 |
| |
|
|
SlowwHand
|
 |
of The Cooler
Sep 1999
time: 23:24
|
|
Here. Read this, maybe again; maybe first time.
It's about North Korea primarily.
It's been circulated on the internet, and sums up perfectly just how I feel.
The U.S. was EXTREMELY restrained in response to 9-11.
I know. You disagree. But that's ok. You are safe in your right to disagree. You live in a free country.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Charles Krauthammer: U.S. has very few Korean options
01/07/2003
By CHARLESKRAUTHAMMER
When the secretary of state goes on five Sunday-morning talk shows to deny that something is a crisis, it is a crisis. The Bush administration has been downplaying the gravity of North Korea's nuclear breakout, and for good reason. For now, there is little the administration can do. No point, therefore, in advertising our helplessness.
But there is no overestimating the seriousness of the problem. If we didn't have so many of our military assets tied up in the Persian Gulf, we would have carriers off the coast of Korea and be mobilizing reinforcements for our garrison there.
North Korea is about to go from a rogue state that may have one or two nuclear bombs hidden somewhere to one that is in the nuclear manufacturing business. And North Korea sells everything it gets its hands on.
This is serious stuff. And the clock is ticking. We have no idea how far along the North Koreans are on their uranium enrichment program. But we know that when they fire up their plutonium reprocessing plant, they will be months away from creating a real nuclear arsenal.
The problem is that we have few cards to play. Militarily, we aren't even in the position to bluff. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was duty-bound to affirm America's capacity to fight two wars at once. Unfortunately, that capacity went by the boards at least a decade ago, and the North Koreans know it.
Moreover, even if we weren't preoccupied in Iraq, we might find ourselves self-deterred from doing anything militarily against North Korea. Yes, we could bomb the nuclear processing plant in Yongbyon. The problem is, that won't destroy Pyongyang's entire capacity for producing nuclear weapons, the way the 1981 Israeli attack on the Osirak reactor destroyed Iraq's.
And given North Korea's propensity for using special operations, infiltration and sleeper agents (techniques it has used with success against South Korea), we have to imagine it might retaliate with a smuggled nuclear weapon against American facilities or perhaps even against the American homeland.
But even if nukes weren't a consideration, we would be deterred by North Korea's conventional military capacity. Unlike Iraq, it has a serious army, a million strong and possessing thousands of artillery tubes, many hidden in caves, many that can reach – and reduce – Seoul.
In other words, North Korea already may have passed the threshold to invulnerability from American attack. So, the administration has chosen a strategy of economic and diplomatic isolation. The idea is to squeeze the North Korean regime to the point where it no longer can function.
That could be done. China supplies nearly all of North Korea's energy and 40 percent of its foodstuffs. South Korea has significant investments in North Korea. International organizations provide a huge amount of food aid.
The problem with that scenario is that South Korea and China don't want to play ball. They fear the chaos that might ensue. The American containment strategy already was falling apart on Day 1, when both the South Korean president and the president-elect criticized it. The Chinese have been even more recalcitrant. They show no inclination to deny North Korea what it needs to survive.
What to do when your hand is so poor? Play the trump. We do have one, but we dare not speak its name: a nuclear Japan. Japan can't long tolerate a nuclear-armed North Korea. Having once lobbed a missile over Japan, North Korea easily could hit any city in Japan with a nuclear-tipped weapon. Japan doesn't want to live under that threat.
We should go to the Chinese and tell them plainly that if they don't join us in squeezing North Korea, we will endorse any Japanese attempt to create a nuclear deterrent of its own.
If our nightmare is a nuclear North Korea, China's is a nuclear Japan. It is time to share the nightmares.
Charles Krauthammer writes for The Washington Post.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kontiki
|
|
Canada
Aug 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
As something of an aside, I think the author is quite wrong about the US military capability/intent. The US has long maintained the "two-and-a-half" war capability - it hasn't diminished. Rather, it's nearly impossible to have two fronts where you are so overwhelmingly superior in almost every military facet. If the US really wanted to fight Iraq and NK at the same time, it could - it would just have to accept much greater losses. The reason I bring this up is because I seriously doubt that a military build up would occur around NK in the absence of an Iraqi situation, for the simple reasons that the US does not want to piss off the Chinese (not saying China would necessarily get involved in a war, just that the US wouldn't want to risk it), nor does it want to get into a conflict with NK even if the Chinese remained completely neutral.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
 |
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:24
|
|
ah.. just to note... what in the world would make anyone think that the government setup by american would be any better than Saddam...
