Tangaroa wrote:THe US was not invading any other countries as far as I know while the situation in east timor was going on.
And your point is? That the U.S. should have invaded East Timor, in what, 1999, during the uprisings, to smack down the Indonesians?
Did your country, New Zealand, send troops? The UN sent in a peacekeeping force. But my recollection is that New Zealand was not presently invading any countries either.
It really is obvious that the conflict in East Timor did not present the kind of threat to United States interests that, at that time, warranted an attack.
Even tho its a little late in the posting I would like to second the point that the USA did very much appoint ourselves the global police. We did it willingly and on purpose, some of you might even remember when we decided it; just a little event we like to call perl harbor. If you could boil all the politics and diplomacy and wars that the USA has fought in the last 50 years down to only two words, they would be: Never Again.
Right now, the reputation of the US is really quite damaged . . . we are perceived as wild west outlaws.
We chose to set the precedent. We chose to go to Iraq, against the judgement of our allies. And we chose to make a pre-emptive strike on the country. Was it justified? That's beyond the scope of this argument.
Instead, our focus is whether or not this the image we really want to have. The answer: probably not.
So the "Allies" that were against us going to Iraq were France and Germany? The same countries that were recieving kick back contracts frome the oil for food program designed to keep Iraq feeding its people? You wonder why Bush said the UN was in danger of being irrelevant! Even ex head of the UN Butros Butros Ghali's inlaws were in on the action. So we should suck up to UN members greed and risk another 9/11? I think you should be relieved we have a moral man like Bush in office instead of the socialist Al "The Preacher" Gore.
I thought it telling that today members of the UN Police Force got into a shoot-out with it's self, killing several American women. The UN is a joke. France is just hoping it can get the EU up and running (and, of course, dominate it's decision-making) before the UN completely disintegrates. Strange how all those years of spending our cash and wasting our manpower protecting Europe have paid off.
Tangaroa wrote:There were NZ troops in east timor helping to stop the massacre, one got killed.
A family friend was also there at the embassy while the fighting was going on.
And . . . he was a UN Peacekeeper. Why is your complaint not with the UN?
Look, I thought you were baiting with your first post. I thought you were trying to demonstrate that the U.S. is somehow insincere about its belief that a free Iraq will make for a better world, because it had not made freedom a priority in East Timor.
I see now you really wish the U.S. had involved itself there, and that's entirely different. I'm not too educated on East Timor, but I'd welcome your helping me along there.
I'm actually surprised, sol, that you took the isolationist comment so literally. You know for a fact almost every country on this planet would love to remove itself from the circle of dependency of other countries if they could, the United States is no different. The reality of the matter is it doesn't work that way, so yes, countries have to interact.
As far as being contradicting, you're assuming that ...
A ) my isolationist comment meant something other then what I had intended.
B ) My policing the world statement was somehow linked to point "A" and that also I was refering solely to Iraq.
Both are wrong, I explained "A" above, and "B" had nothing to do with Iraq, it was meant to be a broader statement altogether. Re-read my last post with this in mind and you might get the original content. To summarize though, aside from this Iraq situation, my whole point was that I'm tired of the US getting lambasted for doing things other countries don't take the initiative to do. Then when other countries do involve themselves along with the United States, the US gets singled out.
More importantly I'm tired of (Not including the Iraq situation) other countries asking for our help then turning around and saying we didn't do enough or we could have done a better job when in all actuality we could have done nothing at all. Moving on...
Reputations are earned yes, but being the last remaining super power in the world makes it a little easier for us to mend those reputations. Atleast it would be in the eyes of our allies then say, perhaps, the people in the middle east. Countries dependant on us usually are quick to forget when all of a sudden they need our help for something.
Too many people are getting hung up on this whole middle east thing and it really is starting to get old, atleast for me. Maybe I'd like the whole thing to just go away. Wishful thinking on my part of course, but after a while...yeesh. Yes, it is an important time in history. Yes, these events will shape our planet for years to come. The constant filibustering about the whole thing just beats the dang thing into the ground. Let the damn horse die already, just for a little bit. No? damnit
BD was correct, in the BIGGER PICTURE we don't really care what other countries say about us. We might have people living in the US that are good ass kissers, but as a country we don't do the ass kissing Let them think we are wild west outlaws. In the bigger picture we're actually just cowboys, and the cowboys were pioneers. Maybe the rest of the world will actually see some more progress from our actions.
p.s. Krom, yeah, then 9/11 happend. Somewhere down the road something else will happen again. It isn't preventable and up until recent events it isn't the sole reason why we've kept active within other countries. We've been involved with other countries before Pearl Harbor. It was poetic, I'll give you that
Tyranny wrote:p.s. Krom, yeah, then 9/11 happend. Somewhere down the road something else will happen again. It isn't preventable and up until recent events it isn't the sole reason why we've kept active within other countries. We've been involved with other countries before Pearl Harbor. It was poetic, I'll give you that
I aggree, probably not next week, but 10 years? 30 years? 50 years? All I know is as long as the USA endures, there will eventually be more dates running alongside 12/7/1941 and 9/11/2001 regardless of how the globe in general views America.
bash wrote:roid, it's funny how much you thought being number one was important when you believed Australia beat the US in scramjet technology. Now, of course, the tune changes to make us look like there's something wrong with trying to excel. Typical. And a perfect illustration why we don't care what others think of us anymore. We can't get any credit no matter how much good we do or how cogent an argument we make for our actions. Most of our foreign critics latch on tightly to lies and distortions and cover their ears at the first hint of truth. A good many foreigners want to dislike us and we know that.
you have no idea.
in australia we champion the underdogs.
but we understand who has the power.
Australian patriotism is ALWAYS tounge in cheek my friend . we always leave laughing room at the end of the debate.
Arrogent people never laugh at themselves and therefore shy away from admitting their own errors and apologies (lest it show them to be weak).
it is an australian tradition to "have a laugh, at your own expense". and playfully bully people who can't , until they can.
Bold Deveiver: NZ's attitude is similar. you can't sidestep by saying "bah your country sux too", because we are all too happy to admit it, have a laugh (dismiss the ad-hominem), then repeat the accusation.
i think we already grilled our own government for the east timor crisis.
In defense of the Stars and Stripes
Anti-Americanism by Jean-Francois Revel, French-English translation by Diarmid Cammell
Reviewed by John Parker
All across the globe, from Sydney to Siberia, from Quebec to Patagonia, there is one sporting obsession that unifies the entire human race. Young and old, male and female, black, white and every shade in between, there is one pleasurable activity that unifies them all.
I'm speaking, of course, about America-bashing. (Why, did you think I was talking about something else?) By 2004, any remaining wisps of sympathy for the Americans who were forced to choose between jumping and burning alive in 2001 had long since dissipated, and the globe had returned to its former habit of treating the United States as the official whipping boy for all the world's ills.
Indeed, anti-Americanism has ascended from its former status as the preoccupation of a relative handful of Jurassic Marxists, professional victims, Third World whiners, and Islamo-fascist troglodytes to the level of a major new global religion. Like any religion, it has its saints (which include the likes of Che Guevara and Ho Chi Minh), its martyrs (the Rosenbergs, the Guantanamo Bay detainees and Saddam Hussein's sons), its high priests (Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore and Abu Bakar Ba'asyir), and its desperately over-eager wanna-bes (eg, Asia Times Online's very own Pepe Escobar, whose viewpoint on any issue can be predicted with absolute accuracy by simply asking "what interpretation of this situation will put the United States in the worst light?").
Curiously, however, while the religion has a hell (America), and a devil (George W Bush), it lacks both a heaven (the collectivist pipe dream having been found wanting) and a god (since the anti-Americans consider themselves as having evolved beyond the need for a deity - save their Islamist faction, which wants to impose its religion forcibly on everyone else). Still, the anti-American cult provides its legions of drooling adherents with the crucial element of any faith: the illusion of meaning in an otherwise meaningless existence. That priceless psychological salve, in this case, is the comforting delusion that, no matter how hypocritical, backward, bigoted, ignorant, corrupt or cowardly the cult's followers might otherwise be, at least they are better than those awful Americans.
