I’m the author.
I don’t understand your point.
Would you care to elaborate?
Yes I know
Did you not understand Goofy or Rude?
I think I got my point across about my opinion didnt I ?
royal744
All that you say is true (I feel like the Outlaw Josey Wales in saying that), but against that we have to balance the great good that America has presented to and done in the world.
But before going on to that, it needs to be remembered that what America did in South America and the Philippines etc before WWII wasn’t any worse, and it might even be argued was better, than other major powers did in acquiring and running their colonies. We should judge America’s old actions by the standards of the time.
Post-WWII Germany and Japan could have been re-runs of WWI if America hadn’t seen the errors of the past and implemented and very generously supported reconstruction plans, and if MacArthur, for all his many faults, hadn’t been so adroit in running the Occupation in Japan.
The UN, which now is reviled by the US Administration (and not without some reason), was largely an American creation and largely supported by America as part of a vision for a better world. It’s not America’s fault that shitty little dictatorships and bankrupt states around the planet have the same vote as decent and rational nations which aren’t being bought off by Chinese money in the Pacific and so on.
Despite the usual stacking of the Supreme Court which all administrations do, the fact remains that the Court has generally been a bulwark against the excesses of administrations and has generally preserved the liberties enshrined in the US Constitution. These liberties are enjoyed by almost nobody else on the planet.
And, funny though it may seem to say this, the principles of American liberty projected through countless Hollywood films over the past ten or fifteen years which border on laughable propaganda still hold out an ideal for which many people yearn, even if the US fails to deliver it to its own people at times and has consistently denied those freedoms to people who opposed repressive regimes which the US supported.
Never has America, or any other English-speaking country, supported or done anything even remotely like the oppressive and murderous acts of the regimes to which America has been opposed during and since WWII. Which is not to say that there have not been many bad acts in the field.
America’s problem is that it is judged by the high standards of its lofty principles, which it has failed in some instances to observe, from My Lai to Abu Ghraib to rendition.
The difference is that America, when finally forced to act on such matters, has dealt with them according to its principles and in accordance with law, as exemplified by the David Hicks matter where USMC Major Michael (Dan) Mori did a stunning job for his client. And is being duly punished by the military system for doing it so well, which shows the other side of the freedom coin.
There were countless VC Calleys killing and literally ripping the guts out of hamlet chiefs in Vietnam to terrify the inhabitants into supporting the VC, as there were far worse acts at Abu Ghraib under Hussein than anything the Americans did. Nobody in those regimes had any problem with such acts. No matter how much it wished to avoid confronting these issues, when forced to deal with them America dealt with them in ways which could not have occurred under the other regimes, because ultimately what happened offended American principles and the people who offended those principles were dealt with. It wouldn‘t have happened in those countries according to their usual principles and practices.
If America’s many failings were judged by the standards of places like pre-invasion Iraq or pre-invasion Afghanistan or current Zimbabwe or countless other vicious shitholes, America wouldn’t even register on the bad nation radar.
America might be a long way short of perfect, but it’s still a shining light in a world with a lot of grey and darkness.
Almost as good as Australia, which truly is the best place to live. 
If you did, I wouldn’t be seeking clarification.
I have no idea what your point is.
What, specifically, have I said to offend you?
Yes, I do.
You’re the only person, including several Americans, in a rather long-standing thread who seems to have a problem with me and my opinions.
So, again, please specify your difficulties with my position and I will respond.
Thanks, Rising Sun! I’ll go with your take on it! I agree that actions in the past should be seen through lenses ground at the time. I just didn’t want anyone to think that Americans are unaware of the blemishes on their history. Far from it.
We all have blemishes on our national histories.
I may have made this point elsewhere on this forum, or perhaps somewhere else, but the opposition to apartheid in South Africa exemplifies the double standards in judging nations as currently applied to America over Iraq and related issues.
South Africa rightly copped a lot of flak from Western liberals, human rights activists, and right-thinking people for its apartheid and racist policies and practices.
Yet none of those noble people got wound up about far, far, far worse abuses in Angola and other African countries where pillage, rape and butchery were often the order of the day and, worse, were authorised, encouraged and pursued by the national governments. None of them get wound up about what a spectacular human rights and crime FUBAR South Africa has become since it got rid of the old white regime.
Why not?
Because of the unconscious racism, just as bad as or worse than the white South Africans’ racism, in the minds of the critics opposing racism.
They expected white South Africans to behave better, but didn’t expect anything better than pillage, rape, butchery, crime and denials of human rights from black Africans. So the whites got roundly criticised for their failure to observe white standards but the blacks’ failure even to approach those standards was ignored.
Similar unstated prejudices, which assume that Americans as representatives of European and Enlightenment values are superior to Arabs and the like, apply now to Iraq and related issues.