Besides Iraquis were the best of the ME bunch (of course those who did not stand on Saddams way) until after the Kuwait war. After 10 years of isolation they seem to be materially destroyed. However what makes you think that new governmet US installed will refrain from purposefull killings and executions Saddam style to keep itself in power? All other dictators that US supported did that. Well you might say it will be a democracy. Let me see what happens when Iraqis elect some "very anti-US" candidate in the elections. 
Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, El Salvador, Chile... thik of US involments in the past and how can you imagine that the US lead government will bring anything better than Saddam is for the Iraqis themselves. US is doing this war for itself, and a few hundred thousand possible victims (but more probably much less, depends on resistance) is not something the US government cares really about. It cares about it just as an marketing afterthought. In the past they had to throw the "unfriendly" dictators or democracies discretly, as USSR would not allow direct involment. These days even that is not neccessary anymore as US is allowed to flex its superpower muscles. Actually there is noone to stand in the way that thinks it is worthwile their effort.
But to be fair to US... neither do others care for people... we still have to wait for that to happen to a major power. It is just that the west is the biggest hypocryte of all because of long term democracy. The population have developed some sense of what is a "just war". So the administration has to present it as such, whatever the case, just to aviod being unpopular. Still it is just a marketing trick.
Last edited by OneFootInTheGrave on 07-01-2003 at 22:28
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
|
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Sloww,
I read your link. It is nice to know that there are some people out there in the rest of the world who don't blame the USA for everything, but they are the minority. Of course, he ignores several other causes of anti-American sentiment besides the jealousy he mentions (which I do think plays a part, especially in Europe). Those reasons being a number of foreign policy ****ups, stupid comments by various US officials that give the impression that we're arrogant, callous SOBs, and hypocrisy on a number of issues.
-Arrian |
The problem is that because of US behaviour nowdays even more are likely to die in the future from similar attacks as US seems to be putting fuel on the fire and not estinguising it.
Well I guess I elaborated a few times questioning the US policy in former threads.
Check this out http://www.eatthestate.org/07-07/UndeclaredWar.htm
quote:
In such a context--with, as background, a massive gap in relative wealth and the steady invasion of Western brand names, pop culture, and social values--the idea that an undeclared war is afoot makes an awful lot of sense. Moreover, it's exactly the apocalyptic vision Osama bin Ladin himself was quoted as desiring when the 9/11 attacks were unleashed. Remember bin Laden? The whole post-9/11 War on Terror, including an invasion of Afghanistan, ousting of its government, indefinite imprisonment of soldiers defending their country against foreign invaders, imprisonment or deportation without charges of thousands of Muslim non-citizens within the United States, and passage of freedom-eroding bills like the USA PATRIOT Act and (most recently) the Homeland Security bill were all ostensibly about bringing bin Laden to justice and ensuring that such attacks wouldn't happen again.
Last month came word that bin Laden was still afoot, and both then and after the Kenya attacks, an astonishing thing happened in response: Nothing.
No vows of capture or bringing to justice, no renewed efforts at apprehension, no demands that the country "harboring" bin Laden (that phone call came from somewhere, right?) either hand him over or face the fate of the Taliban. It simply was, to all DC appearances, no big deal.
Hello? Is bin Laden a threat to the United States or not? If he is, then he and Al-Qaeda should be the country's top security concern, not Easter egg hunts in Iraq or Warlord mediation programs in Nangarhar. If groups like Al-Qaeda and the threat they pose are of no military consequence, and simply a matter for criminal investigators ala the FBI, then can we start, oh, I don't know, pulling our military out of a few dozen countries and chopping a few hundred billion out of their budget next year?
Either way, the last thing the Bush Administration should be doing is waging, or even being perceived as waging, a war against 1.2 billion of the world's people. That perception--and, in many ways, reality--is out there. It is the perception that the United States and Israel (seen, by many Muslims, as effectively interchangeable) are out to not only apprehend a small number of violent criminals who happen to be Muslim, but to subjugate the entire Muslim world, with those criminals as the convenient pretext for its actions.
