Quote from: RPGPunditHey, dude, I'm just trying to get you to understand WHY you're hated. Which you all seem to have a very hard time getting.

No, no we don't really. Just because we don't subscribe to your opinions point by point doesn't mean we all miss the bus.

I do think it's funny you feel the overwhelming need to remind American's why they're disliked and even hated in some parts of the world, some of the time.

You can argue about why you shouldn't be hated all you like, but until you really, truly understand why you're hated, you're kind of taking shots in the dark.

QuoteAnd sure, you can really say you don't give a fuck, but then please, stop complaining about everyone "unfairly hating you".

Huh? I don't think anyone here has said it's completely unfair to hate America at times, and if they did well I'll disagree with that. Hell I hate my country at times. Who doesn't?

QuoteJust shut the fuck up and take it.  If you don't even want to bother to know the whys and whatfors, then you really don't have a right to say anything in protest about it.

What asinine logic you're asserting here. Do you seriously believe this? If so I've lost a little bit of respect for you, because this is very similar to the same logic my four year old uses when discussing his toys with other kids.

Childish.

QuoteAs for changing it, what really needs to change is a change of attitude and criteria, IF you want to be less despised.  But it isn't OUR job to change that, its yours

As if it were that simple. As if it's just one decision to be made by one person.

QuoteThe reason many American citizens are desperately interested in doing so is because they realize that in the Long Term (and not the really long term, I'm talking very close long term here) the attitude of "I don't give a fuck what you think, I'm going to be the global bully and claim that I'm doing it as a favour to all of you" is going to come back and bite you in the ass. It creates far more needless problems for America than it solves.

Which is one of many reasons why this country is so divided at the moment. You seem to fail to separate the people from our government which is funny, especially if you've ever lived here.

QuoteAnd fixing your problems is your job, not ours. We have enough trouble trying to survive your "help".

LOL!

More to the point, most of the shit that really slags of the Pundit in South America happened before many of the American posters here were born, much less of age to vote.

What this comes down to is 'meddle here, don't meddle there' once again. Bring up Darfur in the same breath as South America or Iraq and you practice hypocracy, or presume too much.

Interestingly enough, the tread of the article... if I may be rude enough to push this thread back on track, is that it doesn't matter if our actions are 'good' or not.  There is very much a 'will to power' ideal running through it, the sense that as the 'lone superpower' we have a duty to flex our muscles to align the world according to our needs and wants.... and that by doing so we actively promote stability. Failing to do anything at all creates instability.

Or did I misread the author's intent?

Quote from: RPGPunditHey, dude, I'm just trying to get you to understand WHY you're hated. Which you all seem to have a very hard time getting.

You can argue about why you shouldn't be hated all you like, but until you really, truly understand why you're hated, you're kind of taking shots in the dark.

Wait a minute - is that your goal? Do you not think that the Americans on this board (perhaps with the exception of DN) understand why we're hated?  Didn't Werekoala summarize it in two words - fear and envy? You seem to agree that it's a psychologically bizarre mix of the two, yes?  Hell, I even tried to apologize for the mistakes we made in South America. And let's be honest, there's only one reason we even care what happens in Venezuela - it's starts with an "O" and ends in an "L". So again, self interest and all.

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd sure, you can really say you don't give a fuck, but then please, stop complaining about everyone "unfairly hating you". Just shut the fuck up and take it.  If you don't even want to bother to know the whys and whatfors, then you really don't have a right to say anything in protest about it.

Unless of course I'm saying stop complaining cause I heard you the first ten thousand times.  See, this is my problem with many folks - they assume if you disagree that either:

• You didn't hear/understand the first time
• You are ignorant if you did hear/understand and don't agree.

So I don't agree with you.  And I heard/understood you.  Are you insinuating I'm ignorant?  And I'm not talking it personally - I'm asking to get a feel for your point of view.

Quote from: RPGPunditAs for changing it, what really needs to change is a change of attitude and criteria, IF you want to be less despised.  But it isn't OUR job to change that, its yours.

