War on Terror?

[Oozlefinch]

Success!

I have located what appears to be the entire speech. So now everybody can read it themselves and make up their own minds:

http://www.theodore-roosevelt.com/images/research/txtspeeches/672.pdf

So please read the entire speech, and tell me if you are correct or not.

 

[Wiggen]

YOu have no idea what Ethnic Means. An ethnic person is one who was born in this country (for ex) but raised in the culture of another. Your comment is absurd. If I know my German history, culture tradition and language as well as my cousins in Germany, I don't think I am ethnic I know I am. And it is not for you to say anyhow.

You need to go to Little Italy or china town or little havana and try telling them they are not ethnic. I hope you have a real good pair of running shoes. Milwaukee per the census bureau is the largest ETHNIC GERMAN city in the USA. ETHNIC Ok?

So if we wind up fighting the Germans again, whose side are you on?

 

[Wiggen]

This is something I am aware of. But remember this:

Most people came here not to go to something, but to get away from something. I think it is safe to say that the vast majority of immigrants came here because the eventual other choice would have been death. After all, hardly anybody willingly leaves the nation of their birth for any other reason. All the other crap that is laid on over the decades and centuries is generally bull****.

And trust me when I say I am not denouncing or degrading anybody. My son was raised to think of himself as American first, last and always. He does not even think of himself as having any other "ethnicity" unless he is actually reminded of it.

But I have to admit, the last sentences is something that reminds me of others who shared that belief. One of them is the German-American BUND. Then there are the Americans that before or during the war emmigrated to Germany and even served in the German Army. Some even defected once the US was in the war.

The Poor Mouth: Americans in the SS

You see, I have absolutely no problem with immigration at all. But once you come here and become a US citizen (or your children) owe their first, last, and total loyalty to the United States. Or they should just get out and return to what they think their homeland really is.

Ahhh, the German-American Bund. Also composed of 'Ethnic Germans' who spend a great deal of time trying to convince the rest of the country that Hitler wasn't really such a bad guy and we should just leave him alone in Europe.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005684

 

[wolfman24]

I have no idea what you are talking about?

 

[Diogenes]

Immigrants built this country and made it what it is today. Denouncing or denigrating those people or people like me is to betray thier roots and heritage. It insults the ones who came before.

True, and being American is an attitude, a state of mind and an idea. It has nothing to do with skin color, country of origin, tribal affiliation or ethnic background. It does occasionally require that traditional customs of the old country must be left behind: honor killings and child marriages are not acceptable here, for example.

You see, I have absolutely no problem with immigration at all. But once you come here and become a US citizen (or your children) owe their first, last, and total loyalty to the United States. Or they should just get out and return to what they think their homeland really is.

I'll drink to that!

Another reason to avoid hyphens is a lot of us are pretty extensive mutts. All my ethnicities listed completely would not fit in an "ethnicity" form field. Ethnicity is one thing and nationality is another. There's no need to combine them.

Agreed. I resent those questions on the census forms because I can imagine no issue of national interest that depends on what part of the world my grandfathers grandfathers were born in. (I have used both "mongrel" and "Canadian-American" in the past.)

 

[Wiggen]

What don't you understand - the history of those identifying themselves as 'ethnic Germans' in the past (see German-American Bund) or my question regarding which side you'd fight on in the event of another war between Germany and the U.S.? Admittedly that may not be likely, but given your passion for your German heritage, it's a reasonable question.

 

[Diogenes]

I met a lovely girl who immigrated here from China. I was trying hard to get her out on a date. Finally, she pointed out (tearfully) that she was not full Chinese, and was one quarter Vietnamese. This was a source of profound humiliation for her. At which point, she asked if I was still interested in her. What a ridiculous question! Who cares? It took me a while to convince her that we mutts don't worry much about that at all. It's amusing trivia, nothing more. We eventually dated for two years after that. Apparently, it was a major roadblock, but only in her own mind.