Jean-Francois Revel is a distinguished French writer who has, for nearly all his working life, chosen the rockiest path any intellectual can choose: the path of true non-conformity (as distinct from the ersatz, self-described non-conformists one finds on any university campus in the Western world). Specifically, Revel has chosen to confront directly - not only in this volume, but in several earlier books that touched on the issue - the entrenched anti-Americanism of an entire generation of European intellectuals, particularly French ones. Like his countryman Emile Zola (whose explosive article "J'accuse" attacked French society's handling of the Alfred Dreyfus affair), he has dared to defend an unpopular scapegoat and, in so doing, has probably done more to earn the gratitude of Americans than any Frenchman since General Lafayette, who came to the aid of the American revolutionary cause.
The reason that Revel's attitude toward the US is so strikingly different from most of his compatriots is not difficult to find: indeed, one finds it on the very first page of this book, when the author reveals that he lived and traveled frequently in the US between 1970 and 1990. During this time, he had conversations with "a wide range of Americans - politicians, journalists, businessmen, students and university professors, Democrats and Republicans, conservatives, liberals and radicals, and people I met in passing from every walk of life". This simple action - talking to actual Americans and asking them what they think, as opposed to blindly regurgitating European conventional wisdom about what Americans think - was obviously the critical step in separating Revel from the smug, chauvinistic sheep who predominate in his intellectual class. It was a step that the vast majority of this class, then and now, have been unwilling to take: they simply cherish their prejudice against Americans too greatly to face the possibility that real, live examples might not conform to it.
In Monsieur Revel's case, these conversations led to his first book, Without Marx or Jesus, published in 1970. Thirty-four years ago, Revel was "astonished by evidence that everything Europeans were saying about the US was false"; sadly, this situation has not changed in the slightest in the intervening time. Indeed, if anything, the conventional wisdom about the United States is even more wrong today than it was then. Without Marx or Jesus made two main points: first, that major social/political developments taking place in the US in the late 1960s, such as the Vietnam War protests, the American Free Speech movement, and the sexual revolution, constituted a new type of revolution, distinct from the working-class uprising predicted by the Marxist theories then in fashion. Second, Revel predicted that the great revolution of the 20th century would turn out to be the "liberal revolution" - ie, the spread of multiparty democracy and market economics - rather than the "socialist revolution". The latter point may appear to be almost conventional wisdom today, but it was a bold assertion in 1970. Most of the book consisted of a point-by-point rebuttal of the reflexive anti-Americanism of the day, and correctly identified its main psychological wellspring: envious resentment due to Europe's loss of leadership status in Western civilization during the postwar era.
In this first book, Revel also described the definitive proof of the irrational origins of anti-American arguments: "reproaching the United States for some shortcoming, and then for its opposite ... a convincing sign that we are in the presence not of rational analysis, but of obsession". In the 1960s, the best example of this behavior was European attitudes toward US involvement in Vietnam. A startling number of French commentators developed a sudden amnesia about their country's own involvement in Indochina, and the fact that France, while embroiled in its ugly war with the Viet Minh, "frequently pleaded for and sometimes obtained American help". Thus the same French political class that begged president Dwight Eisenhower to send B-29s to save the Foreign Legion at Dien Bien Phu was only too quick to label the United States a "neo-imperialist", or worse, for subsequently intervening in the unholy mess that the preceding decades of French colonial misrule had largely created.
In Anti-Americanism, which is basically a sequel to Without Marx or Jesus, a more contemporary example of the same phenomenon is given: the nearly simultaneous criticism of the US for "arrogant unilateralism" and "isolationism". As Revel dryly observes, "the same spiteful bad temper inspired both indictments, though of course they were diametrically opposed".
Examples of this psychopathology are almost endless, but the Iraq crisis has certainly provided a profusion of new cases. For example, during the 12 years after 1991, the anti-American press was filled with self-righteous hand-wringing over what was billed as the terrible suffering of the Iraqi people under UN sanctions. But when the administration of President George W Bush abandoned the sanctions policy (a policy that, incidentally, had been considered the cautious, moderate course of action when it was originally adopted) in favor of a policy of regime change by military force - which was obviously the only realistic way to end the sanctions - did these dyspeptic howler monkeys praise the United States for trying to alleviate Iraqis' suffering? No, of course not - instead, without batting an eyelash, they simply began criticizing the United States for the "terrible civilian casualties" caused by bombing.
Innumerable cases like this have made it perfectly clear to Americans that they will automatically be despised no matter what policy option they select. Furthermore, the only rational reaction Americans could have to this situation is to keep their own counsel when it comes to foreign policy, and leave their fair-weather friends - or, more accurately, no-weather friends - at arm's length. Predictably, however, the anti-American cult has a third accusation pre-packaged and ready to go for this very reaction: the inexplicable reluctance of Americans to listen attentively to their perpetually peeved critics is the result of their "arrogant unilateralism"! (Naturally, the possibility that the anti-American cultists' own statements might have played a role in promoting this behavior is never even considered.)
The most notable characteristic of Anti-Americanism, as a text, is the blistering, take-no-prisoners quality of its prose. Even those diametrically opposed to Revel's views would be forced to acknowledge his skills as a pugnacious rhetorician who does not eschew sarcasm as a weapon.
A few examples will suffice: referring to anti-war banners that proclaimed "No to terrorism. No to war", Revel scoffs that this "is about as intelligent as 'No to illness. No to medicine'." Responding to the indictment of the United States as a "materialistic civilization", he says: "Everyone knows that the purest unselfishness reigns in Africa and Asia, especially in the Muslim nations, and that the universal corruption that is ravaging them is the expression of a high spirituality."
Addressing the claim of the Japanese philosopher Yujiro Nakamura that "American culture ignores [the] dark dimension" of human beings, the author observes: "Evidently, Nakamura has never read Melville, Poe, Hawthorne, Henry James, Faulkner, Tennessee Williams, [etc], to mention only a few explorers of the depths." And he is positively withering in his contempt for Japanese intellectuals who, in the wake of September 11, opined that America's wealth disqualifies it from speaking in the name of human rights: "Everyone knows that Japan has always been deeply respectful towards [human rights], as Koreans, Chinese and Filipinos can amply confirm." Revel opens his sixth chapter, "Being Simplistic", by recalling the "pitying, contemptuous sneers" that greeted president Ronald Reagan's characterization of the Soviet Union as an "evil empire", then retorts, "it is not apparent that subsequent progress in Soviet studies gives us grounds to call it the 'Benevolent Empire'." And he responds to the claim of conservative British writer Andrew Alexander that "the Cold War was an American plot" by saying: "Following a similar logic, one might build a case that the Hundred Years' War was a complete fabrication by Joan of Arc, who wanted star billing in a pseudo-resistance against the conciliatory, peace-loving English."
In general, Revel's barbs strike most accurately when aimed at his own country. For example, responding to the tired claim that the US is "not a democracy" because it has supported dictatorships in Third World countries, Revel notes: "The history of Africa and Asia swarms with dictatorships of every type ... supported by the French and the British ... But it would very much surprise French living [in that period] if you told them that they didn't live in a democratic country."
Another telling denunciation arises from the statements of Olivier Duhamel, a Socialist deputy in the European Union, who responded to the electoral success of French ultra-rightist Jean-Marie Le Pen by complaining that France was "catching up with the degenerate democracies [such as] the US, Austria and Italy". First, Revel comments on the idiocy of Duhamel's insinuation that the United States is degenerate because Frenchmen voted for an ultra-rightist, then concludes: "The strange thing is that it is always in Europe that dictatorships and totalitarian governments spring up, yet it is always America that is 'fascist'."
Of course, the danger of the author's biting approach is that it could alienate, rather than convince, his readers. But given that the hypocrisy of the anti-Americans has piled up so thickly in recent years that one practically needs a chainsaw to cut through it, there may be no other choice.