People, rightly, get wound up about American bad behaviour at Abu Ghraib etc. But where were they when Saddam was running the place as a serious torture chamber and murder farm? Now that they know what happened there, why aren’t they calling for the Iraqi bastards who ran it then to be hunted down now and prosecuted with the same vigour as the lesser American bastards who mistreated prisoners there? Why aren’t these advocates for justice getting their knickers in a knot (‘panties in a twist’ for American viewers) about the many far worse regimes oppressing and thoroughly buggering up much of the third world? Why do they make such a big deal about America being responsible for, according to Nancy Pelosi tonight, maybe 100,000 Iraqis killed since America, Britain and Australia invaded Iraq? FFS, who killed them? In almost all cases, other Iraqis or Arabs or Muslims. Whose fault is that? Whose fault is it that the insurgents target the organs of a well organised civil society, such as the police, and the medical staff and hospitals needed to deal with their depredations? Who is trying to destroy Iraq?
Not America, despite having got into Iraq on a bad premise.
But the self-appointed guardians of all that is pure and noble reserve their sanctimonious moral indignation for America. Not Britain, which had a fairly large part in it, and not Australia, which was insignificant but equally culpable morally.
Why doesn’t an Iraqi or other Arab or Muslim bastard who goes to a recruiting point for the desperate unemployed in Iraq and attracts them to his truck before blowing up 60 or 100 of them generate any anger from the advocates for justice and purity of motive? Because they don’t expect any better of the people they see, as with Angola and black Africa a generation ago, as primitive and inherently brutal people in Iraq, who don’t matter. Except as statistics to berate America.
If the high-minded consciences of the Western World were as consistent and as active in their opposition to all forms of abusing people in all countries, instead of focusing on America as the supposed fount of all that is wrong with the world, there’d be a lot less suffering in the world.
If anyone thinks I’ve lost the plot and am out of touch with what is going on, there are people a lot more disturbed than me. Today I saw in an Australian university a poster for a (non-academic - it was a socialist club*) lecture on how America caused al Qaeda to exist and to fly planes into the twin towers. This crew of certifiable idiots can be relied upon to be in the forefront of anti-American and anti-everything activity and to be at every protest against everything, unless the protest happens to conflict with the day they pick up their dole cheques when they take money from the society they are doing their best to destroy while doing bugger-all to contribute anything of worth to it.
- It was the Socialist Alternative, which has long been prominent on Australian campuses in its own tiny mind. On some campuses it numbers members in the, believe it or not, low double digits. However, according to other posters I saw today, the Socialist Alternative is under challenge by LOUD, which proclaims itself as, literally, ‘the alternative to the Socialist Alternative‘. I’d join, but I’m waiting for the alternative to the alternative to the alternative to the socialists. I don’t want to get too close to real socialists.
I’d like to put the issue of Bush aside for a moment and just reflect on the fact that when I first went abroad on an extended trip back in 1965 (might have been a year earlier!), the world seemed to love Americans. Even then, though, I encountered someone in Greece who gesticulated with his hands and made machine-gun sounds and then said “Lyndon Johnson”, implying, one supposes that it was he who was behind Kennedy’s death. That singular event shocked me and I guess it shocked the whole world. I went abroad again, this time for two years, to North Africa and thoroughly enjoyed myself and again had a positive experience as an American in an Arab country where everyone seemed to be studying English, lol. I have been abroad many times since then and I have noticed a certain cooling towards us as a people. I am saddened at how far we seem to have fallen in the eyes of the world, but I am unsure if this is a reality or just a perception on the parts of others. I sometimes wonder if we haven’t squandered the enormous reserve of goodwill that so many in the world had towards us. Can we point to the aftermath of 9-11, or perhaps invading a country that had not attacked us as the starting point of this decline? I don’t know, but I do wonder with some trepidation what the future holds.
Thank you both guys Rising Sun and royal for the frank stories.
People, rightly, get wound up about American bad behaviour at Abu Ghraib etc. But where were they when Saddam was running the place as a serious torture chamber and murder farm? Now that they know what happened there, why aren’t they calling for the Iraqi bastards who ran it then to be hunted down now and prosecuted with the same vigour as the lesser American bastards who mistreated prisoners there? Why aren’t these advocates for justice getting their knickers in a knot (‘panties in a twist’ for American viewers) about the many far worse regimes oppressing and thoroughly buggering up much of the third world? Why do they make such a big deal about America being responsible for, according to Nancy Pelosi tonight, maybe 100,000 Iraqis killed since America, Britain and Australia invaded Iraq? FFS, who killed them? In almost all cases, other Iraqis or Arabs or Muslims. Whose fault is that? Whose fault is it that the insurgents target the organs of a well organised civil society, such as the police, and the medical staff and hospitals needed to deal with their depredations? Who is trying to destroy Iraq?