Thanks for the story. I have come to the conclusion that youthful hormones are the most unstable and explosive substance in the known universe, and I am therefore extremely skeptical that there are any purebloods anywhere in the world. Besides, mixed-race folks are some of the most attractive and interesting that I have ever met.

 

[EagleAye]

Thanks for the story. I have come to the conclusion that youthful hormones are the most unstable and explosive substance in the known universe, and I am therefore extremely skeptical that there are any purebloods anywhere in the world. Besides, mixed-race folks are some of the most attractive and interesting that I have ever met.

Ain't that the truth! Mutts are always better. Better looking, healthier, and mentally more stable.

 

[wolfman24]

Wiggens and Oozlefinch I am not sure what country you live in perhaps the world of PHABS I don't know.

But I live in the United States of America which is a place of wonderful and beautiful cultural diversity, where what we do or say in our own homes is our own business and perhaps that of our friends and neighbors. Here our freedom of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness along with our freedom of speech and expression is guarenteed by the constitution and the bill or rights. This includes our right to be treated like everyone else in this country no matter what our personal beliefs are. And should it become necessary we as citizens of our country will rise up and serve our country in war and peace as we have done in the past and continue to do. You might want to come and visit it has lots of places which are wonderfully ethnic.

Moderators, if you think I have gone over the top on this please read the posts of the people I have named. They have questioned my and my families loyalty to this country our motives for being here and my families and all ethnic Americans service including my own. it is too bad they do not realize the diversity of the country they live in.

Wolfman 24 Proud of my ethnic German AMERICAN heritage

 

[Oozlefinch]

Wiggens and Oozlefinch I am not sure what country you live in perhaps the world of PHABS I don't know.

Well, I am an American (no hyphen there), and have served and continue to serve my country for over 15 years.

Although I will openly admit that I have no idea what PHABS is. Is that anything like NIMBY?

Actually, I can generally count only 2 things I openly stand against: extreemism and prejudice.

And as a minor issue, it generally revolves around those that do not do research (as you may have seen). I have no problem disagreeing with people, since I am aware that nobody will agree on everything. But I reject those that hold extreem views and are not willing to compromise. I also reject those that do not/will not do research to try and verify their own beliefs (or who expect me to do all their research for them).

So please, feel free to complain about me or my posts. You apparently do not realize that I often see that as a badge of honor. Because little irritates me more then after spending 30-40 minutes researching one of my posts, then to see somebody reject it within 20 seconds with a single line, and absolutely no research of their own. Oh it is easy to throw out a pithy little comment and say that is not what is really meant, it is much harder to do the work to even attempt to prove your case.

So feel free to be proud of your German-American heritage. I am just proud to be an American.

As is my son, he is proud to be an American.

And as is his mother, even though she was born and raised in South America. The United States is her home, and she has no intention of ever returning to her birth nation. The only time I think she ever cheers for her nation of birth is during the World Cup tournaments (which is understandable, the US soccer team {mens} rather sucks).

 

[Wiggen]

Wiggens and Oozlefinch I am not sure what country you live in perhaps the world of PHABS I don't know.

But I live in the United States of America which is a place of wonderful and beautiful cultural diversity, where what we do or say in our own homes is our own business and perhaps that of our friends and neighbors. Here our freedom of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness along with our freedom of speech and expression is guarenteed by the constitution and the bill or rights. This includes our right to be treated like everyone else in this country no matter what our personal beliefs are. And should it become necessary we as citizens of our country will rise up and serve our country in war and peace as we have done in the past and continue to do. You might want to come and visit it has lots of places which are wonderfully ethnic.

Moderators, if you think I have gone over the top on this please read the posts of the people I have named. They have questioned my and my families loyalty to this country our motives for being here and my families and all ethnic Americans service including my own. it is too bad they do not realize the diversity of the country they live in.

