American anti-Americanism: What's the cause? Will it persist? If not, then what?

Great Debates
121

It amazes me how the pro-war people continue to argue against a strawman. I don’t know ANYONE who would not have conceded the following points:

  1. Saddam is (was) an evil tyrant.
  2. The U.S. military was vastly superior to the Iraqi military
  3. The U.S. was capable of defeating the Iraqi army.

Yet conservatives still pretend that everyone opposed to this war supported Saddam, and thought we would lose the war. It’s just not true. Virtually nobody thought that. And no, nobody is “flummoxed” or “embarrassed” that the U.S. won the war. It would have been pretty amazing if we were unable to win the war, what with our vastly greater resources.

What people like this author just aren’t getting is that Bush pitted himself against MOST OF THE WORLD in invading a sovereign country. You just don’t do that. Doesn’t matter if you think France is a bunch of pussies and they should have supported us, you still don’t unilaterally invade other countries. No, even if they’re evil.

Here’s a question: How would we feel if China decided to invade a country in the Middle East and set up a communist regime? If they replaced an evil regime in the process, and they were able to conclude the war in a month, would that make it OK? Would we be “flummoxed” or “embarassed” by our nay-saying? I think not. As a country, we need to take the blinders off and see how the rest of the world is looking at us. They aren’t saying “Gosh, we sure gotta hand it to the ol’ USA - that war worked out just peachy-keen”.

Here’s the other thing that’s pegging my Irony-o-meter: The same conservatives who are claiming that liberals jumped-the-gun in assessing the negatives of the war, are turning around and jumping-the-gun in assessing the long-term impacts of the war. They are already proclaiming that everyone lived happily ever after, when there is no possible way at this point to know what effect this is going to have on global relations.

And THEN, to go on to suggest that because people disagree with their arrogant attitude and naive assessment of world politics, that they are “anti-American”…:smack:

122

As I said, it’s a judgement. But, that’s true of all prejudice. If someone says, “Dutch people are taller than average,” that’s not a prejudice IMHO because I judge the statement to be true. If someone says, “Dutch people are dumber than average,” I would consider that bigotry, because it’s not true.

No, not a “certain” action. I would do so it there were a pattern of inaccurate negative criticisms.

Remember the women’s lib poster that was popular some time ago, “A man is aggressive; a woman is pushy, etc.”?
[/quote]
I don’t think I said that, did I?

123

Sorry for posting prematurely.

That was How to Tell the Difference Between a Business Man and a Business Woman

He’s aggressive; she’s pushy
He’s good on details; she’s picky
He loses his temper because he’s so involved in his work; she’s bitchy
He follows through; she doesn’t know when to quit.
etc.

Someone who looks at the world this way is a sexist. Someone who looks at America this way is anti-American, as I see it.

No, but if you critcized US action against Mugabe without mentioning his evilness, that would be a different story.

Yep. Doubting some organization capability may demonstrate a prejudice against that organization. Of course, the doubt could be a valid judgment. But, if one tends to often, incorrectly under-estimate America’s ability to accomplish its goals, then one is wrongly prejuding the country.

124

Don’t forget a cough or two for our very own Cecil Adams; seems the war hawks who read his column have gotten their panties in a bunch over his latest column’s “damn fool war” sign-off.

125

I feel like I’m arguing against a brick wall. Nodody is questioning the ability to trounce other countries. We are questioning the wisdom of doing so.

126

True enough - but then why is it correct to condemn the basic morality of judgments you don’t like? When, in fact, do you ever grant the possibility that people who disagree with you on a public policy matter might not only be at least as right than you but at least as thoughtful and at least as moral?

We all know the answer to that - and how it links to a definition of prejudice.

127

Anti-war folks doubted the ability of the US to fully accomplish its stated goal – to trounce Iraq in a way that would bring great benefit to the Iraqi people, reduce terrorism, and not unduly upset Arabs in other nations.

128

Your point would be much better supported if any of the above had been accomplished so far.

