1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why Do They Hate Us?

Discussion in 'Issues Around the World' started by ethics, Jul 22, 2007.

  1. Violet1966

    Violet1966 Stand and Deliver Staff Member

    That's a good question Rav and one I'd love to hear his answer to as well. I'd assume someone would give a simple remedy like the one my openly honest Turkish friend's husband gave me. We should not meddle. Not that that is a very good solution when it comes to protecting our oil insterests and our allies there, or backing off opposing forces who work against America and/or it's allies. But I'd really think that's what we would hear. Mind your own business and don't give money and arms to bad people.

    If the Middle East didn't have any oil, and Israel wasn't located in the ME, would we really give a rats ass if Russia went in there and took over? We are hated too because we back Israel. That to me would seem like a very large part of the hate of the US. We back them and don't let their enemies just go in and take what they want and we don't stand by when someone wants to harm Israel.

    If I sound like I'm talking out of my ass here forgive me. I haven't read a ton of books on these subjects so if there are other reasons why the USA even cares about the Middle East, I'd be the first to admit I'm ignorant to them. To me it looks like we guard our oil allies and we guard our Israeli friends. I know we can't let Israel be destroyed and I know we need oil to survive. If we went to alternate fuels, and could manage to convince Israel to just get out of there and establish somewhere where they're not so outnumbered, we might not be having any trouble from the ME at all. But that isn't the situation, so they are going to hate us no matter what and for a very loooong time. :(

    Leon will try and get a hold of that movie. It does look like a good one. Thanks for the recommendation. :)
     
  2. Advocat

    Advocat Viral Memes a Speciality Staff Member

    I have a number of friends from the Middle-East, and they say much the same. They know that when England, France, Russia or Germany get involved in the ME, it's because of oil or financial interests. None of the above countries try to sugar-coat the reasons they get involved.

    The US, they say, always gives other stated reasons for getting involved, but most of the folk from the ME believe the real reasons are always oil, natural gas, or politics (read "supporting Israel"). Thus the US is often seen as being two-faced, having to sugar-coat the real reasons for getting involved in order to appease the average US citizen, who wouldn't support loss of life for economic or vague political reasons. Which is why they believe the US doesn't have staying power.
     
  3. ravital

    ravital Banned

    Two things, one, "don't meddle" should be read as "get out of the way so WE can meddle." So many other countries (like Advocat mentions), are no less interested in pursuing their own ambitions. If I were a Syrian or Kurdish peasant, or a poor Saudi or Iranian, knowing what I know about this - which most Syrian and Kurdish peasants and such don't - I would conclude that if I have to be messed and meddled with, I'd rather the U.S. meddle in my country every day and twice on Sunday, than the Turks, or the French, or anyone else.

    Two, partially in answer to Advocat, and to your second point, if the U.S. didn't need any oil anymore, logically, whatever technology enabled us to move away from oil, sooner or later would be acquired by the rest of the world that currently imports oil, and THEN, what would the Saudis do? Or the Venezuelans for that matter? What would keep holding their governments together? Repression? That can work only so long. Look at countries like Jordan who have no such resources whatsoever. You're not going to find Jeffersonian Democrats in there, but it is in fact one of the Arab countries that's been moving closer and closer to a Western form of government, even if it is still repressive to a degree. Even some of the oil-rich Gulf states get this, and are moving in that direction, ever so slowly, to better prepare themselves for the time when their oil won't have the same global pull anymore. Of course, that independence from oil should have happened some 50 years ago, and most of the West, including the U.S., is guilty of not allowing it to happen. but that's a different thread.
     
  4. Violet1966

    Violet1966 Stand and Deliver Staff Member

    That region is used to internal Middle Eastern forces re-arranging their lives though. That region has been tossed up and re-arranged so many times now but usually it was within itself wasn't it? When France and Britain came in after WWI and changed things then the USA came in after WWII to join it's allies, the Middle East must have felt pressured to conform and profit where they could, but the lines that were drawn by others aren't appreciated. Sure they need us there for wealth, but they don't want us there if they want to meddle in other regions there. This is kind of messing up the natural progression of the Middle East. It looks that way to me at least, from the History channel show I watched that was like two hours long, showing the progression and re-arranging of the areas in the Middle East before Western interests in the region. We've stunted a system that only knew dictatorship and religious leadership. We've allowed some battles to go on without meddling, and others to happen because of who our allies are.