Wolfman 24 Proud of my ethnic German AMERICAN heritage

Well, I am an American of English-Norwegian heritage and served three years in the U.S. military, 13 months of them in a combat environment. But I'm an American, and I assure you that if we ever went to war with either England or Norway, I'd re-enlist if they'd have me. I gave you an example of how some 'ethnic Germans' behaved prior to the start of World War II, which you ignored.

You can say pretty much whatever you like on this forum, within the rules. I'm not sure what your point is, unless it's some sort of white pride thing. I can't speak for anybody else, but frankly I don't care what your ethnic heritage is. Teddy Roosevelt was right.

 

[EagleAye]

Looking at these posts, I see two Norwegians and one Swede (me), who enlist in the military of the nation of their birth and afterward defend the same nation in spirit. Seem the Scandinavians know which side their bread is buttered.

See? That's the only time when ethnicity matters. Light-hearted jabs for amusement.

 

[LowDown]

You want to win the war on terror. Pull our troops out stop buying thier oil, stop supporting thier governments with money and then wait and see. My prediction is that their leaders will get the message and take care of the problem themselves especially if we say we won't come back unless they do.

Nope, it's not that simple. Right now the US imports most of its oil from Mexico, Canada, Nigeria, and Venezuela. Most of the oil imported from the M.E., which only represents about one sixth of our total imports, comes from the Saudis, who are our allies. We get none from Iran. So we don't have leverage over Iran in that regard. Iran exports to Europe and Asia. If we stop buying from any of those countries they will start selling to Europe and Asia (or to Israel, who will broker it to us.)

In the meantime, if we pull out then others will go in, like Russia and China. Or perhaps Iran will start exerting more influence over its neighbors. Are you under the impression that Iran will change its attitude toward us if we just pull out of the area?

But if European and Asian supplies of oil are interrupted then the economy will go down like a rock world wide. We will definitely feel that pain big time.

We may no longer be interested in the war on terror, but the war on terror is definitely still interested in us. In fact, it is only getting warmed up.

 

[wolfman24]

Nope, it's not that simple. Right now the US imports most of its oil from Mexico, Canada, Nigeria, and Venezuela. Most of the oil imported from the M.E., which only represents about one sixth of our total imports, comes from the Saudis, who are our allies. We get none from Iran. So we don't have leverage over Iran in that regard. Iran exports to Europe and Asia. If we stop buying from any of those countries they will start selling to Europe and Asia (or to Israel, who will broker it to us.)

In the meantime, if we pull out then others will go in, like Russia and China. Or perhaps Iran will start exerting more influence over its neighbors. Are you under the impression that Iran will change its attitude toward us if we just pull out of the area?

But if European and Asian supplies of oil are interrupted then the economy will go down like a rock world wide. We will definitely feel that pain big time.

We may no longer be interested in the war on terror, but the war on terror is definitely still interested in us. In fact, it is only getting warmed up.

Although I do not agree with some of this the majority makes sense. Maybe I need to rethink this.

 

[RoccoR]

wolfman24, LowDown, et al,

It never hurts to rethink a position; not at all. It will lend itself to a great level of confidence. But try to avoid the trap that is here.

While oil has played a part in the way the US image has developed, there are a number of aspect angles that all are influential - simultaneously. Our image and risk are based on a number of factors that impact diplomatically, economically, militarily, and culturally. Oil is not the only, or even the main reason, for the trouble the US has faced in the Middle East and Persian Gulf Region.

How we are viewed, both internationally - as well as regionally, is a consequence of the cumulative effect of US action across the board in multiple dimensions over time, and in the areas in which we choose to intervene --- including the reasons and logic for each. And because it is time related, it will take time to change the way in which America is viewed.

Nope, it's not that simple. Right now the US imports most of its oil from Mexico, Canada, Nigeria, and Venezuela. Most of the oil imported from the M.E., which only represents about one sixth of our total imports, comes from the Saudis, who are our allies. We get none from Iran. So we don't have leverage over Iran in that regard. Iran exports to Europe and Asia. If we stop buying from any of those countries they will start selling to Europe and Asia (or to Israel, who will broker it to us.)