Oh, so you don't like our attitude.  If we said please and thank you, would that help? I'm asking for specific criteria - how would you change it? I've laid out the options - pick something and let's talk about it from both perspectives.  Maybe we'll both learn something.

And don't give me "I don't care, just stop disappearing people." That's not determining when we should project power so much as how.  And on that, I'd bet we could find some common ground (as well as more disagreement).

Quote from: RPGPunditThe reason many American citizens are desperately interested in doing so is because they realize that in the Long Term (and not the really long term, I'm talking very close long term here) the attitude of "I don't give a fuck what you think, I'm going to be the global bully and claim that I'm doing it as a favour to all of you" is going to come back and bite you in the ass. It creates far more needless problems for America than it solves.

As I was writing this, I was going to say you're right - the US doesn't give a fuck.  But I thought about how this is related to the 2 points above.  It's not that the US doesn't give a fuck. It's that we often disagree with much of the world.  Oh the US tries to convince everyone and does, contrary to what you might have been led to believe by those with whom America disagrees, listen to the council of others.  But in the end, the US is going to act in its self interests even if others disagree - and that is spun as "they dont' give a fuck."  Why doesn't anybody call France's motives for object to OIF into question; or Russia's? Taking action even if other world powers disagree doesn't make the US a bully - that's your spin.  If the US projected power ONLY to show it could, that would be a bully.

It always distresses me when the US claims its actions are a favor for the world. That's usually a beneficial by-product spun for PR purposes as the reason for the action, but it's rarely the real reason.  As I've said before in this very forum, the US should come out and say it is in Iraq to ensure the free flow of relatively inexpensive oil (not to steal, to buy) and Afghanistan as it could not let it continue to allow training camps for AQ, etc.  The fact that it (might) end up liberating a bunch of people and expose the festering swamp that is the Middle East is just coincidence.

Quote from: RPGPunditAnd fixing your problems is your job, not ours. We have enough trouble trying to survive your "help".

Well, here I am, an American, asking for your opinion. Explain to me, specifically, what criteria we should use (other than national self interest) to properly project our power?

Sorry Spike, one more side track...

Quote from: RPGPunditWhat an A-class idiot. I mean, for starters, the best argument the group he calls "hegemonists" have is that the American Right DOES actually want Hegemony. That's what the Project for the New American Century is all about, a plan to guarantee American world HEGEMONY for the next 100 years.

This is bullshit. PNAC != Amercian Right.  It might be a small portion of the American Right, but it's not really representative. How do I know?

If you asked people, even on the American Right, what they want for the world, hegemony would not be the response for most. That's right, even conservatives don't care about hegemony.  You know what most want? Peace, properity, and to be left the fuck alone.  And they don't just want the for themselves, they want it for everyone - in the whole world.

Some may see hegemony as the tool to achieve that, but very few. It might be surprising for you to know, but Americans, in general, even on the American Right, recoil instinctively from hegemony.  We are, after all, a breakaway British colony.

That's why, for all it's current "influence," PNAC is a red herring; a nice target for conspiracy theories.

Quote from: James J SkachThis is bullshit. PNAC != Amercian Right.  It might be a small portion of the American Right, but it's not really representative.

That's why, for all it's current "influence," PNAC is a red herring; a nice target for conspiracy theories.

I disagree. It might be a very small % but as I stated above, that % currently includes many leaders of the American right, including Bush, Cheney and even future Presidential candidates. McCain is their golden boy and Joe Lieberman bizarrely channel PNAC every chance he gets foreign policy-wise.

A song for the new imperialism:

Land of Hope and Glory, Mother of the Free,
How shall we extol thee, who are born of thee?
Wider still, and wider, shall thy bounds be set;
God, who made thee mighty, make thee mightier yet!

Truth and Right and Freedom, each a holy gem,
Stars of solemn brightness, weave thy diadem.

Tho' thy way be darkened, still in splendour drest,
As the star that trembles o'er the liquid West.