Many of Revel's observations about the anti-Americans, such as their amazingly recent advocacy (in many cases) of totalitarian communism, or the fact that many intellectuals in failed societies have sought to blame the US scapegoat instead of engaging in self-criticism, have been made before by other writers. He is at his most original, however, when analyzing the cultists' psychological motivations; for example, contrasting the motives of the anti-American left with the anti-American right. To wit, the left essentially regards the United States as a devil figure, one that it has clung to all the more tightly in the years since its former deity, Marxist collectivism, collapsed in an abyss of poverty and repression. The right, by contrast, resents the United States as a pretender to the throne of global leadership that rightfully belongs to Europe - conveniently ignoring the fact that World Wars I and II, communist ideology, and socialist-influenced economic policies, which are, in actuality, the main factors that resulted in US ascension, all originated entirely in Europe.
Revel also breaks new ground when he discusses the striking tendency of other countries to ascribe their own worst faults to the United States, in a curious "reversal of culpability". Thus the famously peace-loving Japanese and Germans excoriate the US for "militarism"; the Mexicans attack it for "electoral corruption" in the wake of the 2000 election; the British accuse it of "imperialism"; Arab writers condemn it after September 11 for "abridging press freedom" (of course, the Arab states have always been shining beacons of that freedom). The gold medal for jaw-dropping hypocrisy, however, goes to the mainland Chinese, whose unelected dictatorship routinely accuses the United States of "hegemonism". Having been the chief hegemon of Asia for most of the past 5,000 years, the Chinese are in a singularly weak position to condemn the practice. What they actually oppose, of course, is not "hegemonism" itself, but the possibility that any power other than China would dare to practice it.
France has been no exception to this universal rule. Former minister of foreign affairs Hubert Vedrine, in his book Les Mondes de Francois Mitterrand, wrote: "The foremost characteristic of the United States ... is that it has regarded itself ever since its birth as a chosen nation, charged with the task of enlightening the rest of the world." Of course, this was a wholly conventional allegation of US "arrogance", delivered to an adoring choir. But then, a discordant note - Revel alone has the temerity to observe: "What is immediately striking about this pronouncement, the obvious fact that jumps right out, is how perfectly it applies to France herself." The Gallic emperor proves embarrassingly unclothed, for virtually every "arrogant" assertion of uniqueness made by Americans has its uncannily similar counterpart made by Frenchmen: if Thomas Jefferson once said "the United States is the empire of liberty", then countless French politicians have asserted with equal megalomania, "France is the birthplace of the Rights of Man." If anything, Revel does not develop this point highly enough. For, to an American observer of countless anti-American diatribes, the most striking aspect of the United States they describe is how little it resembles the actual, physical United States, and how uncannily it resembles a doppelganger of the writer's own society.
Not every psychological trait of the anti-Americans is discussed by Revel. He does not go far enough, for example, in delineating the fundamentally onanistic character of their rhetoric; it is difficult to explain the obsessive, droning, almost pornographic quality of the criticism, and its deliberate ignorance of easily obtained contrary facts, without understanding that the primary motive of the critics is to obtain pleasure. After all, hasn't the main purpose of bigots and bullies since time immemorial been to build themselves up by tearing down their victims?
Another unmentioned aspect is the sheer adolescent pettiness of the criticism. This can be seen most clearly in international press coverage of the United States, which scarcely ever misses an opportunity to America-bash, even when reporting on areas that are in essence non-political, such as economic statistics and scientific discovery. Revel discusses the typical example of a story in the economics journal La Tribune, which gleefully announced "The End of Full Employment in the USA" when the US unemployment rate climbed to 5.5 percent in early 2001 (at the time, the French government was congratulating itself for reducing French unemployment to only twice this level). More recently, the British Broadcasting Corp gave exhaustive coverage to a technical problem with the US Mars Spirit Rover, but barely mentioned the successful effort to solve the problem. This spiteful editorial decision, and countless others like it, was typical of an organization in which balanced, accurate news coverage has become secondary to the holy task of denouncing Uncle Sam.
Finally, one must mention the increasingly ill-disguised anti-Semitism of many America-bashers. Of course, such toxic ideas are to be expected of reactionary Islamist fanatics, who are so profoundly ignorant that they practically regard Americans and Jews as synonymous. But one increasingly hears grumbling about "neo-conservatives" from non-Muslim critics who really want to say "scheming Jews", but dimly sense that this choice of words is not permissible. How delicious the human comedy is - that European elites, whose greatest crime, the Holocaust, has not even passed from living memory, should begin to re-enact that demagogic crime in their increasingly poisonous anti-American rhetoric, as though absolutely nothing had been learned in almost 60 years of postwar struggle to advance freedom, human rights and democracy! It may be that those who don't learn from the past are doomed to repeat it; but the apparent inability of Europeans, and others, to avoid such self-destructive cultural patterns raises the question of whether learning from the past is even possible.
Without a doubt, however, the defining trait of the cultists is their moral (if not physical) cowardice. While using Latin Americans as an examplar of this quality, Revel quotes the Venezuelan writer Carlos Rangel: "For Latin Americans, it is an unbearable thought that a handful of Anglo-Saxons, arriving much later than the Spanish and in such a harsh climate that they barely survived the first few winters, would become the foremost power in the world. It would require an inconceivable effort of collective self-analysis [emphasis mine] for Latin Americans to face up to the fundamental causes of this disparity. This is why, though aware of the falsity of what they are saying, every Latin American politician and intellectual must repeat that all our troubles stem from North American imperialism." In fact, the Latins are hardly unique in cowering tremulously at the prospect of "collective self-analysis": with minor changes in specifics, Rangel's fundamental point could apply equally well to most of Africa, the Slavic societies of Eastern Europe, the nations of the South Asian sub-continent, and last (but definitely not least) the benighted Arab world, which has repeatedly shown itself to be the global champion of finger-pointing and denial (as if that could make up for its glaring backwardness in virtually every other respect).
It is ironic, however, that so many East Asians would be drawn to the cult, since they, out of all the regions of the developing world, have the least reason to feel inferior to the United States (after all, many societies in the region have already surpassed the US by various objective criteria). It may be that in the Asian "school" of anti-Americanism, a different psychological dynamic is at work: since Asians are as convinced of their innate cultural superiority as all the other critics (though with infinitely more justification than most), it must make them very uncomfortable that, in almost every case, their societies' escape from thousands of years of static, inward-looking despotism only began when US, or British, influence arrived. In addition, of course, need one really point out the massive, obvious US influence on the postwar economic development, political evolution, and even the popular cultures of Asian societies? Or the fact that virtually the entire governing class of the most successful Asian economies was educated in the United States? It appears that some Asians feel subconsciously belittled by how much they owe the US, and respond by petulantly attacking their historic benefactor.
So is anti-Americanism just an exercise in onanistic hypocrisy, or does it have a real-world cost? It does, but the cost is not primarily the hurt feelings, or terrorist-caused deaths, of Americans - even if this was the main consequence, no one would care, since most of the world (to judge by their own words) already regards Americans as a non-human species, somehow introduced, one assumes, to North America by alien spacecraft. (Of course, this calculated, malicious demonization of Americans as "the other" is hugely ironic, since the US, due to its diverse ethnic composition and immigrant origins, arguably represents the entire human race more fully than any other single nation-state.) For decades, the anti-Americans have compared the US to the Roman Empire in the fond hope that a similar "decline and fall" would someday materialize (given that what followed the Roman collapse was centuries of war, ignorance, and barbarism, one questions their motives). Regrettably for the cultists, though, the US is large enough, is self-assured enough, and its political stability and economic momentum are great enough, that it will only continue to prosper regardless of their actions. To illustrate, countless commentators have parroted the cliche that the "war on terrorism" is unwinnable, but how many have noted the obvious, undeniable corollary that Osama bin Laden's self-declared war on the United States is equally unwinnable?
Therein lies another exquisite irony: the costs of anti-Americanism will be borne not by Americans, but by others. And their numbers are vast: Cubans, North Koreans, Zimbabweans, and countless others suffer and starve under their respective tyrannies because the democratic world's chattering classes, obsessed with denouncing the United States, can't be bothered with holding their criminal regimes to account. Meanwhile, in Iraq, fascist rabble, with no discernible political program save a pledge to kill more Americans, try desperately to extinguish the slightest hope of democracy, economic growth, and stability for that long-suffering land; but the world, instead of helping to beat back the wolves at the door, basks in anti-American schadenfreude. How countless are the political problems, cultural pathologies, and humanitarian disasters that fester unnoticed, all over the globe, as the anti-American cult, wallowing in ecstatic bigotry, desperately scrutinizes every utterance of the Bush administration for new critical fodder.