129

All of which points (other than trouncing) have yet to be proven, or even demonstrated.

Great benefit? That is possible if they do not find themselves embroiled in a civil war or under the guns of the U.S. forces to prevent a civil war. (As noted the other day: the war in Afghanistan went sort of well, but the peace has, over a year later, not really begun.)

Reduce terrorism? There has been no evidence from the administration that Iraq produced terrorism in the last ten years and it is too soon to see the effects of terrorism inspired by this action.

Not unduly upset Arabs in other nations? Again, we have not yet seen how upset they are or will be (although the weasel “unduly” is noted).
So, basically, one is “anti-American” if one considers any possibility that the administration may have erred even before there is evidence that they may have been correct, but it is also “anti-American” to note where the U.S. has erred in the past, (because that is “dwelling on” such mistakes).

Basically, if one does not toe the Right’s party line, one is not a good American. That makes me feel better.

130

(A) That’s a very broad brush you’re using there, and (B) which of these goals have been achieved? I’d say that the third goal has already been abandoned, as Arab nations and peoples are already quite upset with the U.S., based on first-hand accounts I’ve heard from people who live there.

Oh, but am I “prejudiced” because I believe those people, instead of our stalwart leaders? :rolleyes:

131

Why? What logical case can be made that a person who criticises US policy is doing so out of an irrational anti-American prejudice simply because they don’t also criticise the party on the recieving end of the policy?

This new form of bigotry you’re proposing is a serious issue december. You’re saying that someone who you judge guilty of this bigotry is harboring the same kinds of prejudices that motivated Hitler to attempt eradication of an entire race. The same prejudices that motivated Matthew Shepard’s brutal murderers. And you’re condemming people as bigots because they DIDN’T say something. You’re imputing motives on LACK of evidence. As you may be able to tell, I have a BIG problem with that. Note that I criticised your proposal but didn’t mention having a problem with people who DO have irrationally prejudiced opinions against the US. By your logic this makes ME bigoted in favor of bigotry. Somehow this means I have an irrational prejudice against attempts to reduce or even identify instances/types of bigotry.

Again, who judges if a criticism, or a doubt, is “incorrect”? And who determines that it is a trend instead of a sequence of individual instances? You’ve got to answer these questions before you can start calling someone “prejudiced” or accusing them of a form of bigotry.

Enjoy,
Steven

Avalonian, I know. I’ve pretty much given up on talking TO him, now I just talk AT him and let the lurkers make up their own minds. It’s part of the fight against ignorance to not let these kinds of asanine assertions go unchallenged.

132

If you think terrorism will be reduced, and Arabs are not upset, you are DREAMING.

133

Oh, I agree… and you’re doing a fine job, by the way.

134

Well, according to december you’re anti-American. According to the Wall Street Journal, you’re a liberal pessimist. Thoughful, concerned citizens need not apply, I guess.

135

Okay, I give up arguing with december. Lets have a little rule from now on. When you base an argument on a logical fallacy, you automatically negate any points you have to say. December, you can say that we all would agree that this argument, the OP was based on a logical fallacy (don’t make me go dig up proof, you know it is).

I would just like to say something that I’ve noticed. Just some observations. I have argued the validity of this war with many pro-war folks. When I encounter someone educated, informed and articulate, I notice that I begin to understand their position and I respect it. I am an undergraduate studying foreign relations, and everyone like me (who studies global politics in almost every imaginable settint from latin american dictatorships to Japan and China) understands the reality of the situation. They have a certain set of observations, and they make conclusions based on those observations. but they have certain points where they would change their minds. We anti-war folks are FLEXIBLE! We don’t say no to war under any circumstances. Educated, insightful, and balanced people realize there is a point to war and are very experienced in realpolitik.