Judged in that light, US actions in Afghanistan and in its obsession with invading Iraq make a lot more sense. So does the seeming lack of concern at bin Laden's whereabouts. Oddly enough, the United States would at the moment have a lot more credibility in the Islamic world if it actually seemed serious about wanting to apprehend or thwart bin Laden. Instead, it is inspiring thousands of Osama imitators, and at the moment it's hard to imagine many of the world's Muslims using "United States" and "credibility" in the same sentence.
The Kenya attacks and their aftermath are reminding Muslims that the United States is not simply threatening war. It is already waging war; its targets are much, much broader than a few well-organized terror groups; and the people willing and inclined to fight back are also much, much greater in number than they were 15 months ago.
In any war each sides invariably claims victimhood; they insist that the enemy started it and is at fault. And so it is in this war, undeclared or not. Americans remember 9/11, and attacks like last week's; Muslims draw upon the whole of American foreign policy for the last 15 months, overlain on decades of American abuses during the Cold War and centuries of Western colonial barbarism.
The Bush Administration seems intent on pouring massive amounts of gasoline onto this fire. |
that I already posted in this thread
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=70394
That is the resason US policies are not universally loved. I'd like to love them but they (the policies and actions) don't seem right.
And not to make it an US bash thingy... I don't like the actions and "given reasoning" from Blair either. Who seems to be just a puppet soldier that Bush coordinates. What about finishing the Afghanistan job first, sorting out the new bases od Al Quaeda in Afghanistan, catch Bin Laden... and start with some country rebuild program where you can do it - namely Afghanistan. And show with that its "finally good" intentions. A good example liike that would do wonders to make the US reputation better in the eyes of the Euros and Muslims too. (Help from Euros wouldn't be shunned I am sure for rebuilding of the country). Still what does US do with the opportunity - ah it costs too much, it is better to spend 100 bn on military and bash Iraq next.
What US is doing is overthrow a regime... deal half-heartedly with the terrorists (well pursuing them, those who were caught and "convicted" are dealt with inhumanely on the other hand).
Where is Afghanistan starting ot be build up, investment, creation of some order and peace a few miles further from Kabul? And now the same victor comes to you and says we will conquer and reorganise Iraq, and you buy the story.
Where are WOMDs where are Nukes? Nowhere... so far... or if they found them what about disarming the nation first before attacking. No... of course not, now the wish to free the Iraquis from Saddam is enough to start the war... Noone had that wish 15 years ago while Saddam was US boy... but still killed all the Iraqi opposition nevertheless.
Last edited by OneFootInTheGrave on 08-01-2003 at 00:59
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
In such a context--with, as background, a massive gap in relative wealth and the steady invasion of Western brand names, pop culture, and social values--the idea that an undeclared war is afoot makes an awful lot of sense. |
Bullshit. If the author said that foreign policy decision such as our support for Israel, our backing of sanctions vs. Iraq, our demonization of Iran, etc. are indications of an undeclared war, that would make more sense. It's still a bit of a stretch, but it's a helluva lot more concrete than "a massive gap in relative wealth and the steady invasion of Western brand names, pop culture, and social values." I'm sorry, but when I go down the "international food" isle at the local Stop&Shop, I don't think my country is being invaded.
I agree with the author that most Muslims buy into the "America + Israel against us" argument, but I reject the idiotic statement that it's because of McDonalds, Brittney Spears and the concept of equal rights for women. No, it's based on an entirely different combination of factors:
1) US foreign policy
2) The policies of their (Arab/Muslim nations) goverments. This includes political repression, corruption, and poverty, and of course propoganda to blame it on someone else (US/Israel)
3) Lack of education: this of course goes for Americans who don't understand what's going on either, but the fact of the matter is that the "Arab street" is not an educated bunch of people. What they "know" comes from the local Mosque, and we know what they think of the US. That's worse than someone who forms their opinions by watching "The O'Rielly Factor" (*shudder*)
4) The "David vs. Goliath" syndrome. We're bigger, stronger & richer, so we're assumed to be the bully (and if we really are acting like a bully, it's even worse).
OFITG, I don't believe you for a second when you say:
quote:
I'd like to love them but they (the policies and actions) don't seem right. |
Sorry, but your posts just don't jive with that statement.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
|
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
Bullshit. If the author said that foreign policy decision such as our support for Israel, our backing of sanctions vs. Iraq, our demonization of Iran, etc. are indications of an undeclared war, that would make more sense. It's still a bit of a stretch, but it's a helluva lot more concrete than "a massive gap in relative wealth and the steady invasion of Western brand names, pop culture, and social values." I'm sorry, but when I go down the "international food" isle at the local Stop&Shop, I don't think my country is being invaded.