Indeed, it is not the slightest exaggeration to say that in 2004, anti-American sentiment has become the biggest single obstacle to human progress. It sustains repressive dictatorships everywhere; excuses corruption, torture, the oppression of women, and mass murder; provides ideological oxygen for vile, stupid "revolutionary movements" like the Maoist insurgents in Nepal; and has even promoted the spread of disease (as when, for example, Europeans haughtily dismissed Bush's AIDS initiative as insincere - God forbid that they should concur with any policy of the wicked Bush, even at the cost of a few million more African lives). By focusing monomaniacally on "why America is wrong", instead of asking "what is right", the global anti-American elite has massively failed to fulfill the most fundamental responsibility of the intellectual class: to provide dispassionate, truthful analysis that can guide society to make proper decisions. And it has contemptuously cast aside the irreplaceable, post-Cold War opportunity to irreversibly consolidate the "liberal revolution" praised by Revel - in which inheres the only true hope of lasting, global peace and development - all in the name of redressing the gaping psychological insecurities of its members.
None of this is to say that criticism of specific US policies, or aspects of US culture, is not entirely legitimate (and of course, inside the US, the ability to speak out publicly against such things is a cherished, constitutionally guaranteed, and frequently exercised right). Indeed, one is struck, when reading this book, by Revel's repeated emphasis of this very point. The author is hardly a universal apologist for US actions; in fact, he gives many examples of areas in which he disagrees with US government policies. However, Revel's critiques of the US, especially for American readers, can be easily differentiated from those of the anti-American cultists: his criticisms are reasonable, fair-minded, and based on accurate information; whereas those of the professional anti-Americans are unreasonable, unfair, and based on the willful disgregard of all contrary evidence. Rather than legitimate criticism, what Monsieur Revel, and I, deplore is the quasi-religious, obsessive, fanatical brand of anti-Americanism: the kind that blames the United States for every problem, everywhere, first, always, and forever; the kind that automatically identifies with, and supports, any criminal political thug anywhere on the globe, just because he happens to declare himself opposed to the United States; the kind that in essence has no other values or priorities at all, save the insatiable need to denounce the United States; the kind that is congenitally incapable of self-criticism, but searches endlessly, with inexhaustible creativity, for additional evidence that it can use for its interminable, tendentious show trial of the US.
I am reluctant to point out the weaknesses of Anti-Americanism, since I am in such profound agreement with its basic thesis. Nonetheless, in the interests of balance, there are some weak points.
First, the book is somewhat repetitive. The chapters are largely devoted to rebutting particular claims of the anti-Americanists - eg, that the United States promotes the allegedly nefarious globalization process (Chapter 2), that US culture is "extinguishing" others (Chapter 5), that US government policy is "simplistic" (Chapter 6), or that the United States is just about the worst society that has ever existed anywhere (Chapter 4). Partly as a by-product of this organizational scheme, similar types of material, eg denunciations of Islamic extremism, reappear in several different chapters.
Another problem is that, since the book was written in French primarily for a French audience, many of its specific examples refer to domestic French political figures and situations, which may not be familiar to international readers.
Finally, this reviewer noted at least one factual error. In a discussion of European reaction to the contested US presidential election of 2000, Revel asserts that no presidential elector has selected the minority candidate in its state since the beginning of the 19th century. (The US constitution provides for an indirect "electoral college" system for presidential elections, such that when an individual voter selects, say, the Democratic candidate for president, he or she is not actually voting for that candidate directly, but rather for a slate of "democratic electors" who, if the candidate wins a plurality in that state, are supposed to cast all the state's "electoral votes" for the Democrats.) In fact, there have been seven cases of "faithless electors" since 1948, most recently in 1988, when a Democratic elector in West Virginia selected vice presidential nominee Lloyd Bentsen for president, and presidential nominee Michael Dukakis for vice president (presumably, he thought Bentsen would make a better president). However, this error does not contradict the author's point, which is that incidents of this type have been rare. Also, European critics of the electoral-college system are somewhat tardy: Americans have been arguing for electoral-college reform for at least 200 years, and recently, 75 percent of Americans, or more, have expressed in polls a desire to elect the president directly.
These admitted flaws do not reduce the importance, and value, of Anti-Americanism as a necessary antidote to the poisonous torrent of crude, atavistic anti-US hatred that spews forth daily from newspapers, magazines, and websites around the world. In the introduction, Revel recalls how Without Marx or Jesus, 34 years ago, was also greeted with strident denunciations from the baying jackals of the anti-American cult. But predictably, this hysterical response (Revel's Italian translator even attempted to rebut the book's arguments in his footnotes) only served to pique the public's interest: ordinary readers were quick to sense that any writer who had struck such a nerve obviously had something important to say, and Without Marx or Jesus became a smash hit.
It is hardly surprising that this pattern was repeated with Anti-Americanism, which has topped the French best-seller list. (Curiously, and completely contrary to what foreign stereotypes would lead one to expect, the book has been much less successful in the US - this is primarily because the anti-American obsession is entirely one-way; most Americans are barely even aware the cult exists.) The book's success shows conclusively that at least some Europeans sense the hypocrisy and intellectual vacuity of the anti-Americanists, and are once again developing an appetite for a balanced, truthful depiction of the US, as opposed to the spurious fiction they have largely been spoon-fed thus far.
Clearly, this book will not reach the committed fanatics. However, one hopes that at least a handful of fair-minded, reasonable people in Asia, Europe and elsewhere, who have the requisite moral courage to consider contrary views, will read it. I have really only scratched the surface of I>Anti-Americanism's virtues in this review: for example, Chapter 2, which critiques the anti-globalization movement, is probably the most devastating indictment of that incoherent, infantile crusade ever committed to paper.
In our time, anti-Americanism has become a crushing, Stalinist orthodoxy, an ossified system of bigoted dogmas that ruthlessly ostracizes all who would question it. It has become boring, even to the French. In this atmosphere, Monsieur Revel's book is truly a breath of fresh air. I only wish I had written it.
to clarify are we talking about how world politicians view the US or the average citizens of the world? because the foreigners i deal with on a daily basis seem very happy to be here. especially the operatives for terrorist organizations posing as cab drivers.
if we are typing about politicians and journalists... well ya... they complain incessantly without looking into the mirror once in a while. but the author made it seem like anti-americanism was the foremost obstacle in human development on the planet. i just think that's a little bit out there.
how about this: countries of the world generally KNOW and ACCEPT their respective problems.
america doesn't, it's media, government, and army of the nieve goes on screaming at everyone else that "AMERICA... LAND OF THE FREE, YOU ARE ALL ENVIOUS. WE ARE MORE FREE THAN YOU. OUR NATION IS THE BEST NATION AND IS AWESOME." and this pisses off other nations because the other nations can see america's problems plain as day. so the other nations try to tell america of it's problems, to get everyone nodding and discussing solutions. this is where america(ns) starts taking it all personally, and lashing out. which takes the other nations quite by surprise, "do they think they are god's nation? - infallable? - omnipotent?".
you know what would make the rest of the world happy on the issue of america?
i'm serious, i have the answer.
americans need to be able to admit the mistakes and shortcommings of their nation.
this will solve the problem, and make america just like all the non-arrogent nations.
--
i'm unsure i found ANY respectable arguments in that monster quote bash. i read the whole thing.
did you even read my last post? because if you did i doubt you would have bothered cut-pasting that thing.
it was a bunch of "you can't talk to me like that! i point the finger back at you mr nation!", i see that the writer of this book review obviously takes all anti-american sentiment personally. the way he talks, you'd think we were insulting his mother.
we're not, we're trying to discuss what's wrong with his car. his car is blowing smoke, like most cars do, yet he is telling everyone that his car is the most awesome car there ever was, "it runs clean, it can jump small buildings in a single bound, god himself blesses my car".
and i come upto him and conversationally say "ahh your car's blowing smoke eh? i hate it when that happens. you know... you might be riding the clutch a bit there, what'dya recon?"
but oh no, he won't have any to do with that, this is his favourite car, it has MAGICAL POWERS! it does no wrong. he screams "it DOESN'T blow smoke so STFU!!! YOUR car (*america points to me*) blows smoke, so there!!"
i say "well yeah, most cars blow smoke, your car blows smoke you know"
he says "you are jealous of my car's awesome acceleration"
roid wrote: Australian patriotism is ALWAYS tounge [sic] in cheek my friend we always leave laughing room at the end of the debate.