    Who cares what the Saudi's would do if we didn't need oil from them anymore? With all the money they've made, and still need more as noted above in a post, they shouldn't need any for a thousand years! LOL Man, it just pisses me off to no end, that this oil thing causes so much trouble. And it also pisses me off just as much, that Israel will not just pick up and move so they can enjoy life without worrying about what rockets are pointed their way. They stand their ceremony, and the battles will never let up. I don't know how the hell anyone would ever be able to relax in Israel with all the hate that totally surrounds them there, and that will never change. Oil needs might, but I really have a feeling that life on this Earth as we know it, might cease because of the Israel hate over there with the Muslims.
     
  5. ravital

    ravital Banned

    Vi,

    There is as much justice, logic and reason in expecting the Israelis to pack up and go somewhere else, as there is for Mexicans to demand that Californians, Texans, and everyone in between, pack up and go somewhere else.

    But that's for a different thread.
     
  6. Violet1966

    Violet1966 Stand and Deliver Staff Member

    I wouldn't expect them to ever leave Rav and I do understand why they don't. I just don't see how they can ever live in peace there knowing what surrounds them. All that hate and more and more death. And this isn't really off the track of the op. Why do they hate us? Some will say because we back up Israel and help defend it. I've heard that one before a few times.

    But yes a whole nother thread could be done on that one. Would love to know what could ever stop that hate from happening. :(
     
  7. ravital

    ravital Banned

    [Reply to Thread]


    On top of everything, Chalmers Johnson is a liar. Plain and simple.

    From the article linked by Ethics a few pages ago, directly quoting Chalmers Johnson's Blowback, WRT the reasons why Italians hate us after the ski-lift incident:
    First, The trial was in the US, not in Italy, and that makes Italians angry. Well, in 1953, Italy, like any NATO member, agreed to the Status Of Forces Agreement (SOFA) which states among other things (source: American Society of International Law):
    So in English, it's a NATO rule that the Maries in question should be tried in the U.S. and that the injured principals in Italy should be able to file civil suits against the U.S. within Italy, dealt with in Italian courts, and that's what happened. It may not be adequate for post-Cold-War times, but until it's changed, IT IS THE AGREED UPON RULE, period. Besides, I fail to see how they would hate us less if it had happened while there was a USSR - how would that make sense???

    Second: Johnson claims they were exonerated. Bull.
    Source:
    Source:
    And there were others, including the navigator who destroyed the tape, who were sentenced and dishonorably discharged. To haters of the military, a dishonorable discharge might seem like a joke, but to the miltary, it's serious business.

    The NYT and the BBC, folks, not exactly neocons or ardent supporters of the U.S. military, right?

    I'm not happy about these sentences, but is that "exoneration?" Could Johnson's agenda be more clearly visible?

    In the absence of the tape, the military would probably have been able to issue stiffer sentences for much more serious crimes than obstruction and destruction of evidence - which is serious enough. But I suppose only blood would satisfy some people.

    As to why the U.S. military was in Italy - Again, read your history. The requests for U.S. military presence in Italy came from Italy, at the end of WWII. Same as U.S. military in France. U.S. military in Germany were put there at the insistence of France, Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands, Denmark, Poland - in short, anybody and everbody whom the Nazis had invaded, to keep that from happening again. OF COURSE, we had our own interest in keeping an eye on the Soviets - Did anyone expect us to acquiesce to the demands of all these countries whose collective existence we saved, without it serving any of OUR interests? Not to mention OUR interest in countering the Soviets was to serve not just US, but all of Western Europe, if not the rest of the world, to begin with?

    Sorry, Ethics, LoveHound, but your superstar is a liar. I know I said I'd read Blowback and Nemesis eventually, but I have very limited time in the day to read, and I would like you to offer a reason why I should waste my time on liars like him.
     
  8. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    I can agree with you about the misrepresention of "exoneration", but your first point loses me completely.

    So what if it was all according to Hoyle? Can the Italian public still not get angry? Hell, we get angry on this forum almost everyday over events that happen entirely within the rules as agreed upon by all parties.
     