I agree with the author that most Muslims buy into the "America + Israel against us" argument, but I reject the idiotic statement that it's because of McDonalds, Brittney Spears and the concept of equal rights for women. No, it's based on an entirely different combination of factors:
1) US foreign policy
2) The policies of their (Arab/Muslim nations) goverments. This includes political repression, corruption, and poverty, and of course propoganda to blame it on someone else (US/Israel)
3) Lack of education: this of course goes for Americans who don't understand what's going on either, but the fact of the matter is that the "Arab street" is not an educated bunch of people. What they "know" comes from the local Mosque, and we know what they think of the US. That's worse than someone who forms their opinions by watching "The O'Rielly Factor" (*shudder*)
4) The "David vs. Goliath" syndrome. We're bigger, stronger & richer, so we're assumed to be the bully (and if we really are acting like a bully, it's even worse).
OFITG, I don't believe you for a second when you say:
Sorry, but your posts just don't jive with that statement.
-Arrian |
OK... you picked the first sentence that is the easiest to disagree with  ... I give you that however look at the rest.
Well on your points 1. - well we agree here
2. - don't forget that the gov in question - Hussein was being introduced/ supported for a long time by US. (as are most other ME regimes apart from Iran/Syria/Libya - hey axis of evil ) And you will find out that apart from the three AOE countires above all other governents are more friendly towards US than is the normal population.
3. - I agrre with this sentiment but as you can tell from 1 and 2 - US actions do not help the sentiment here
4 - maybe - but I wouldn't say that much. China is bigger and better and noone cares about them even they are a communist dicatorship. The thing is that the Chinese did not spread havoc during the Cold war and after in the ME region while US did.
and on my statement:
Well you might not believe me.... but trust me when I say that I was a true US supporter when US helped my country to get rid of the invaders. (Croatia) While I see that as right in that respect. I still make the questions and the US actions make me even more certain that what US is doing now is not good and is putting many people (including me living in the UK) at risk. Furthermore I do have very good reasons for that, and I would love to agree with US actions, I guess Clinton sutied me much more, still he was no saint  , and if I was an adult in Carters day and age... he would have suited me even more... but hey we have Dubya, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft. Make your own judgement upon their actions. History will show what it the correct way. Actually it has shown many times... It seems to me that the current administration is heading the one towards even greater destruction for both participants.
You can say that I did a full turn on US... but still I would like to love them stands. If I did have no reasons to support my dislike - your belief would be fair... but hey why do you discount reasoning, and say that I cannot like US policies and actions?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
|
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by SlowwHand
So in other words, as long as it affected you and yours it was ok.
Kind of like the U.S. is doing now.  |
No it is not true, as well helping free up 1/3 of the country from occupation is legitimate and in the process they stabilised the region permanently.
This is one of the rarer US correct judgements of 20th century, and one I am particularly glad for... esp as they went in agains UK/France/Russia, and on side with Germany ...
Still to make it clear why yes regardless of the country invbolved - freeing up the territory that was occupied (I don't see that in Iraq). Balancing out another county (Bosnia) - well at least there was a posibillity for peace in there after that, that lasts until today, however that country was fcked beyond repair in the Balken war (comparing it to prewar status, however US has nothing to do with that of course). All in all Balkans is now pretty safe place that it wouldn't have been wasn't there the US influence.
However why did US act there for apparently humanitarian reasons - well it was a war in the middle of Europe, UK and France were trying to broker something for a few years unsuccessfuly already. And there is nothing worth fighting for in there apart from the peace in Europe I guess which is still important in the region.
It would be good to see US so unbiased on other places, but ask Rwandese what they thought of western help and when it had arrived. Well in Croatia it arrived late too... but still better late than never (anyway the fighting was done by us, US helped at the end only, diplomatically and strategically).
Still on Iraq - is it a threat to US? To have to attack now? Of course not - but we discussed that many times didn't we ...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
|
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
OFITG,
It's not that I don't think there isn't any reason to dislike the US government. I clearly stated that there are many factors that could push someone into an anti-American mindset. In your case, however, there is something more. This is my opinion, based upon your posts. Your word choice, your choice of issues, the general tone of your arguments... it's pretty clear to me that you really enjoy railing against the big, bad USA. It could be a misinterpretation on my part, I acknowledge that. But that's my opinion.
