_Logic_of_Suicide_Terrorism#Ch._4:_Targeting_Democracies

There is also a very good article here in PDF form:

www.danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf

You may also be interested in the work of Michael Scheuer.

as to the US's contribution to WWII.... we may not have won the war single handedly, but from what i remember about world history things were going poorly for the allied forces before the US entered the battlefield. so while the US may not have won the war alone, it seems easy to see that the US was a decisive factor in the allied forces winning the war. but what he hell do i know, i am just a dumb american making life difficult for all the world's people. [8D]

See the link above about the involvement of Russia for a different perspective (there are many sides to this, of course). Historians disagree on this point and different countries are invested in presenting different versions of events as part of their national histories and mythologies.

Edit: For example, all my Finnish relatives are very invested in the version that the US won because they hate Russia for what they did to Finland (The Continuation War) and this translates on a national level. My grandfather hid behind the barn while his house was being bombed - of course he's not going to be happy about Russia's involvement no matter what it really ended up being.

well then maybe the problem is that many americans see the hatred of america as hatred of americans.

it is hard not to take it personally, when i see on tv or read in the news people stating that they hate america or americans. maybe i shouldnt, but it is hard not to.

ORIGINAL: cyclefiend2000

well then maybe the problem is that many americans see the hatred of america as hatred of americans.

it is hard not to take it personally, when i see on tv or read in the news people stating that they hate america or americans. maybe i shouldnt, but it is hard not to.

And I completely understand that! My god, I had so many arguments about America and Americans while living in other countries; there are a lot of stupid assumptions, a lot of misinformation and I completely got defensive and angry about it. I think the important thing is to try to sometimes separate these huge, very personal emotions we feel from facts so that we can make responsible, informed, smart choices to work towards something better.

inne,

In no way will I discount the contributions made by Canada to the allied effort to fight the axis forces.  However, without the attack on Pearl Harbor and the declaration of war on the USA by Adolph htler, the US wouldn't have had it's war machine awakened.  Once Rosie the Riveter took off her apron and put on her welding gloves, the industry of war was changed forever.  The united states coordinated, supplied, communicated and fought a multi theatred war, and unprecedented event and one that will never be effectively duplicated. 

The Russians, too, would have never gotten involved had it not been for the stupidity of .  Luckily he was a proud idiot or quite possibly the Maginot line wouldn't just be a footnote in history.  I say idiot because the lesson of engaging the Russians was learned by France in the 19th century. (very diplomatic, eh?)  At that point the French couldn't even run away with their tails between their legs because they were too cold to run.

  Now I have to be grateful for the US for the internet too (which, again, there's huge international involvement in the developing and maintenance of and if the US wasn't involved in the primary infrastructure, the project would gladly be taken up by many others, as is actually widely advocated - see this for example:

No you don't have to be grateful for the internet.  You have that option.  However the major developments in computer based technology have been funded and emplaced by US based companies.  So if you want to be grateful for the improvements in high speed internet, you certainly can. [] I don't think I would stop you. 

Does the US military feel grateful for Nobel and Sweden as a whole for inventing dynamite, creating endless e opportunities? Or the the Chinese for inventing es in the first place? It is odd to me that there is such a common attitude that people must be 'grateful' to the US for various things, yet the US benefits constantly from the cultures, work, ideas, etc. of other countries and I don't see anyone saying "gosh, I am so grateful for Greece" or demanding that you should be.

You'd probably be surprised at how grateful the US is to classical Europe/Asia Minor for contributions that have bettered society.  I mean the idea of a represented republic isn't american.  Most of us know that.  Heck some of us even take classes in rhetoric and philosophy too.  Those are sandwiched between the "yay I'm American101" and "How to offend Every other country 201" classes that are required in any and all fields of study. 

I'm kidding there and probably shouldn't have included that, but I'm trying to make a point.