In the meantime, if we pull out then others will go in, like Russia and China. Or perhaps Iran will start exerting more influence over its neighbors. Are you under the impression that Iran will change its attitude toward us if we just pull out of the area?

But if European and Asian supplies of oil are interrupted then the economy will go down like a rock world wide. We will definitely feel that pain big time.

We may no longer be interested in the war on terror, but the war on terror is definitely still interested in us. In fact, it is only getting warmed up.

Although I do not agree with some of this the majority makes sense. Maybe I need to rethink this.

(REALITY)

• Point: Excerpt: (LowDown;1060968626): "the economy will go down like a rock world wide. We will definitely feel that pain big time."
• Observation: We are already in pain. Great Pain! And many of us don't understand why!

(COMMENT)

There is no one single view that is applicable to the US. Every major international player has a different way of assessing "US Intentions" relative to their individual position. China's view is very much different than the views held in the constituents of the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, or even North Africa. Each player (both state and non-state actors) have questions concerning to improve destabilizing influences in their reference frame both regionally and globally. Many have developed territorial questions and concerns on how to avoid territorial losses. Nearly all have questions relative to suspicious activities observed in their neighbors' and major powers. And nearly all have concerns on how best to sustain or improve economic growth. The US is no different in this regard; it has trouble defining its global role and what actions best serve its interests - without further damaging international and regional acceptance of those actions.

The international terrorist threat the US faces today is a direct result of how the image of the US feeds the justification for continued hostile action against the US. If we are to starve the justification for these continued hostile actions against US interests, the image --- not as we perceive ourselves - but as the US is perceived by hostile state and non-state actors, must be changed. In most cases, the US is in denial as to the causes of the adverse image it has help evolve since the end of WWII. And any effort the US has made to change that image has been either through the application of brute force (military intimidation through the establishment of the hegemony) or in the outright payments (creative bribery through appropriated foreign and military aid) for allegiance has only had a very short-term impact (an outcome of the transient effect of every changing leadership in the US and the influence of transnational corporate monetary and lobby interference).

Unless the paradigm is altered, there is no reasonable expectation to see a change in the image of the US; and thus, no change in the terrorist threat or even the international view that the US needs replaced as the world leader (police).

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[wolfman24]

wolfman24, LowDown, et al,

It never hurts to rethink a position; not at all. It will lend itself to a great level of confidence. But try to avoid the trap that is here.

While oil has played a part in the way the US image has developed, there are a number of aspect angles that all are influential - simultaneously. Our image and risk are based on a number of factors that impact diplomatically, economically, militarily, and culturally. Oil is not the only, or even the main reason, for the trouble the US has faced in the Middle East and Persian Gulf Region.

How we are viewed, both internationally - as well as regionally, is a consequence of the cumulative effect of US action across the board in multiple dimensions over time, and in the areas in which we choose to intervene --- including the reasons and logic for each. And because it is time related, it will take time to change the way in which America is viewed.


(REALITY)

• Point: Excerpt: (LowDown;1060968626): "the economy will go down like a rock world wide. We will definitely feel that pain big time."
• Observation: We are already in pain. Great Pain! And many of us don't understand why!

(COMMENT)

There is no one single view that is applicable to the US. Every major international player has a different way of assessing "US Intentions" relative to their individual position. China's view is very much different than the views held in the constituents of the Middle East, the Persian Gulf, or even North Africa. Each player (both state and non-state actors) have questions concerning to improve destabilizing influences in their reference frame both regionally and globally. Many have developed territorial questions and concerns on how to avoid territorial losses. Nearly all have questions relative to suspicious activities observed in their neighbors' and major powers. And nearly all have concerns on how best to sustain or improve economic growth. The US is no different in this regard; it has trouble defining its global role and what actions best serve its interests - without further damaging international and regional acceptance of those actions.