With regard to you liking Bill Clinton over Dubya:
This is the man who ordered a strike on an aspirin factory in the Sudan so that the US public would go "ooh, look at the pretty fireball" instead of paying attention to his dalliance with an intern. Clinton is partially to blame for the image people of have of politicians in Washington "wagging the dog" - which is one thing Bush is currently being accused of. Clinton (like many before him) damaged the credibility of the US government. Big time.
-Arrian |
Well for the aspirin factory or the Chinese embassy in Belgrade true... but Bush's Axis of Evil, and current Iraq, plus all the other disregard for the "international community" -from Kyoto onwards huh beats Clinton hands down several times already... and he has not finished his first mandate yet.
And on me - well you have the right on your opinion - fair enough,
* edit: still what do you think of "rebuild Afghanistan now when you have the chance - to show the world who US really is." idea, as opposed to taking down Saddam so quickly? (btw... Afghanistan could have been started long ago).
Wouldn't that remove one terrorist breeding ground and proide for a good base in Asia, plus show to others what can really be done and that US in not so evil as it seems?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
|
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
We keep crossposting.
I agree we need to work on Afganistan, and I think there needs to be more of a focus on it. There are major differences between Afganistan and Iraq, however, in that Iraq is a relatively developed country compared to Afganistan (despite our bombing runs). Afganistan has next to NO infrastructure. It's tribal as all hell, and cultural values are downright medieval. Therefore, I honestly think that Afganistan will take a long time to become a stable country, even if we throw gobs of money at it.
The Warlords are a sticky issue. On the one hand, it doesn't look good to be supplying them with money or arms. On the other, if we don't work with them, we have to work against them, and they are (as I understand it) tribal leaders with the support of the local people. Turning them against us isn't all that bright. So you do a deal with the devil. This is how it happens. You pat them on the head, give them a piece of the pie and politely look the other way when they subject women to virgin inspections (seriously, what planet are these people from?). Otherwise, you have to deal with them as enemies. Which would you do?
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DinoDoc
|
 |
AECCP loves Democracy
Sep 1999
time: 23:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
4 - maybe - but I wouldn't say that much. |
quote:
Views of world elite at core of U.S. problems abroad
By Vladimir Shlapentokh and Joshua Woods
Much of the debate over anti-Americanism abroad boils down to a single question: Who's responsible for it — them or us?
The Pew Global Attitudes Project's recent gargantuan survey, which stretched its tentacles across 44 countries and included some 38,000 people, found that America's rating has slipped, but "a reserve of goodwill toward the country still remains."
That seems a windfall for America's image abroad compared to the decisively negative views we discovered in our own yearlong study of foreign elite opinion. While the Pew project focused on the masses, our study measured the reaction of foreign elites — that is, people who shape the foreign and domestic policies in their countries — to the events of 9/11, as reflected in the international press. We analyzed more than 4,000 articles from the 10 largest newspapers in China, Colombia, Egypt, Germany, India and Russia, most of them published Sept. 12-15, 2001. While many of these articles were written by pundits who are paid to be provocative, we also separated and measured the opinions of political, business, cultural and religious leaders.
Our major finding: Elites in much of the world hate the USA. Even the so-called outpouring of sympathy for America following 9/11 never really materialized among most foreign elites.
In India, for instance, a columnist called America "a bully," while a religious leader said the USA was "a hypocrite who bombs the people it feeds." In Egypt, a politician proclaimed that "America's racist foreign policies are the main cause of Sept. 11." Although Egypt receives more financial aid from the USA than any other country in our project, the Egyptian elites in our study labeled the USA "a terrorist" 16 times more often than they called it "generous or charitable."
Views harm anti-terror efforts
This hostility has a tremendously negative effect on the struggle against international terrorism. It creates an adversarial climate in which terrorists can find support among ordinary people; foreign intelligence agencies are less willing to share information with their U.S. counterparts, and U.S. military operations are impeded. It also generates political capital for the opposition in countries where the leader cooperates with America.
The disparity between mass and elite views sheds light on the cause of anti-Americanism. When the masses abroad think of the United States, they may consider its military's brute force or the improprieties of its leaders — but they also see Hollywood, high technology and a chance for a better life. The USA received high scores in the Pew study for culture, particularly science and technology.
Masses vs. elites
More importantly, immigration to the USA is the dream of the masses — but not the elites. Foreign elites already have their place in society. They see only America's power, authority and confidence — for the simple reason that America's power exceeds their own.