With all due respect, I have no idea what this means. It sounds like you are saying to Bash, "I was just kidding." Is that so?
roid wrote:Bold Deveiver: NZ's attitude is similar. you can't sidestep by saying "bah your country sux too", because we are all too happy to admit it, have a laugh (dismiss the ad-hominem), then repeat the accusation.
Sidestep? My point that the East Timor conflict did not rise to the level of a security threat warranting an American invasion was lost you on, apparently. That's not a sidestep -- that's reality as I know it. Feel free to try to change my mind.
Second, if New Zealand chooses not to invade another country in crisis out of its national self-interest, that doesn't mean it "sux". Nor does my post imply that. It means that, as a country, New Zealand lacks the moral authority to point to the U.S. and say "why didn't you do something." You can call it ad hominem, if you like, but it is, in fact, hypocrisy.
The book review posted by Bash draws an interesting conclusion on point here, that the people who are truly hurt by Anti-American rhetoric, are the citizens of who need American help and intervention most. And that's really too bad.
roid wrote:how about this: countries of the world generally KNOW and ACCEPT their respective problems.
america doesn't . . . . (Snip diatribe.)
Much as I enjoyed your smoking car analogy, it just really sounds like an angry rant without a reference point. Maybe you should give us two or three factual examples of America's inability to "know and accept" its problems, so that we have something to work with here.
roid wrote: Australian patriotism is ALWAYS tounge [sic] in cheek my friend. we always leave laughing room at the end of the debate.
With all due respect, I have no idea what this means. It sounds like you are saying to Bash, "I was just kidding." Is that so?
uh, yes and no. "tounge in cheek" means you're kidding, but not in such a way that the point raised has no merit.
kinda like ";)"
the other bit ment that the patriotism isn't strong or anything (or maybe it's just not dependant on external factors), i don't cry if you say my country sux, and i'm ready to laugh at it all.
in the scramjet thread i was kindof kidding, it's hard to explain. lets just say that australian patriotism is culturally different to america's, if anyone pointed out that the scramjet wasn't first tested by australia (i think someone DID point this truthfully out) then i don't take it as a major blow, any distress on my part was eggsadurated. i was also fully expecting someone else to have a jab and share a laugh at my expense .
haha coz i really set myself up in that thread.
Bold Deceiver wrote:
roid wrote:Bold Deveiver: NZ's attitude is similar. you can't sidestep by saying "bah your country sux too", because we are all too happy to admit it, have a laugh (dismiss the ad-hominem), then repeat the accusation.
Sidestep? My point that the East Timor conflict did not rise to the level of a security threat warranting an American invasion was lost you on, apparently. That's not a sidestep -- that's reality as I know it. Feel free to try to change my mind.
Second, if New Zealand chooses not to invade another country in crisis out of its national self-interest, that doesn't mean it "sux". Nor does my post imply that. It means that, as a country, New Zealand lacks the moral authority to point to the U.S. and say "why didn't you do something." You can call it ad hominem, if you like, but it is, in fact, hypocrisy.
sorry i had just read bash's mammoth quote, got confused who was sidestepping.
i thought you said "NZ didn't help either" and left it at that.
when really you said "timor doesn't raise a security threat to america, we are only interested in threats to america". and rightly so. but i of course get pissed when i hear some ppl's (not you) rhetoric that "america is all about bringing freedom to the world".
coz as you just pointed out above, this is a lie, it's all about how it directly effects america. i say again, this is fine. but denying it isn't fine.
but to get back to the quote, the NZ gov has the right to ask why the US didn't help with timor. the US also has the right to say "coz it wasn't in our national interest", then go and ask the same question back at NZ.
USA yelling "hypocracy!" at NZ shouldn't let USA outof answering the question. it was just a question, NZ wasn't attacking the USA with it, USA didn't have to take it so personally.
unless you consider "revealing true motives" to be a BAD THING.
i don't give a crap if teh USA is trying to paint itself with a "we are a never ending spring of freedom and love you all" image.
it's just marketing, don't mourn it's death.
george and james, 2 blind men:
george: "I see perfectly"
james: "no you can't! you're blind as a bat"
george: "so are you, you hypocrite"
james: "well duh, but it still doesn't mean i'm wrong"
Bold Deceiver wrote:Much as I enjoyed your smoking car analogy, it just really sounds like an angry rant without a reference point. Maybe you should give us two or three factual examples of America's inability to "know and accept" its problems, so that we have something to work with here.
it was just in response to anyone trying to quickly dismiss the critisism.
a factual example of "knowing and accepting" would be something like americans no longer saying: "America, land of the free".
roid wrote:a factual example of "knowing and accepting" would be something like americans no longer saying: "America, land of the free".
Hehe, you sound a lot like George in your 'two blind men' story!
Just because you can think of some less than freedom enducing policies of the US doesn't mean we aren't the land of the free.
Just check the number of people leaving everything they have in other countries to come here to live! I wonder what the ratio of immigrants to America from New Zealand is compared to the ratio of Americans to New Zealand.
That unbalanced ratio has been like that, world wide, since before 1776!
Which leads me to your other confused or ignorant rant:
roid wrote:but i of course get pissed when i hear some ppl's (not you) rhetoric that "america is all about bringing freedom to the world".
America is all about bringing freedom to americans, not the world! And selectively protecting freedoms in other democracies.
We have found that by injecting freedom into the lives of the repressed masses living under the thumb of certain dictators we can protect the freedoms of americans, and quite frankly, if we have to kill a few thousand here and there to do it...too bad, so sad!
**********************
Bash, I loved that article.
" "No to terrorism. No to war", Revel scoffs that this "is about as intelligent as 'No to illness. No to medicine'."
I used to say LaFayette was the last frenchman to be born with balls now I must add Revel to that short list.
Wow roid, you sound like a real expert on Americas clear as day problems! If they are so clear to you then perhaps you could take some time out from your day to enlighten us as to what these clear problems are? I'll give you a cookie if you can discribe the 'clear problems' with clarity.
Bold Deceiver wrote:
That's quite wrong. See UN Resolution 1441.
Then where are these thousands of foreign troops? Support is more than just saying "Aye" in a caucus. Support is standing behind your words and committing more than just a few hundred troops to a region. The "Ayes" don't help us win a war.
Bold Deceiver wrote:
(Edit unreasonable assumption by BD).
Yep, I chose to leave that open. See next point.
Bold Deceiver wrote:You are right, that military action taken in the name of national security should always be balanced against the risk of disquieting relations with other countries. That's what diplomacy is for. But at a certain point, the chili meets the cheese. A good example is the country of Turkey. (Is anyone else getting hungry?)
(Yes) Indeed. Never did I suggest that we shouldn't have gone to war because some others thought it was a bad idea. Ultimately, the decision is ours to make - and we know how things ended up. My point is that toward our critics, it is unwise to simply dismiss them and call them "arrogant" for disagreeing with us. Sometimes others are completely wrong (i.e. France protecting a vested interest in Iraq), but other times there is a hint of righteousness in the opinion that deserves to be considered. Moreover, we have to accept the backlash that invariably comes our way, and not to take it personally, but instead thoughtfully. There is a dangerous trend in this country, starting by the bashing of the French, toward bashing any country that disagrees with our decision making. This sort of blind dismissal on relatively shaky ground is what I would call arrogance, not patriotism.
Especially in this perilous post-9/11 world with zealous right-wingers and chicken hawks dominating the airwaves, there is no appreciation for the distinction between patriotism and arrogance. Patriotism is the love for your country and being proud of it. Too often, patriotism is associated with doing what the government tells you to do, to believe what it tells you to believe, because anything else would be irrational, i.e. unpatriotic. But, if you truly love your country, you will point out faults rather than turning on the blinders, ignoring the issue, and taking every bit of "feedback" personally. That is the distinction between patriotism and arrogance.
woodchip wrote:So we should suck up to UN members greed and risk another 9/11?