The international terrorist threat the US faces today is a direct result of how the image of the US feeds the justification for continued hostile action against the US. If we are to starve the justification for these continued hostile actions against US interests, the image --- not as we perceive ourselves - but as the US is perceived by hostile state and non-state actors, must be changed. In most cases, the US is in denial as to the causes of the adverse image it has help evolve since the end of WWII. And any effort the US has made to change that image has been either through the application of brute force (military intimidation through the establishment of the hegemony) or in the outright payments (creative bribery through appropriated foreign and military aid) for allegiance has only had a very short-term impact (an outcome of the transient effect of every changing leadership in the US and the influence of transnational corporate monetary and lobby interference).

Unless the paradigm is altered, there is no reasonable expectation to see a change in the image of the US; and thus, no change in the terrorist threat or even the international view that the US needs replaced as the world leader (police).

Most Respectfully,
R

I agree with this comment completely but I would like to add that your scenario would I believe mostly the leaders of other countries which was the bulk of this conversation. I would hold that the average citizen of any country would not care or gives a rats butt what our world view or actions are but how we react and respond to them as a people in thier country.

This whole thing need some serious thought and readjustment by alot of people

 

[LowDown]

The international terrorist threat the US faces today is a direct result of how the image of the US feeds the justification for continued hostile action against the US. If we are to starve the justification for these continued hostile actions against US interests, the image --- not as we perceive ourselves - but as the US is perceived by hostile state and non-state actors, must be changed. In most cases, the US is in denial as to the causes of the adverse image it has help evolve since the end of WWII. And any effort the US has made to change that image has been either through the application of brute force (military intimidation through the establishment of the hegemony) or in the outright payments (creative bribery through appropriated foreign and military aid) for allegiance has only had a very short-term impact (an outcome of the transient effect of every changing leadership in the US and the influence of transnational corporate monetary and lobby interference).

Unless the paradigm is altered, there is no reasonable expectation to see a change in the image of the US; and thus, no change in the terrorist threat or even the international view that the US needs replaced as the world leader (police).

I don't see how this can be done while the US is required to play the lead role in keeping the lanes for oil commerce open. There is no getting around the fact that Europe and Asia as well as the US itself depends on it.

 

[RoccoR]

LowDown, et al,

While this sounds carefully reasoned and a bit noble, it has an essential flaw. While the US can continue to run "freedom of navigation missions," --- defending the high seas and airways --- it really doesn't hold general appreciation from the international community. The US needs a huge air, land and sea force to support such an effort. And that is a military projection of power; muscle if you please. And when the muscle is flexed, to secure the critical lanes of commerce, it is done with an American Flag in hand.

Unless the paradigm is altered, there is no reasonable expectation to see a change in the image of the US; and thus, no change in the terrorist threat or even the international view that the US needs replaced as the world leader (police).

I don't see how this can be done while the US is required to play the lead role in keeping the lanes for oil commerce open. There is no getting around the fact that Europe and Asia as well as the US itself depends on it.

(COMMENT)

Just as a point of Note: It was just recently said to me that US government is now responsible for more than one-third of the combined debt of all governments in the entire world.​

Back in 2004/2005, while serving in the North Wing of the Presidential Palace in the Green Zone, Friday Night was Movie Night. And it was on one of these movie nights that I sat and watched, for the first time, a Movie called "Team America;" with a bunch of foreign service officers. The opening conflict was so very much - familiar to me. For a puppet movie, which was rather telling in itself, it drove the point home. Yes the people of Paris were saved by Team America --- but at what cost.