Power is the prism through which elites overseas view America. The "superpower status" of the USA is the leading characteristic in foreign elites' descriptions of America. The country's power is indeed the main cause of anti-Americanism in the world.
As for "American culture," the term hardly exists in the lexicon of foreign elites. When we ranked the images used among elites abroad for the USA, "rich culture or strong educational institutions" ranked 37th; "technologically advanced" was 14th. Even "brave, courageous or bold" ranked 31st. These and many other positive U.S. images were eclipsed by "tries to impose its will on other countries" (second place), "cares only for its narrow interest" (fifth), "warlike" (sixth), "hypocritical" (eighth), "arrogant" (10th) and "terrorist" (13th).
"In many ways, we are viewed as the rich guy living on the hill," said former secretary of State Madeleine Albright, chairwoman of the Pew global survey.
Albright is almost right. America is the rich guy on the hill, loved by many in other countries but despised by the elites who control those countries' institutions. Given that, anti-Americanism will likely persist as long as the U.S. storehouse of military and economic power holds. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
|
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DinoDoc
quote:
Views of world elite at core of U.S. problems abroad
By Vladimir Shlapentokh and Joshua Woods
Much of the debate over anti-Americanism abroad boils down to a single question: Who's responsible for it — them or us?
The Pew Global Attitudes Project's recent gargantuan survey, which stretched its tentacles across 44 countries and included some 38,000 people, found that America's rating has slipped, but "a reserve of goodwill toward the country still remains."
That seems a windfall for America's image abroad compared to the decisively negative views we discovered in our own yearlong study of foreign elite opinion. While the Pew project focused on the masses, our study measured the reaction of foreign elites — that is, people who shape the foreign and domestic policies in their countries — to the events of 9/11, as reflected in the international press. We analyzed more than 4,000 articles from the 10 largest newspapers in China, Colombia, Egypt, Germany, India and Russia, most of them published Sept. 12-15, 2001. While many of these articles were written by pundits who are paid to be provocative, we also separated and measured the opinions of political, business, cultural and religious leaders.
Our major finding: Elites in much of the world hate the USA. Even the so-called outpouring of sympathy for America following 9/11 never really materialized among most foreign elites.
In India, for instance, a columnist called America "a bully," while a religious leader said the USA was "a hypocrite who bombs the people it feeds." In Egypt, a politician proclaimed that "America's racist foreign policies are the main cause of Sept. 11." Although Egypt receives more financial aid from the USA than any other country in our project, the Egyptian elites in our study labeled the USA "a terrorist" 16 times more often than they called it "generous or charitable."
Views harm anti-terror efforts
This hostility has a tremendously negative effect on the struggle against international terrorism. It creates an adversarial climate in which terrorists can find support among ordinary people; foreign intelligence agencies are less willing to share information with their U.S. counterparts, and U.S. military operations are impeded. It also generates political capital for the opposition in countries where the leader cooperates with America.
The disparity between mass and elite views sheds light on the cause of anti-Americanism. When the masses abroad think of the United States, they may consider its military's brute force or the improprieties of its leaders — but they also see Hollywood, high technology and a chance for a better life. The USA received high scores in the Pew study for culture, particularly science and technology.
Masses vs. elites
More importantly, immigration to the USA is the dream of the masses — but not the elites. Foreign elites already have their place in society. They see only America's power, authority and confidence — for the simple reason that America's power exceeds their own.
Power is the prism through which elites overseas view America. The "superpower status" of the USA is the leading characteristic in foreign elites' descriptions of America. The country's power is indeed the main cause of anti-Americanism in the world.
As for "American culture," the term hardly exists in the lexicon of foreign elites. When we ranked the images used among elites abroad for the USA, "rich culture or strong educational institutions" ranked 37th; "technologically advanced" was 14th. Even "brave, courageous or bold" ranked 31st. These and many other positive U.S. images were eclipsed by "tries to impose its will on other countries" (second place), "cares only for its narrow interest" (fifth), "warlike" (sixth), "hypocritical" (eighth), "arrogant" (10th) and "terrorist" (13th).
"In many ways, we are viewed as the rich guy living on the hill," said former secretary of State Madeleine Albright, chairwoman of the Pew global survey.