Americans, are a snapshot of the world.  We are comprised of every race and creed.  We don't have a warm cuddly history.  We are a land of pioneers, do it yourselfers.  We live in a open country with vast amounts of resources.  Our way of life spawned some 300 years ago when a few people decided "to heck with religious prosecution."  We also tend to think of the best in people, until those people offend us or cause harm to our enterprises, economy, or citizenry. 

Let's not forget which country supplies the world with grain.  Which country has historically given aid to nations where none other would.  How much money in outstanding loans has the US forgiven to other nations?  How many bushels of grain?  How many times has America shouldered the financial burden when other countries refused? 

Sure, there's always going to be a few people angry at the policies of our government and our President.  But unlike Putin, Bush won't have them poisoned.  Unlike Saddam, Bush won't have them beaten, humiliated and then executed.  Unlike Ceaucescu or Pol Pot he won't have them buried in mass graves.  He won't have them run over by tanks, or simply make them disappear.

Certainly there are policies that the US holds that aren't popular, there are faults in any system of government.  There will always be those people that seem to "slip through thecracks ."  That is a given circumstance.  At least in America you can speak out against the government, you can hold an unpopular opinion, and you can live to speak out another day.  America has a fully voluntary military, it's not compulsory as the service is in so many countries.  America is not afraid to set policy and follow through with it, and it will, in most cases help out the little guy.

So America doesn't apologize for the creation of Israel.  So what?  That's what the major problem in the middle east is, and the US supports Israel.  Where is the rest of the world in it's support of Israel?  Is the world's memory too short?

So don't thank America, but there's millions of people that are still alive-that didn't starve because of American farmers...who may not read world newspapers or know who Vincente Fox is, but they darn sure know how to get the maximum yield out of an acre of grain.  And for that they are heroes for those that would go hungry no matter where in the world those people reside.


ETA spelling.

ORIGINAL: Xerxes

Sure, there's always going to be a few people angry at the policies of our government and our President. But unlike Putin, Bush won't have them poisoned. Unlike Saddam, Bush won't have them beaten, humiliated and then executed. Unlike Ceaucescu or Pol Pot he won't have them buried in mass graves. He won't have them run over by tanks, or simply make them disappear.

What? Bush created Guantanamo as a lawless space in which torture is practiced. People are held without charge. The US has admitted regular use of torture in detention centres in Iraq and Afghanistan, has admitted maintaining secret prisons in which to torture. Tanks run over children in Baghdad because they are instructed not to stop in case they are being 'trapped'. Daisy cutters and other highly imprecise weapons that maximize civilian casualties are used. There are mass graves of millions of people all over the world whose deaths have been the direct or indirect result of American actions. There would also be mass graves in Hiroshima and Nagasaki if anything was left to bury. The US supports, funds and arms regimes and organizations throughout the world that torture and murder their people. While there are many wonderful things about the US, many great humanitarian missions carried out, many great inventions, policies and people, the US certainly also has a history of carrying out and supporting atrocities and this is a big problem to me. Making a list of everything that's good about America doesn't make up for these things. Why say "we're not as bad as ...."? Why not live up to higher standards, more humane practices? Why not say "The US doesn't impose sanctions that create humanitarian crises," for example? Wouldn't that be great? Or "The US does not supply arms to countries that use them to carry out human rights violations, war crimes and violations of UN resolutions."? Or "The US will not perpetuate the suffering of Third World people to advance its capitalist projects."?

So America doesn't apologize for the creation of Israel. So what? That's what the major problem in the middle east is, and the US supports Israel. Where is the rest of the world in it's support of Israel? Is the world's memory too short?

I don't agree with Israel's policies and I don't agree with US support for Israel for a HUGE list of reasons (if you're interested, Amira Hass is a great place to start) that is a totally different topic of conversation. The "so what?" is that people are dying, displaced, annexed, tortured, and raped.