I am not so eloquent as to describe the image that America crafts for itself when it is convinced that America's answer and solution to the quest (terrorism) is the only answer to the quest. But, in a way, the opening conflict in Team America, while tongue'n'cheek, comes very close. Team America: World Police (1/10) Movie CLIP - Team America Intro (2004) HD - YouTube

Please take a moment and think about it.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Sherman123]

I'll post a short disagreement which is that I think there is no real mystery as to why the US engenders dislike, mistrust, or antipathy in a particular region like the Middle East, or abroad, it is because we have established ourselves as the hegemon with all of the baggage that comes with it. There are inflections that result from certain foreign policy decisions and pivots, but it is more or less a result of our position in the world and what we have had to do to maintain it. Furthermore it is in our interests to retain that position, regardless of 'image problems'.

 

[EagleAye]

LowDown, et al,

While this sounds carefully reasoned and a bit noble, it has an essential flaw. While the US can continue to run "freedom of navigation missions," --- defending the high seas and airways --- it really doesn't hold general appreciation from the international community. The US needs a huge air, land and sea force to support such an effort. And that is a military projection of power; muscle if you please. And when the muscle is flexed, to secure the critical lanes of commerce, it is done with an American Flag in hand.

(COMMENT)

Just as a point of Note: It was just recently said to me that US government is now responsible for more than one-third of the combined debt of all governments in the entire world.​

Back in 2004/2005, while serving in the North Wing of the Presidential Palace in the Green Zone, Friday Night was Movie Night. And it was on one of these movie nights that I sat and watched, for the first time, a Movie called "Team America;" with a bunch of foreign service officers. The opening conflict was so very much - familiar to me. For a puppet movie, which was rather telling in itself, it drove the point home. Yes the people of Paris were saved by Team America --- but at what cost.

I am not so eloquent as to describe the image that America crafts for itself when it is convinced that America's answer and solution to the quest (terrorism) is the only answer to the quest. But, in a way, the opening conflict in Team America, while tongue'n'cheek, comes very close. Team America: World Police (1/10) Movie CLIP - Team America Intro (2004) HD - YouTube

The guy on top of the hill will always be the subject of enmity from others who are not on top of the hill. It doesn't matter one bit whether or not he has done anything nefarious or underhanded. He will always be the target of jealousy and aggression. And that's where the US sits. Though the US has done much to maintain it's own interests, it has also done a great deal of good in the world. The US guards it's own interests (including maintaining open sea lanes for commerce) to the best of it's ability just as any other country does. The US is quite active in arranging business deals for oil in the ME (that predictably work to the USA's advantage), and likewise China does the same thing, using their economic clout to force very advantageous prices for the Chinese upon Iran. Yet much is said about the US and little about what China is doing in the very same region.

If a 340 pund Sumo wrestler steals a cookie, and a moment later, a cute 8 year-old girl in pigtails with pink ribbons also steals a cookie, is there a difference between the two thefts? Not economically. A cookie was stolen in each case. But in the world, the Sumo wrestler will be treated as a vile and evil bully, yet the little girl laughed off as charming and precocious. Even though the little girl had equal gain. So the world can treat the US the way they would the Sumo wrestler, but it's not so much the acts that are disliked (because the little girl gets away with it with a wink and a nod), but it's the WHO is doing it that angers people. It's not because the acts are so awful (the USA's business partners also gain), it's because the US is the guy on top of the hill. It's not much more complex than that.

 

[RoccoR]

EagleAye, et al,

There is so much truth to this, that I wonder if my rejection of it is a matter of seeing it as a false positive. So I must acknowledge it, first, as being somewhat sound and valid.

The guy on top of the hill will always be the subject of enmity from others who are not on top of the hill. It doesn't matter one bit whether or not he has done anything nefarious or underhanded. He will always be the target of jealousy and aggression. And that's where the US sits. Though the US has done much to maintain it's own interests, it has also done a great deal of good in the world. The US guards it's own interests (including maintaining open sea lanes for commerce) to the best of it's ability just as any other country does. The US is quite active in arranging business deals for oil in the ME (that predictably work to the USA's advantage), and likewise China does the same thing, using their economic clout to force very advantageous prices for the Chinese upon Iran. Yet much is said about the US and little about what China is doing in the very same region.