Albright is almost right. America is the rich guy on the hill, loved by many in other countries but despised by the elites who control those countries' institutions. Given that, anti-Americanism will likely persist as long as the U.S. storehouse of military and economic power holds. |
|
OK... acknowledged.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
|
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:24
|
|
quote:
Our major finding: Elites in much of the world hate the USA. Even the so-called outpouring of sympathy for America following 9/11 never really materialized among most foreign elites. |
Definitely.
Following 9/11/01, I did a lot of reading of editorials and "letters to the editor" in foreign papers (which I still do, but not quite as regularly now), along with catching some CBC and ITN programs regarding 9/11. The overwhelming message was "you had it coming, you arrogant bastards." The messages of sympathy were thin and contrived, for the most part. I don't think we squandered goodwill following 9/11, because I don't think there was much goodwill following 9/11. It was just lipservice.
Now, our wealth, power, etc. are only part of the reason most people viewed 9/11 as our comeuppance. Like I said before, there are other factors. That's for the "common man." For the elites, clearly different weight is given to the various factors. I'm not really sure I agree with the general thrust of the article, DD, but I sure do agree with the assessment of foreign elite opinion on 9/11.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
|
Kuzelj
Nov 2000
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Arrian
We keep crossposting.
I agree we need to work on Afganistan, and I think there needs to be more of a focus on it. There are major differences between Afganistan and Iraq, however, in that Iraq is a relatively developed country compared to Afganistan (despite our bombing runs). Afganistan has next to NO infrastructure. It's tribal as all hell, and cultural values are downright medieval. Therefore, I honestly think that Afganistan will take a long time to become a stable country, even if we throw gobs of money at it.
The Warlords are a sticky issue. On the one hand, it doesn't look good to be supplying them with money or arms. On the other, if we don't work with them, we have to work against them, and they are (as I understand it) tribal leaders with the support of the local people. Turning them against us isn't all that bright. So you do a deal with the devil. This is how it happens. You pat them on the head, give them a piece of the pie and politely look the other way when they subject women to virgin inspections (seriously, what planet are these people from?). Otherwise, you have to deal with them as enemies. Which would you do?
-Arrian |
and yes... we keep crossposting  , I missed this one.
I agree with you more than many here (perhaps MTG, out of pro-US people) ... anyway it is tricky -for sure, however I believe the US stance was - we get rid of the Taliban and Al Quaeda camps and we get out IIRC.
Now we both agree that is wrong. I guess debating what would be the way to actually rebuild Afghanistan is a separate thread topic (but helping people in their traditional jobs (educationg), helping them make food and organise themselves in the way they want to, not giving them leaders, but giving them means to survive- is my idea - there are plenty of starving people out there now, could help with irrigation, whatever is the way they produce food, housing (tents if they use them) etc... . Not only that noone is touching these issues they even haven't cleared out all Al Quaeda camps either... and are not doing it at the moment apparently  (there was a post I made about this recently), and now comes Iraq...
And for lipservice post 9-11... surely everyone does that, this is politics afterall.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Drogue
|
 |
Omnipresent conscience
Oct 2002
time: 05:24
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
Why was England justified in invading Germany in WWI and II if it was England that had declared war on Germany because Germany had attacked an ally? Why not stop when Belgium and Poland were liberated? At least duing WWII, Germany tried to make peace with England throughout the war. Germany made it clear that it did not want war with England. Germany made it clear that it was only responding to attacks by England on Germany.
By your own analysis in the case of the US and Iraq, England was unjustified in invading Germany during either WWI or WWII. |
Yes, I believe they should have stopped there. Indeed they tried. Haig I think to was (unless I've got the wrong) wanted us to be lenient on Germany, to keep it as a trading ally, and was against complete invasion and occupation. Sadly, it was not his decision though. However I don't think it was a massive failing that they did, like I don't think it was a massive failing that the UN did not stop at defending Kuwaitm, although I do feel it should not have been done. A difference between Germany and Iraq is that Germany was a threat to all fighting against her, whereas Iraq posed no threat to the USA or UK. I do understand why we went to Iraq, but I feel the UNs mandate only goes so far as defense. If Iraq had invaded the US, I would feel better about invading Iraq.
Germany tried to make peace with England? Not as far as I've read, if you have a source I would be interested. Moreover, we had alliances that we would enforce the neutrality of Belgium. I would have been in favour of stopping at Germany's borders, but even those were disputed at the time. WW1 I'm afraid I know little about so cannot really comment.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24.
Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-01-2003 21:35
|