Throned amid the billows, throned inviolate,
Thou hast reigned victorious, thou has smiled at fate.

Land of Hope and Glory, fortress of the Free,
How may we extol thee, praise thee, honour thee?

Hark, a mighty nation maketh glad reply;
Lo, our lips are thankful, lo, our hearts are high!

Amen!

You know it's always funny when people tout America as the land of the free, when for a significant portion of American history a significant number of American's have neither been free or even considered "Americans".

Hell until about 40 years ago a significant portion of our society was denied basic civil rights, and to be honest we still have segments of our population that  are still suffering.

Quote from: James J SkachThat's why, for all it's current "influence," PNAC is a red herring; a nice target for conspiracy theories.

Its not a "conspiracy theory", its an actual conspiracy, and not in the pop culture "secret cover-up" "area 51" sense; in the classic sense of the word, where people have reached an agreement and have a plan that they put into action, like most real conspiracies its one that they make absolutely NO effort to hide.

Given that the signatories of the PNAC are also the most prominent names associated with the current Bush Administration, and that the plan they lay out in the PNAC is pretty much word for word what the Bush Administration has actually fucking done, I think that making some kind of suggestion that its all somehow a wierd paranoid theory, that requires speculating about some kind of information that isn't right out there in the open for anyone to read, seems pretty ridiculous.

RPGPundit

So every person in Congress who voted authorization for OIF were part of the conspiracy?  Ditto every country that backed the US in Iraq?

I mean, if you are saying that there's a group of people who thought up this plan and then did what they could to make it happen, then the AARP is a conspiracy to stop changes to Social Security.

When you label someting as a "conspiracy," whether you mean it in the classical sense or not, it implies a certain nefarious nature.  The people involved are bad or the plan is illegal.

Now, which is it you are implying?  Or are you just asserting that a group of like-minded people (no matter how wrong they might be) wrote up a policy and then put it into action in the way that, say, the DNC put together a plan to retake Congress and then put it into action?

I'm sure you're shocked, SHOCKED! to find people doing this in Washington.  That's what I mean by PNAC being a red herring. It's irrelavent and it's meant to derail the discussion at hand - when America should project it's power (sorry again Spike).

OK, here, let me handle it for you.  The US went into Iraq to ensure the relatively consistent, cheap access to oil as it drives the US economy, literally. The US needed a stake in the desert and Iraq was the best shot for the US to have a beachhead. The US didn't go there to liberate the people, it was just an idea that perhaps it would be of benefit to the US in the long term - you know, self interest and all.

There, I just blew PNAC's "conspiracy."

Now, can you go back to the question I asked?  If the US is not projecting it's power in the correct places, what criteria should be used?

Quote from: James J SkachOK, here, let me handle it for you.  The US went into Iraq to ensure the relatively consistent, cheap access to oil as it drives the US economy, literally. The US needed a stake in the desert and Iraq was the best shot for the US to have a beachhead. The US didn't go there to liberate the people, it was just an idea that perhaps it would be of benefit to the US in the long term - you know, self interest and all.

There, I just blew PNAC's "conspiracy."

Yes, you did, precisely.  The Bush administration didn't invade iraq because of 9-11 (though they were only ABLE to do so because of 9-11, otherwise the American people would never have approved of such a war, had they been in their right mind).

They didn't invade because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
They didn't invade because Saddam was "murdering his own people".
They didn't invade to bring democracy to Iraq.

They murdered because Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and a gang of other Straussian conservatives wanted to try out their little social experiment to guarantee American hegemony, to prove that the US army could handle military action on multiple fronts, and to intentionally create a chaotic morass in the middle east that would ensure the US the excuse they needed to maintain a permanent military presence in a country they directly controlled (via a very transparent puppet govt) to assure control of the oil supply for the 21st century.

QuoteNow, can you go back to the question I asked?  If the US is not projecting it's power in the correct places, what criteria should be used?