For instance: I don’t support the war, because the Bush admin seems to think it can win only because of hubris. I don’t think they are considering the whole situation carefully and I don’t think they are making the correct deciscions. But if there were some circumstance that showed me that they indeed knew more than me and the countless other very much informed scholars that make logical arguments. but, having said that: certain sitiuations would allow me to believe that the Bush admin was right to begin with.

Evidence found that Iraq was building nuclear weapons and had a possibility of using them.

This war was only a means to get peace in the middle east Re: Israel.

These are just two. There could be others that I haven’t thought of.

You know why socrates got so much trouble? Because he knew that nobody knew what they were talking about. He knew all of these people that claimed to be so wise were really just as unwise as anyone else. They didn’t take kindly to this. But socrates himself never claimed that he knew more than anyone else, other than that he knew that everybody knew nothing. I think that’s the way you can describe intelligent, competent, informed people. Pro or anti-war. They know that they don’t know anything. Only someone who is intelligent can understand how complicated the world is. Socrates knew that nobody was smart enough to know all of the answers.
As for you, december? I think you are a fool, because you think you know all the answers. I am not a fool, because I know I don’t have all the answers depite my extensive knowledge on the subject. I know my answers can be wrong. But I feel it is my duty to keep people from from claiming that they are indeed wise and can know, for certain, what is the right thing to do.

When you keep hammering away at the old points and same tactics to get your “correct” opinion across, then it really just shows everyone here that you are indeed one of those who considers himself wise. We, like Socrates, know that we aren’t “wise,” but we do know that you aren’t either.

In my experience there are two types in the war area. There are those who think they are wise, the "No blood for oil folks, and the people who think dissent is Anti-American. The other group are those who know that nobody is really wise. They may be anti-war or they may be pro-war.

Want to prove me wrong?

Okay its simple:
List something that you think has been done wrong.
List something that you think the administration is planning to do wrong or that you would think there would be a better way.

And finally tell me somthing that would change your mind about the wisdom of this war. Because if you have none, then it is the definition of foolishness: Blindly believing something in spite of all circumstances.

136
137

I’m sure you already know how the OP will answer that one.

138

Yep, we did great in Iraq. Really kept from upsetting the Arab nations “unduly”. Link.

OF course this is the BBC so we can expect december to hand-wave this evidence presented by Syria’s UN Ambassador away.

As for evidence that the US may indeed intend to threaten Syria we have this gem

Yep, those anti-war folks were definitely wrong when they said this would stir a hornet’s nest. Only anti-American bigots could hold such a obviously irrational position.

Enjoy,
Steven

139

To keep silent when I believe my nation is taking the wrong path would be Anti-American in my mind.

140

First of all, what Blalron said.
Secondly, what futureman said (he has a bright future, on the evidence).
Thirdly, since this point went right by december, and in an earlier (much earlier) debate went right by collounsbury:

I am monumentally uninterested in Afghanis, Iraqis, Burmese, or pink polka dotted Martians. Don’t give a hoot in hell whether they’re happy or not, living under a tyranny or under a democracy, or anything else. All I care about is what I should care about: are they so consumed with hatred that they are willing to attack us and threaten our (and my) security? Can I profitably do business with them?
The rest is commentary.
If we had applied this test when Iraq invaded Kuwait, we would have held the coat of the rest of the Arab countries when they repelled that invasion, if they were so inclined. As of today, there would be no U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the presence of which gave Osama his excuse for East Africa and 9/11.
Needless to say, we would have had no quarrel with Saddam.
In the Afghan war, we were attacked by a group that was given sanctuary by the ruling government. We had every right to attack them and get rid of the threat. Whether the Afghans are happy with this or not is of no concern to me.
As for Iraq, they never threatened the U.S. As of this writing, the U.S. has yet to discover one single WMD in that country, which in the future will say a lot about the credibility of this country, regardless of whether any are found after this writing, because as of now and forever, most of the world will not believe a thing we say.
That kind of damage is easy to do and impossible to undo. It is against the long term interests of this country. If that goes over your head, too bad. It ain’t anti-American, not by a long shot.