So don't thank America, but there's millions of people that are still alive-that didn't starve because of American farmers...who may not read world newspapers or know who Vincente Fox is, but they darn sure know how to get the maximum yield out of an acre of grain. And for that they are heroes for those that would go hungry no matter where in the world those people reside.

Do you remember the Green Revolution? You could say that millions of people also starved to death directly or indirectly because of American capitalism. In fact, I will say it - a lot of people starve to death because of American capitalism. As Vanada Shiva writes, "The contemporary food crisis and famine conditions stem from the globalisation of agriculture through the Green Revolution." (there's a huge, fascinating body of work on this) A lot of people have their own land and farms taken from them because of US-led policies (see land reform programmes).

I don't write any of this just to say horrible things about the US or because I think it's the worst country ever in the history of the world (clearly that's Luxembourg ), but because I think it can use everything that is wonderful about it for great things rather than the destruction it regularly practices. It can be better than this. And I think it's important for people to understand the place of the US in the world - including these terrible things - so that we can understand why people feel the way they feel, do what they do, and so we have an accurate picture of ourselves. Because we didn't just take in refugees or bring down dictators, we also toppled democratically elected leaders for our own benefit and supported death squads and all of this needs to be acknowledged.

Tanks run over children in Baghdad because they are instructed not to stop in case they are being 'trapped'. Daisy cutters and other highly imprecise weapons that maximize civilian casualties are used.

whether we like the war in iraq or support the decision to invade iraq, we are in the middle of a war in iraq. civilian casualties are a part of war. in fact a high rate of civilian casualty is responsible for winning wars in many cases. it breaks the resolve of the people.

take for instance a US only war, the american civil war. sherman was highly responsible for breaking the resolve of the confederate forces. what did he do? killed every living thing in his path and burn down all the houses and businesses. was this a good thing? i suppose that depends on who you ask. was it effective? i think history speaks for itself.

smart weapons are great if you can readily identify the enemy. but when the enemy looks like everyone else that is totally different. what good would it be if your smart weapons killed the person standing in front of you with a gun but missed the person beside him with a concealed bomb.

ORIGINAL: inne

And that's great. But having been born in the US and lived there all your life, you also don't have the perspective of someone outside the US and that's always the main criticism of the US - that in a very large sense, it policies and its people don't acknowledge or care about the rest of the world outside its own economic interests.

I totally agree with this point 100%

You have to live outside USA to be able to see the whole picture, just like when 2 friends fight, a third person is the only one able to see both sides and realize that just as the 2 of them maight have valid points they also might not be right

Any country can brag about what it has done for the world because everybody knows that any other could be able to do the same sooner or later anyway

But the US shouldn't be killing ANYONE in Iraq, period. This war is not inevitable - the US has choices and it can choose to stop killing Iraqi people. What are these killings accomplishing aside from preventing the deaths of US troops (but ultimately leading to more violence, as evidence shows)?

About being in the middle of a war in Iraq and needing to 'break the resolve of the people', it's not like the US is being bombed by Iraqis and needs to do all they can to 'win' the conflict. America could pull out tomorrow. It would leave a huge mess behind (of it's own creation - a mess America clearly cannot fix), but the American mainland would not be affected either way. George Bush has very effectively tied Iraq to 9/11 but anyone with a cursory awareness of the situation knows that they had nothing to do with it. Almost all those fighting the US occupation are Iraqis fighting an army that has come to invade their country, as much as they're called terrorists, they are a resistance force and not 'terrorists bent on America's destruction'. I mean, what would you do if a foreign nation invaded the US, bombed your house, killed your children and you had no military to defend you? Would you not resist? I imagine I would.

Also, "smart weapons" doesn't really mean that they're highly precise. Smart bombs, for example, are notoriously imprecise and lead to high civilian casualties as well because they depend on accurate intelligence. Routine incidents of "accidentally" hitting civilians, weddings, hospitals, Red Cross facilities, Somali nomads, etc. should indicate that intelligence leaves a lot to be desired.