Personally, I think the main thing the US shouldn't do is to dither. If you're going to be using brute force to push around other nations and achieve your own greedy strategic objectives, don't gussy it up with excuses of "serving democracy" or "helping the oppressed"; because NO ONE buys that shit, especially not anymore after decades of you claiming it even as you skullfucked the third world in every way possible, and it only creates more long-term hatred.

Or, the alternative, is to realize that perhaps all those hawks out there are wrong, take a more globalist point of view of things, and realize that what might actually help the US in the longer term is to realize that a decline of American power is an inevitability in the future (it happens to every world power) and that this decline might be curtailed, and even delayed, by creating strong diplomatic alliances with other developed nations and by fostering strong relationships of assistance with underdeveloped nations.
Yes, this would mean no military action without widespread multi-national support (like, you know, the first gulf war?) with very focused strategic ends for causes that are above reproach; the fostering of development of all sorts, but ESPECIALLY education in the third world, to try to create environments that are resistant to the rise of terrorist or anti-democratic anti-american movements, and work on the principle that its better to be loved than feared. And, you know, the principle that the better off underdeveloped nations are, the better that will be for the US in the long term.

Shit, if America actually lived up to its fantasyland story of being the "beacon of hope and democracy" in the world; if the utterly fake "bush doctrine" of wanting to encourage democracy everywhere in the world were really serious, then America would be loved and respected almost universally.  Why do you think that people in Holland still love you (well you, and Canada, and the other WWII allied powers that fought on the western front)? Or that Poland and the eastern bloc countries are still highly pro-american? Because they remember those moments where America really did seem to represent a light against the totalitarianism those countries were plagued by.

Do that honestly, regularly, and you'll really be insuring a "new American century".

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditShit, if America actually lived up to its fantasy land story of being the "beacon of hope and democracy" in the world; if the utterly fake "bush doctrine" of wanting to encourage democracy everywhere in the world were really serious, then America would be loved and respected almost universally.

C'mon now. Some one would find a reason to hate us. It's just natural.

But you are correct in saying that a lot of people love and respect an America that doesn't exist, and may never have existed. The Allies weren't exactly paragons of virtue during WWII.

You're pretty incensed, and like a lot of American's-if you lived here you'd realize just how divisive this issue really is-and like a lot of American's I hear on a regular basis you seem to be real good at complaining, but were you here, and were a citizen would you do anything other than complain?

Our voter turn out, even at it's best, is apathetic. Hell a lot of people don't even bother to register to vote. Is it any wonder a segment of our society is able to dictate which direction this country takes, for better or worse?

I am socially liberal, and fiscally conservative. I believe in lots of rights with a small government. believe me I know what it is to be dissatisfied with the way things work in these parts. I am also an atheist, so believe me when I say I get frustrated at times.

Quote from: RPGPunditPersonally, I think the main thing the US shouldn't do is to dither. If you're going to be using brute force to push around other nations and achieve your own greedy strategic objectives, don't gussy it up with excuses of "serving democracy" or "helping the oppressed"; because NO ONE buys that shit, especially not anymore after decades of you claiming it even as you skullfucked the third world in every way possible, and it only creates more long-term hatred.


RPGPundit

Emphasis mine

Once again, I am forced to believe that the Pundit actually wrote the initial article. First there is the unavoidable France=Swine comparison, now this, because that is exactly what the article was driving at.

Of course, what I had hoped for was for the pro and con people to line up and rip into the actual article, not so much eachother.  Still, it is entertaining.

Quote from: RPGPunditYes, you did, precisely.  The Bush administration didn't invade iraq because of 9-11 (though they were only ABLE to do so because of 9-11, otherwise the American people would never have approved of such a war, had they been in their right mind).

They didn't invade just because Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.
They didn't invade just because Saddam was "murdering his own people".
They didn't invade just to bring democracy to Iraq.