When you accept the fact that another 9/11 is inevitable, the point is moot. You cannot honestly believe that our actions in Iraq will curtail the wet dreams of terrorists the world over. Overthrowing Saddam is not going to make the terrorists go away just like killing the leader of Hamas is not going to destroy the cult or subside rising hatred amongst Palestinians toward Israel. They'll just elect another one. You merely cut off leafy part of the weed; you didn't kill its roots. As I've intimated before, our actions today in Iraq have created the Bin Ladens of tomorrow. You may not realize who they are yet. They might even be fighting along side us, gathering armaments and support, just as Bin Laden did decades ago. But, they are there. By eliminating Saddam and freeing Iraq, we've given them one less place to hide, but we haven't stopped them.
Tyranny wrote:You know for a fact almost every country on this planet would love to remove itself from the circle of dependency of other countries if they could
No, I'm afraid I don't see that so clearly as fact. The US enjoys countless luxuries that would otherwise be impossible without the outside world. You like the cheap prices at Wal-Mart, don't you?
Agreed, Will, it provides quite a well-reasoned explanation and counterweight to the cultist screed quoted by MehYam. And, I might add, fits roid to a *T* in its profiling of baseless out-of-hand rejection of all things American and the logical gymnastics required to shelter bigotry from the erosive influence of rational thought.
Kyouryuu wrote:...You cannot honestly believe that our actions in Iraq will curtail the wet dreams of terrorists the world over. Overthrowing Saddam is not going to make the terrorists go away just like killing the leader of Hamas is not going to destroy the cult or subside rising hatred amongst Palestinians toward Israel. They'll just elect another one. You merely cut off leafy part of the weed; you didn't kill its roots....
No more like we poisoned the soil. We can't kill all the weeds but we can limit the ground they can flourish in. Look at the resources and governments bin Laddin had support from compared to now!
Soon his dwindling support base will be even smaller.
There will always be some nut job with access to an rpg or AK47, he'll even be able to rally some troops but unlike before 9/11 he won't find it so easy to get sovereign nations or world leaders to finance him and/or give him shelter.
He'll be relegated to issuing threats from a cave in some forgotton wasteland where he belongs. Much like bin Laddin is now. Quite a change for the better.
Kyouryuu wrote:Prior to Bush's call for war, there was not tremendous support for invading Iraq from the majority of the world's leading countries.
Bold Deceiver wrote:
That's quite wrong. See UN Resolution 1441.
Kyouryuu wrote:Then where are these thousands of foreign troops? Support is more than just saying "Aye" in a caucus. Support is standing behind your words and committing more than just a few hundred troops to a region. The "Ayes" don't help us win a war.
Your statement above was calculated to paint an image that the U.S. was in "cowboy" mode when it decided, together with other nations, to live up to its word and respond with the serious consequences promised.
I'm pointing out to you and to others that that is a false image.
Bold Deceiver wrote:
(Edit unreasonable assumption by BD).
Kyouryuu wrote:
Yep, I chose to leave that open. See next point.
Sorry, I wasn't clear. I had made an earlier assumption about something else, but I removed it. All my other assumptions are sparkling in their reason.
Bold Deceiver wrote:You are right, that military action taken in the name of national security should always be balanced against the risk of disquieting relations with other countries. That's what diplomacy is for. But at a certain point, the chili meets the cheese. A good example is the country of Turkey. (Is anyone else getting hungry?)
Kyouryuu wrote: Never did I suggest that we shouldn't have gone to war because some others thought it was a bad idea. Ultimately, the decision is ours to make - and we know how things ended up.
Actually, no. I wasn't aware anything had "ended up". Perhaps you can explain what that means? You seem to hold that in hindsight, it was a mistake to go to war, and this affirms the view of some other countries that going to war in Iraq was a bad idea. Is this your position?
Kyouryuu wrote:
My point is that toward our critics, it is unwise to simply dismiss them and call them "arrogant" for disagreeing with us.
Disagree on point one (dismissal), to the extent you contend that the U.S. (or one of its citzens) is not entitled to dismiss ideas contrary to its own world view. Agree with point two (arrogance), to the extent that calling another country "arrogant" may not always be helpful in diplomatic relations. I think this arrogance issue must have been raised elsewhere, though -- it's not something I believe I've discussed.
Kyouryuu wrote:
Especially in this perilous post-9/11 world with zealous right-wingers and chicken hawks dominating the airwaves, there is no appreciation for the distinction between patriotism and arrogance.
Ahh, here it is. I will be forever puzzled by the left's obsession with "patriotism." I think that today's left is either genetically or doctrinally incapable of conducting meaningful foreign policy. But I don't call them unpatriotic. And I don't hear that accusation coming from the right. Who are you talking about? And why are you comparing patriotism and ... arrogance?
Kyouryuu wrote:
When you accept the fact that another 9/11 is inevitable, the point is moot. You cannot honestly believe that our actions in Iraq will curtail the wet dreams of terrorists the world over.
Forgive me, but I think this statement was not well-considered by you. It may be that another attack cannot be prevented, due to the free and open society in which we live. That fact, however, cannot mean that the U.S. should not take proactive steps to try to keep it from happening again. That's a strange thing to say.
Kyouryuu wrote:
Overthrowing Saddam is not going to make the terrorists go away just like killing the leader of Hamas is not going to destroy the cult or subside rising hatred amongst Palestinians toward Israel. They'll just elect another one.
I completely disagree.
I think this course will bring freedom, democracy, freedom of speech, women's rights, and western civilization to a region filled with backward, twisted fanatics of a kind not seen since WWII. They've been inbreeding this hatred over there for years without any inteference whatsoever. Well that strategy didn't exactly pay off in spades, did it?
The party's over. The terrorists in Afghanistan have been ousted from power with fair success. Pakistan (a nuclear power) was on the bubble, but decided to join in the fight against terrorism. Libya rolled right over and came clean about its nuclear weapons program.
And yes, Iraq is tough, but we're going to have a free Iraq, and history will be the judge. And that, Kyouryuu, is getting to the root of the problem.
As far as the Israel government killing Sheik Ahmed Rassin and now Rantisi, the leader of Hamas -- it's hard to get swept up with emotion at their loss. As for consequences ...
Hamas is a terrorist organization bent on the destruction of Israel. There may be consequences to these actions to Israel, but that always cuts both ways. My own instinct tells me there won't be lots of volunteers to fill Rantisi's currently vacant position, unless they aspire to something other than anti-semitism, and the vicious slaughter of innocent civilians.
Otherwise it's a bit of a short-term job now, and I think this is the calculated effect.
Bold Deceiver wrote:Actually, no. I wasn't aware anything had "ended up". Perhaps you can explain what that means?
That we "ended up" going to war. We chould have chose not to, I suppose, but we didn't.
Bold Deceiver wrote:Disagree on point one (dismissal), to the extent you contend that the U.S. (or one of its citzens) is not entitled to dismiss ideas contrary to its own world view.
Of course we are entitled to dismiss them. I'm just saying it's crude to blindly dismiss cynics. Sometimes critics have a point, sometimes they don't. But how is one supposed to learn without at least hearing them out? Hear them out. Give them an explanation. Then dismiss them.
Bold Deceiver wrote:They've been inbreeding this hatred over there for years without any inteference whatsoever. Well that strategy didn't exactly pay off in spades, did it?
I don't know. The menace isn't exactly "defeated" yet. We obliterated the obvious target of the War on Terror, Hussein. Hussein had a country - he wasn't going anywhere. Now the terrorists are going underground, and this will be a more difficult battle to fight.
"Poisoning the soil" is the better analogy, however.
Bold Deceiver wrote:Hamas is a terrorist organization bent on the destruction of Israel. There may be consequences to these actions to Israel, but that always cuts both ways. My own instinct tells me there won't be lots of volunteers to fill Rantisi's currently vacant position, unless they aspire to something other than anti-semitism
And exactly how many suicide bombings happened after the first Hamas leader was killed? And how many Palestians were frantic yesterday over the coffin of their leader? There's really no shortage of these crazy people. Hamas will grow another ugly head to replace the one Israel lopped off. And constructing walls isn't going to solve the problem. I'm not really sure what should be done here. My inclination is that the Palestinians started to turn to more radical and drastic measures once diplomatic negotiations fell through, and this is why they rally behind Hamas. It's never good for your cause, or future negotiations for that matter, to align yourself with an established terrorist organization.