Not America, despite having got into Iraq on a bad premise
That’s true.
but this is only one side of medal;)And not the most brilliant…
The bloody civil and relogious war of in Iraq was possible ONLY after elimination of “brutal Saddam” who at least hold the Iraq far from a civil war.
Invading the Iraq , Americans should be understand they invade a region with mostly hostile population - not as much Iraq( 25 mln) as Syria(18 mln) and Iran(66 mln). The naive hopes of politicans for the “little victorious” war was a great adventure.
Another bad thing ws the illusion of “internation support” of this adventure.
The “international” Coalition - where the 90% are the Americans is a more political action then the real war help.As the resault now, when as its obvious the "allies’ try to leave the USA alone.
Cheers.
Once again I’ve had an enforced break from this forum and I have missed much.
This is an excellent thread, thanks Rising Sun, but it does exemplify that ordinary people everywhere, no matter the country in which they live are basically the same.
The real differing view occurs at the political level or to throw another factor in-Hollywood. I’m not joking when I say Hollywood has at times been responsible for making America a laughing stock.
I must congratulate royal744, you’ve stolen my thunder a fair bit, but Bush created this mess, purely by allowing the likes of Rumsfeld call the tune. What an insidious character he is and how Bush missed the point at the time of The Revolt Of The Generals and allowed him to continue his position I’ll never know.
I don’t believe Bush is a bad or evil man, and perhaps if there had not been a 9/11 he might have been a fair president, heck he might have been better than Clinton(another abysmal failure). However a president is only as good as his advisors and let’s face it the Neo-Cons who surrounded Bush have appalling records in pushing their own agendas, much to the cost of America and ordinary Americans.
Yes, I know many Americans and I can honestly say except for one exception they are wonderful, kind people, and I cannot judge them because of the inadequacies of their political system.
Regards digger.
I dont see Clinton as a failure. Depends how you regard foreign politics. Clinton did a much better job at this then Dubya has done. Bush has seen the height of best regards for Americans and the worst in his 8 years in office. I dont want to get to off topic but if you take a look at American History … Americans perceive lack of action worse than actions that result in “bad” things. Hence why Buchanan and Harding (15th and 29th pres respectively) are both at the bottom of the polls of just about every ranking ive ever seen.
Of course Clinton was not as bad George w., but bloody hell he was as low as a snake’s belly.
But if I go on about Clinton it will detract from this thread. Perhaps I will start a Bill Clinton thread later.
On another note I’m sure Rising Sun will back me up, Australia has had some pretty crook leaders in the last 35 years, so you blokes have no monoply on this one.
Regards digger
As an Aussie I DO NOT hate American’s. I do however strongly disagree with America’s foreign policy.
Let us not forget that as allies in the so called war against terror we in Australia have a similar foreign policy. We are not blameless.
I read a good quote the other day. “When Australians don’t vote we get a fine. When American’s don’t vote they get George Bush.”
Sad thing is we have to vote by law and we as a nation voted for Little Johnny Howard. Who are the bigger fools?
You must admit Little Johnnie has run up against opponents who have simply imploded.
Regards digger
Definitely.
Off topic but, it’s just a question of which was less bad.
Imagine the international laughter if the Americans had had a Billy McMahon running their show.
:D:D:D see my thread on Aussie PMS. Must admit though Billy had just about the sexiest first lady in history.
Regards digger
That’s a great line, cam77. I voted TWICE not to have GW Bush (the Shrub) as President. The first time, I have my doubts as to whether or not that election was frankly stolen. The 2nd time, unfortunately, the American people made the wrong choice. Funny thing is, I could see through this guy from the start, as could millions of others, and always puzzled as to why a very slim majority voted otherwise. He was Governor here in Texas before and he wasn’t much then either. But then Texas governors have very little power. Bush has a very attractive personality in a Yale frat-boy sort of way. I watched him up close a couple of times and can see why people like him, but liking him is not enough in my book. In comparison to Clinton, I think he’s a midget, but that’s another thread.
In any event, history will make its own judgment. I doubt it will go well for Dubya. I have a brother who has lived in Belgium for thirty five years and he tells me that the Belgians loved Clinton and can’t stand Bush. Ditto my sister in Holland. Go figure. Sorry, I guess I couldn’t put Bush “aside” for too long a moment.
Here’s the substance of a recent article by a senior Australian journalist, and former editor of the paper the article appears in, which confirms that comment from the outsider’s view.
Some particularly wise person once said that if you are going to write about America, you should do so after a short stay, maybe a few weeks, before you are overwhelmed by its diversity and the sheer size of the place, with all its contradictions, excesses and complexities.