My changes in bold...and they are the ones that drive you to distraction. Could it possibly be that there was more than one strategic reason to go to Iraq?  Was the primary to bring democracy? I don't think so and I doubt alot of other Americans did either.  You can argue about the WMD til you're blue in the face.  It won't make the threat the Hussein regime posed any less.  As I've said, my distaste was the we didn't just say "Look, we're not going to fuck around anymore. Make us feel OK, or we'll blow your ass off the face of this here earth." Think how that would have gone over with "world opinion."  Ironically, I don't think it would have been received any worse.

Quote from: RPGPunditThey murdered because Paul Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld, Cheney, and a gang of other Straussian conservatives wanted to try out their little social experiment to guarantee American hegemony, to prove that the US army could handle military action on multiple fronts, and to intentionally create a chaotic morass in the middle east that would ensure the US the excuse they needed to maintain a permanent military presence in a country they directly controlled (via a very transparent puppet govt) to assure control of the oil supply for the 21st century.

Well, now, see, you can assign all of the motives you want, like Straussian social experiment, and that's where I call conspiracy-theory-bullshit. The last thing you say, assuring control of the oil, is the closest you get.  Flow of oil and security concerns were the main two reasons. That it lined up with what Wolfowitz, Rumsfield, and Cheney may or may not have wanted is superfluous discussion. I can see how some might like to delight in it to distract attention or chase conspiracies, but that's all it is - a distraction.

Quote from: RPGPunditPersonally, I think the main thing the US shouldn't do is to dither.

See, I knew we'd find agreement!

Quote from: RPGPunditIf you're going to be using brute force to push around other nations and achieve your own greedy strategic objectives, don't gussy it up with excuses of "serving democracy" or "helping the oppressed"; because NO ONE buys that shit, especially not anymore after decades of you claiming it even as you skullfucked the third world in every way possible, and it only creates more long-term hatred.

Almost! I like how national self interests - which I think we can all agree are valid concerns and exist for every nation - are now "greedy."  Just can't help yourself, can you?  I do agree that "gussying it up" is pointless.  Either people don't trust us or dislike us enough that trust isn't even an issue.  So let's just be straight up.  We're the World's Lone Superpower (tm), so here's what we're going to do.  We'll try not to be too much of a bully.  We'll listen to what others have to say. But in the end, we're going to do what we think is right for the US first.  Everyone else comes second. Our apologies in advance.

Quote from: RPGPunditOr, the alternative, is to realize that perhaps all those hawks out there are wrong, take a more globalist point of view of things, and realize that what might actually help the US in the longer term is to realize that a decline of American power is an inevitability in the future (it happens to every world power) and that this decline might be curtailed, and even delayed, by creating strong diplomatic alliances with other developed nations and by fostering strong relationships of assistance with underdeveloped nations.
Yes, this would mean no military action without widespread multi-national support (like, you know, the first gulf war?) with very focused strategic ends for causes that are above reproach

See, this is a sticky wicket. You bring up the Desert Storm, but not Bosnia/Kosovo. Why is that?  I mean, in both cases, there was world opinion going both ways. But the UN sanctioned one and  not the other, yeah?  So who is the final arbiter?  That's the problem with using that as a criteria - at what point does world opinion mean ok - ten countries; 20? It's why nobody trusted Kerry (or those who believe) that world opinion counts for anything other than an opinion to whcih we should listen.

And we do foster relationahips.  Ask JimBob how strong our relationship is with Australia!

Quote from: RPGPunditthe fostering of development of all sorts, but ESPECIALLY education in the third world, to try to create environments that are resistant to the rise of terrorist or anti-democratic anti-american movements, and work on the principle that its better to be loved than feared. And, you know, the principle that the better off underdeveloped nations are, the better that will be for the US in the long term.

Back to agreement.  And you might be surprised that, as I noted before, most Americans understand, however deep it might be in their psyche, that the better off underdeveloped nations are, the better off we are:

• They buy our stuff
• They sell us new/cheap/different stuff
• They don't attack us

Surprisingly, that's often seen a conservative view in the US - capitalist pigs!