  9. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    OMG! You brilliant son of a bitch! :clap:
     
  10. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Rav, one thing I will say is that I like to give credit where it is due and you deserve a back rub on that research not just a pat on the back. Completely missed it and you know what? The truth makes no difference to the Italians. I've already explained the lack of logic, facts, and anything that goes along with it when something like that happens.

    They know two main things:

    1. They have complained about low flying US Jets.
    2. They killed 20 Civies despite #1.

    That's it.

    As for Johnson? Never was my superstar but he makes one point clear about Blowback, what it is, and how dangerous it is. That's really it.
     
  11. ravital

    ravital Banned

    Steve, Ethics,

    I don't disagree that people, nations, crowds whipped by clerics or by their seemingly free media, will get angry. That's not in dispute.

    My question is, given that we have evidence, above, that they are angry on illegitimate grounds, why should we care?

    Beyond that, I set out to prove that Johnson was an unreliable, biased source, and therefore of limited usefulness to this discussion. And it appears I've done that.
     
  12. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    1. They have complained about low flying US Jets.
    2. They killed 20 Civies despite #1.

    We can't do much after the act. But we can prevent this stuff from happening. If the complaints were taken more seriously...
     
  13. Steve

    Steve Is that it, then?

    So they won't fly airplanes into skyscrapers?

    Their anger may be baseless but it is real, nonetheless, real enough to engender despicable, uncivilized crimes.
     
  14. Violet1966

    Violet1966 Stand and Deliver Staff Member

    Rav I would think what the Italians were most angry at, was that they weren't convicted on negligence and they weren't held accountable for the deaths they caused. They were aquitted on the manslaughter charges. That to me would in fact mean that they were exonerated. They were exonerated from being held accountable for the deaths of those people. The charges that stuck were charges other then manslaughter. Obstruction of justice and conspiracy charges aren't what the Italians were looking for. They wanted these men to be convicted of something that proved they were responsible for the deaths, especially since the issue was one that was very worrisome with those planes flying lower then the Italians wanted.

    So the charges that stuck were a slap in the face I would think. If those two men didn't dispose of the footage, would that make the deaths any more important?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/338297.stm

     
  15. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    Vio, excellent points!

    However, I must agree with Rav on Johnson in this instance. Johnson used the word exonerated and that states something different than being acquitted of something.

    But I agree with you on the general term. Italians were certainly not going to be following semantics.
     
  16. ravital

    ravital Banned

    Well, yeah, and plenty of people wanted the Duke Lacross guys in jail for life, but there was no evidence, right?

    I am not saying the Marines were innocent. I am saying there was no evidence. I'm not happy about it, nobody is, but the fact is that there was no possibility of conviction of manslaughter.

    Don't ignore the fact that the Italians were also angry that the soldiers were going to be prosecuted by the U.S. military and not Italian courts - but you know, the Italians agreed to it, didn't they, when they signed on to the SOFA agreement linked above?

    Folks, I understand that the anger is real, and that it can hurt us. I also understand we are doing a lousy job of explaining to our own people what we do and why, which is why liars like this Chalmers Johnson get to write successful books and appear in movies as some sort of authority on anything. And we're doing a lousy job of explaining it to the rest of the world as well.

    It's also time for us to get real. Italians don't fly airplanes into skyscrapers, Islamic terrorists do, and they will hate us when we do absolutely nothing to them. They hate us because we've liberated people they used to trample underfoot, like Kurds and Shiites in Iraq, and the bulk of the population of Afghanistan. That's what they won't forgive us.

    I never said I wanted the US to be the proverbial bull in the china shop or that we had the right to be that, I'm saying all these self-flagellations about footprints are exaggerated.

    But, the next time somebody in the world is invaded and a world-war explodes, I vote we do exactly what we're being told now - don't meddle, stay the heck away this time. No matter who gets exterminated.

    Surely, the world will love us then, like they love Belgium. Let's be Belgium then.
     
  17. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    So one mistake invalidates the whole blowback theory?
     
  18. ethics

    ethics Pomp-Dumpster Staff Member

    No, not at all. Blowback is very much alive and real.
     
  19. ravital

    ravital Banned

    It's not a mistake, it's an intentional lie.
     
  20. Greg

    Greg Full Member

    I think we all have our ideas firmly fixed in place. I believe what I believe, and I can't see that my comments have changed anybody's mind even an iota. However, it's good to be exposed to the other side of issues.
     

Share This Page