If a 340 pund Sumo wrestler steals a cookie, and a moment later, a cute 8 year-old girl in pigtails with pink ribbons also steals a cookie, is there a difference between the two thefts? Not economically. A cookie was stolen in each case. But in the world, the Sumo wrestler will be treated as a vile and evil bully, yet the little girl laughed off as charming and precocious. Even though the little girl had equal gain. So the world can treat the US the way they would the Sumo wrestler, but it's not so much the acts that are disliked (because the little girl gets away with it with a wink and a nod), but it's the WHO is doing it that angers people. It's not because the acts are so awful (the USA's business partners also gain), it's because the US is the guy on top of the hill. It's not much more complex than that.

(COMMENT)

I think it was one of our contributors, but for the life of me - I cannot remember who, that said that to be a true Super Power, you have to all three approaches to the hill: the diplomatic, the military, and the economics. Clearly, as you say, the US hold the military hegemony - the military approach. But it very weak when it comes to either the diplomatic or economic approaches. We simply don't hold the high ground at all in those two areas. And that make the US very vulnerable.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[EagleAye]

EagleAye, et al,

There is so much truth to this, that I wonder if my rejection of it is a matter of seeing it as a false positive. So I must acknowledge it, first, as being somewhat sound and valid.

(COMMENT)

I think it was one of our contributors, but for the life of me - I cannot remember who, that said that to be a true Super Power, you have to all three approaches to the hill: the diplomatic, the military, and the economics. Clearly, as you say, the US hold the military hegemony - the military approach. But it very weak when it comes to either the diplomatic or economic approaches. We simply don't hold the high ground at all in those two areas. And that make the US very vulnerable.

I don't think we're so bad on the economic side, comparatively. Remember, every other country (except for Australia) has struggled since the worldwide recession. But I will acknowledge our diplomatic practices have been ham-handed. We need to get back to "speak softly, and carry a big stick" rather than "boisterously bull your way in, and carry a big stick." I will not criticize the US for serving it's own interests, but I think we could do it more diplomatically than we have recently.

 

[Oozlefinch]

I'll post a short disagreement which is that I think there is no real mystery as to why the US engenders dislike, mistrust, or antipathy in a particular region like the Middle East, or abroad, it is because we have established ourselves as the hegemon with all of the baggage that comes with it. There are inflections that result from certain foreign policy decisions and pivots, but it is more or less a result of our position in the world and what we have had to do to maintain it. Furthermore it is in our interests to retain that position, regardless of 'image problems'.

Actually, I think it is closer to things the Ayatollah Khomeini said when he was the leading power in Iran.

You have to realize, to a great many in the Middle East, the US really is a "Godless country". We openly allow people to belong to any religion they want, or even leave one and join another (which is not Islam). We allow alcohol, give equal rights to women, refuse Shariah law, and do not give Islam the preference that it so obviously deserves.

And yes in spite of doing "everything wrong", we are still prosperous. So the US has become a symbol, that it must be destroyed/humbled/humilitaed to stand as a symbol of the disfavor of Allah.

This is how it has always seemed to me, and everything else that is said generally seems to me as nothing but excuses. But if you actually look at most of these claims, they all generally spin right back around to that.

And remember, this "strong Anti-Americanism" was not really common in the region prior to the late 1970's. Before then, the US was in favor in some countries, disfavor in others. And most of that depended on the relationship of those countries with Israel. Prior to 1979, Iran was the only nation in the region that always had good relations with Israel, and also with the US and most of Europe. And as nations made peace with Israel, they generally soon formed ties with the US.

But ironically, the nations that continued to be among the most antagonistic towards Israel are also generally the most backward nations in the region, where religion has a strong grip on the country itself. And since the US breaks all the rules that the fundamentalists claim are needed for a nations to survive and be strong, it must be humbled.