I fear that I have failed to convey the complexity of America, but if I have failed I am not alone. My view is that most of the reporting of the place by most foreign correspondents — British, European and, yes, Australian — fails the complexity test.
This, of course, is not unique to the coverage of the United States. Shortly after I arrived in Washington, David Broder, the veteran Washington Post columnist, having spent a few days in Australia, mainly in Sydney, wrote a column in which he described a country that to me was barely recognisable.
Broder’s Australia was an earthly paradise, beautiful beyond imagining, with few economic or social problems, rich and prosperous and peaceful; Australians were friendly and unpretentious, larrikins it is true, but lovable larrikins, a country of men cut from the same cloth as the Crocodile Hunter.
Broder couldn’t get past the cliches and prejudices about the place that he had brought with him to Sydney. How much harder is it then, for foreign correspondents whose job it is to cover America to get past the cliches about the place they have grown up with and the prejudices they have brought with them.
The baggage we bring with us is considerable. American popular culture has long been globalised. And American junk food has taken over the world. For much of my time here, America felt like a giant movie set. And sometimes it felt as if I was in the middle of a TV sitcom. It is so easy and so tempting to describe and report on an America of gun madness, violence, junk food-fed obesity, scary religious fundamentalism, sickly sentimental patriotism and swaggeringly stupid politicians such as George Bush.
That America exists, no doubt, but it is not the whole story. It is not even half the story. Perhaps the best time I had in America was when I was able to travel across the country, to what is often described as the heartland — the Midwest and the plains states and the South-west.
I remember a Saturday night dinner at an old hotel outside a small town in Kansas where all the townsfolk, grandparents and their children and their grandchildren, gathered each week for a fried chicken feast, a place that felt as if it was still living in the 1950s, and where we were made welcome, we strangers, and even invited into people’s homes for a visit.
This happened everywhere, at baseball games, on train journeys, even in coffee shops; people offering hospitality and actually meaning it. Even in Washington, that most competitive of cities where everyone, it seems, is out to become a master of the universe, there was a real sense of neighbourhood and neighbourliness.
Once, when we had been away a few weeks travelling, we returned a few days before Christmas to find our front door decorated with holly and a note welcoming us back home. America is probably the most welcoming place in the world, where millions every year come to seek a new start and where there is no test of blood or tribal connections they have to pass to become Americans.
It is not without significance that, unlike Europe’s Muslims, America’s 2.5-million-strong Muslim community is highly assimilated, an economic success story and, overall, slightly more optimistic about America’s future than the general population, according to recent research by the Pew Research Centre. And an overwhelming majority of American Muslims — more than 90 per cent — are opposed to Islamic extremism.
Much of American popular culture is trashy, of course, and much of its commercial media is mindless and fixated on celebrity, but the best of American journalism — print and broadcast — is better than anything I have found elsewhere, British journalism included.
America is a place full of contradictions that it would take a lifetime to unravel. For instance, while the Bush Administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina and the drowning of New Orleans was inept and heartless, there was a great outpouring of generosity from Americans, who donated several billion dollars to support the mostly poor, black victims.
And tens of thousands of displaced people from New Orleans and the Mississippi coastal region were welcomed and resettled in cities in Texas that were not renowned for their history of great race relations.
I think that we foreign correspondents in America often deliver a cliched and a one-dimensional sense of this place, of this superpower that will play a major role in determining the future of all of us.
Me, I have grown to love the place, for all its failings. I will miss writing about it.
Fabulous article, RS! I think that’s a definite keeper.
In the same vein, I know quite a few Europeans who have “been to America”. Oh yes, they know it well. Where they have “been” has been to New York, Los Angeles and maybe San Francisco. Maybe. The other 99.9% of the country they know little or nothing about. Interestingly, a cafe owner in Nice remarked to me, "I have been to America, but I only saw New York City, and I know that is the most “un-American city” on the continent. This guy got it just right.
I was reading a book about “theatre design in America” written by a fellow from London. It was well-written, but unfortunately, the author ONLY visited New York City (lol), the one place in America where land values are so staggeringly high that it contains the worst theatres in the country. The good ones are ALL somewhere else! I wrote the author and he said next time he came here, he would “look around”. He missed the other 12,000 theatres in the country.
We have all traveled to other countries and gained very shallow impressions of what is really there because most travelers have neither the time nor the inclination to burrow deeper than the depth of a digital image. Still, one supposes it’s better than nothing.
American are not hated but American foreign policy is hated. Bush seems like a child who has received a new “war game” for xmas and who likes to play with. But he has forgotten to read Instructions: prohibition to use force (2.4 UN charter), non-existance of anticipatory self-defence (art 51) …
If the American foreign policy changes, then the question “who hates American ?” will become obsolete.