Sol, noise is one thing but action takes organization, equipment and effort. Hamas may be reaching a point of short supply. It's in sharp relief with the general appeasers' viewpoint that violence only prolongs violence when one examines the actual results of Israeli's strategy of lopping off every head as it appears. Attacks on Israel are down substantially. Small wonder Hamas is no longer identifying it's leaders publicly. Hamas is quite weak despite all the noise. This article in today's NYT (pasted here since it requires registration) indicates that even in a cycle of violence, eventually one side has to admit defeat.
Hamas Vows Revenge but It May Be Too Weak to Follow Through
By GREG MYRE
Published: April 18, 2004
AZA, April 18 â?? Palestinian men and boys clogged the streets of Gaza City today, chanting "revenge, revenge," at the funeral of Hamas leader Dr. Abdel Aziz Rantisi. Masked gunmen filled the air with bursts of gunfire. Israel should expect "100 unique retaliations," Hamas warned.
Advertisement
Despite the ominous message, Israel has significantly weakened Hamas over the past two years, and it is not clear whether the most dangerous Palestinian faction can deliver on its pledge to launch a renewed wave of suicide bombings, as it has done frequently in the past.
Israel's killing of Dr. Rantisi in a Saturday night missile strike, and a similar attack on March 22 that took the life of Sheik Ahmed Yassin, founder of Hamas, are the two most dramatic examples of the sustained Israeli offensive against the group. While the Israeli military actions have generated retaliatory bombings in the past, the overall number of Palestinian attacks has dropped substantially since they peaked in the spring of 2002.
The two recent killings have given Hamas and the other Palestinians a powerful motivation to attack, and the coming weeks should indicate the residual strength of Hamas, and the ability of the Israeli security forces to thwart the group.
Almost a month ago, Dr. Rantisi spoke at rallies surrounding Sheik Yassin's death and promised a stepped up bombing campaign. But the only Palestinian bombing in the past month was a suicide attack on Saturday afternoon at an industrial park on the northern edge of Gaza, which killed an Israeli border policeman and wounded three more security workers.
Even that attack, claimed by Hamas and the Al Aksa Martyrs Brigades, appeared to reflect the present limitations. Israel's web of restrictions has made it increasingly difficult for the groups to sneak bombers into Israeli cities, and most recent attacks have been on a relatively small scale and limited largely to the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
"There is no doubt that the assassinations of Rantisi and Sheik Yassin are losses to the Hamas movement," Ahmed Baher, another Hamas leader in Gaza, said at today's funeral, which drew tens of thousands of mourners. "But the response will come at a suitable time. Holy war will continue. All we need is patience."
The Palestinian uprising launched in September 2000 has brought the Palestinians much misery. But when asked how the Palestinians should respond to the recent killings, the mourners were unanimous in calling for a major attack.
The funeral cortege stretched for blocks, and mourners pushed and shoved as they attempted to the touch the lacerated and burned face of Dr. Rantisi, whose body was carried on a stretcher, wrapped in a green Hamas flag.
Red-eyed supporters of Dr. Rantisi placed him in the ground and used their hands to cover him with the sandy soil in the Sheik Radwan cemetery, near his home. Palestinian youths who could not get near the grave site climbed atop a nearby Palestinian security building, reduced to a shell by an Israeli air strike, for a better view of the burial.
Israel, meanwhile, says the threat of violence remains extremely high, and that at any given time the security forces have three or four dozen warnings about possible attacks.
Still, Hamas and other factions have been forced to operate differently. Hamas leaders used to be fixtures at the group's regular rallies. But Hamas said today that it had named a new leader for Gaza, but refused to divulge his name.
Dr. Mahmoud Zahar, one of those mentioned as the possible successor to Dr. Rantisi, was wounded in an Israeli air strike last summer and has maintained a much lower profile in recent months.
Israel began its systematic crackdown after the Palestinian factions, led by Hamas, carried out 16 suicide bombings in March 2002. Israel is now detaining more than 5,000 Palestinians who have been convicted or are suspected of involvement in violence. Many others have been killed by the Israeli security forces.
Israel also is pressing ahead with its separation barrier in the West Bank. In addition, Israel maintains strict limits on the number of Palestinians who can enter Israel, and shuts the gates completely for extended periods following attacks.
Palestinians complain bitterly about all these tactics. But after more than 50 suicide bombings in 2002, the figure declined to 20 last year. With a half-dozen bombings so far this year, the trend is similar to last year.
"The capabilities of these groups have been reduced. Many of the mid-level and senior-level operatives have been arrested or killed," said Eli Karmon, an official at the private International Policy Institute for Counter-Terrorism, outside Tel Aviv.
The factions could still produce "a big operation," Mr. Karmon said, "but not the same number of operations, at the same tempo, as before." Ziad Abu Amr, a moderate Palestinian legislator and a former Cabinet minister, agreed with that assessment. But he said Israel's emphasis on a military solution would produce only a temporary victory at best.
"Hamas may not be able to carry out a large number of attacks right now but it enjoys a large presence here and it is not easy to dismantle," Mr. Amr said. "We have seen Israel prevail militarily many times, but that has not ended this conflict. You may push the Palestinians to desperation, but what is that going to yield?"
An aspect of the conflict that doesn't often get ink in the American media is there is a power struggle between the Islamic extremists of Hamas and the more secular Fatah fighters (Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade) of Arafat. As bizarre as it sounds, Israel is knowingly doing Arafat's dirty work. A civil war between the two organizations is almost inevitable once Gaza is returned and the West Bank (at least most of it) turned over to the Palestinians. At least Fatah has already indicated a willingness to co-exist with Israel, something Hamas has vowed never to do. By concentrating on Hamas, I'm sure Sharon is hoping to bolster the chances that Fatah will overcome and vanguish Hamas in the upcoming power struggle.
Sol, obviously you still don't get it, so I'm going to move on, and no, I'm not side stepping you.
Roid, your whole arguement about the US not seeing it's own flaws is completely ignorant. How many times do you see Americans debating on this board alone how certain things within our own goverment is wrong, or whatnot. That fact alone shows to me an admittance of our own problems.
Tyranny wrote:Sol, obviously you still don't get it, so I'm going to move on, and no, I'm not side stepping you.
Edit: Alright.
Tyranny wrote:To summarize though, aside from this Iraq situation, my whole point was that I'm tired of the US getting lambasted for doing things other countries don't take the initiative to do.
Who isn't?
NYT, by way of bash wrote:Palestinians complain bitterly about all these tactics. But after more than 50 suicide bombings in 2002, the figure declined to 20 last year. With a half-dozen bombings so far this year, the trend is similar to last year.
Hmm, a very important fact and one I was not aware of. Forgive me if I lost track of quantity.
And a small favor, bash. I know you pasted that article from the NYT to save us from selling our souls to read it (that is a good thing). But, in the future, when you have really long articles - like the one you posted before it - could you try to link to them, or put them in the smaller "quote" font? It's a good read the first time, but scrolling gets to be mildly annoying when you've got a three-page article in the middle of everything.
come on guys, remember the title of this thread.
"how the US is seen".
to get any real insights outof this discussion you need foreigners to mentally dissect.
i'm entertaining possible subconscious issues for why the US is seen as it is seen by other nations.
it's not really MENT to be rational.
i was dead tired when i wrote that last post, but i thought it turned out ok because it makes for more rambling and less coherence, something you WANT in psychoanalysis . i was merely offering possible subconscious thought so that you can refine your psychoanalytical profiles of "joe the foreigner".
don't take things personally, treating the comments as "things to defend against".
everyone needs to disconnect from their country and play devil's advocate for a while. or we'll never get anywhere.
without foreign test subjects and devil's advocates this whole thread will just be american patriotic masturbation.
so don't resist. disconnect from your patriotism.
roid, did you even bother to read the article I posted? It's not us that needs to *disconnect from our patriotism* but rather you who needs to reconnect to the cerebral rather than the emotional. Don't make me bring out the *don't hate us because we're beautiful* stick.
bash wrote:::START OF POST::
roid, did you even bother to read the article I posted? It's not us that needs to *disconnect from our patriotism* but rather you who needs to reconnect to the cerebral rather than the emotional. Don't make be bring out the *don't hate us because we're beautiful* stick.
::END OF POST::
i already said i read it bash. (i assume your talking about the first article, the mammoth article right?)
the "temporarily disconnect from your patriotism" was a suggestion for people contributing to this thread, not a suggestion to the greater america population.
you comments about saying that what i was saying was too emotional just shows that you are purposely ignoring the OBVIOUS (i thought) main point of my last post. that being: i'm trying to give an insight into the foreigner psyche. come on mate, you know, "hello i'm your inner psyche, i run on emotions".
Maybe you should read it again. The dysfunction lies with you, not us. As such, we don't see it as our responsibility to remedy that dysfunction or provide it with the validation you seem to feel it deserves.
bash wrote:Maybe you should read it again. The dysfunction lies with you, not us. As such, we don't see it as our responsibility to remedy that dysfunction or provide it with the validation you seem to feel it deserves.
dude, once was enough. how about you summarize it, otherwise it just looks like you playing with red herrings.
dysfunctional eh, meh, bleh. i'll have to re-read that sober.
i don't care *you* don't want to remedy the dysfunction, because i will say it again, YOU DONT HAVE TO. hey why don't you get me to repeat it again, this is fun right?
dude, this brick wall is totally broke... it talks back!
Heh, who are we to doubt the almighty United States of America? An aussie and a "french-derived" belgian. Obviously all fault lies with us. We were wrong to ever question your holiness, your rightness and legitimacy. We have no power, we have no sight, why should you almighty US citizens ever listen to what we say?
God bless Australia and Belgium, because according to the way you look at us compared to yourselves, we need it more than you do.
lol Tri, that whole post is exactly the reason we don't listen to you guys very much. When we choose not to listen we're arrogant for some reason or all high on ourselves
How about we just don't want to listen because we're tired of being called arrogant when we dont and it's our own prerogative that we don't listen in the first place? Way to substantiate that Anti-Americanism article
So Roid, when 80 of your countrymen died in the terrorist bombing in Bali...you didn't have an urge to kick some rag head ass? Perhaps the difference between you aussies and we americans is that we CAN kick ass
i live nextdoor (physically) to *ragheads*.
many of my reallife friends migrated here from *raghead* nations.
there's also a mosque within walking distance of my house.
i believe the perpetrators of the Bali bombing have been caught, legally tried and convicted in the Bali courts.
i still consider bali a great travel destination too.
I would normally put this in that other thread about Iraqi blogs but it seems more pertinent here. Today's blog contribution is from the IraqTheModel blog:
* * *
A Routine Day in Iraq
Today is a special day for me, it's my birthday I woke up early, had many things to arrange, it was a lovely sunny day. One should enjoy looking at April flowers and not stay at home at all, and I will celebrate it just as I should.
Then I heard the news; tens of people killed in terrorist attacks in Basra with many children among them. Omar, my brother, is still in Basra, and we were very worried and didnâ??t rest until we called a friend there to have some information about the attacks. We still havenâ??t heard from him, but that's because he doesn't have a telephone or access to the internet in the small town where he works, and we know that he doesnâ??t usually go downtown at such times.
This is my daily â??routineâ?? thoughout 35 years; wars, meaningless death of innocent people, armed people terrorizing us, relatives and friends get killed or disappeared, close gunshot or explosions awaken me from sleeping, our laughs and talks get lost amid sounds of jetfighters in the sky and noise of tanks in street reminding me where Iâ??m I and where I live. It seems that itâ??s not allowed for me to live a normal life like others do.
I believe in the bright future ahead but Iâ??m upset now and I came here to write and release some of my frustration. I can't bear it alone. why me? Why my country? All that we need is a moment of peace. I really need it now. Why should I bear it with my people? When will it be over and when can we live in peace at last?
The hardest thing is that I have to fight more, and I will, but God, please give me the strength. Why should I be strong while watching others run away; Spain, Honduras, Thailand, human organizations, the UN and all the others who want (and itâ??s their right I must say) to avoid the dangers. But why did they disappoint us? Why abandon us in this moment when we really need them? Will they come back when conditions improve? Most likely, but who will need them then!!? We donâ??t need doctors and engineers. We have enough of those and large numbers of Iraqi doctor, teachers and engineers are working abroad. We do export minds, and some of those have returned and are doing their job and some are on their way back. We need political, financial and military support, and once we get rid of the terrorists, WE will show you what we can do, and we will not forget those who helped us, they will remain as friends and allies, thatâ??s from a political point of view. As for me, they will remain as my real family, my brothers and sisters.
One of our friend was angry when he saw the former slaves burn the flag of their liberators (and he has all the right to feel so), but I saw my country being destroyed for 35 years and Iâ??m not desperate because I have faith that it will be rebuild one day. Still, why am I supposed to be the 'superman' who is never allowed to feel angry, sad or frustrated?
Others ask me to demonstrate and show my support to the coalition. Ok Iâ??m with the coalition but I canâ??t do it my friends. Iâ??m surrounded by armed criminals who wouldnâ??t hesitate for a minute before shooting me for just speaking out, yet I do speak, and not only on this page.
You, there in the free world, cannot witness against criminals without witness protection programs. We have nothing of this. Just under trained and half corrupted policemen and few newly graduated army soldiers and the law system, we inherited from Saddam and havenâ??t really changed it yet, is far from being efficient.
Why do others get discouraged easily? Donâ??t mistake me. Iâ??m upset but will NEVER run away like some people did.
I wasnâ??t like this before. I was afraid most of the time. I have always looked for safety above all. I lost faith in the whole world and I wasnâ??t ready at all to make the slightest sacrifice for the sake of others. I was trying to leave my country and find a better job in a safe place, BUT, The brave solders (who donâ??t hold shares at Halliburton or Bechtel) who crossed seas and oceans and came to my country to fight for our freedom -and donâ??t anyone dare say the opposite, as I met so many of these soldiers and had hundreds of letters from them and there families and I know their motives; they fight for their countryâ??s safety and for our freedom and they are proud of what they are doing- gave me the faith and showed me that man should not care only about himself, his family or his country, these are not enough to make a human being. These guys are MUCH better than me because I have to fight for my issue and they fight for me. They deserve the respect of the world and so do the people who support them. They always give me hope to go on no matter how difficult it seems.
I think Iâ??ll have to skip celebrating my birthday this year, but that will not make me less determined than before, and I know that even if other countries pull out of Iraq, we will always have the strongest and greatest nation on our side, the wonderful people of the USA, together with the UK, Italy, Japan and the rest of the coalition forces. We owe you a lot and I pray, and Iâ??m sure, that one day we will be able to return some of your favors and Iâ??m talking about the people not the politicians although I donâ??t deny those the credit they deserve for doing their job as good as they can. When that day finally comes, you will know for sure that the great efforts and sacrifices youâ??ve made were not in vain.
-By Mohammed.
* * *
To roid, Tricord, et al, this is who we listen to.
bash wrote:A Routine Day in Iraq
Today is a special day for me, it's my birthday I woke up early, had many things to arrange, it was a lovely sunny day. One should enjoy looking at April flowers and not stay at home at all, and I will celebrate it just as I should.
Then I heard the news; tens of people killed in terrorist attacks in Basra with many children among them . . . .
Bash,
Thank you for the link. Quite poignant. Moved me to tears, actually, for the second time today, hearing about these innocent children being blown to bits.
Made a contribution to Mohammad. Today's my birthday too.
btw, BD, unless you want to avoid being moved to tears again, read http://messopotamian.blogspot.com (although it seems to be down at the moment). In addition to a heartrending description of today, he translates how the Arab press is reporting the tragedy. Guess what? British helicopters firing missiles killed all those children. /me shakes head.
. we always leave laughing room at the end of the debate.
, until they can.
.
