Why do they hate us?

[Folgore]

Your point is quite valid, but what if one country is so oppressed that it cannot create it's destiny or decide what's best? Now remember I am the anti-war activist here, but isn't that simply goodwill?

I understand and respect Your point of view. But I think that democracy cannot be exported (to me democracy doesn't exists but this is another argument). Iraq was a modern country, quite laic, quite rich if U.S. would not boicott it, Saddam was not worst then many others.. no one can now believe that U.S. loves the people of the world and want freedom for everyone. Our Romani fathers loved to say "pecunia non olet" (money doesn't smell), so it is for U.S.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

What about the women, the mass graves, the rape rooms, the genocide of the kurds? Saddam may not be the worst out there, but he's certainly a start. I do disagree with invading the country and getting 20,000 people killed however.

 

[Folgore]

What about the women, the mass graves, the rape rooms, the genocide of the kurds? Saddam may not be the worst out there, but he's certainly a start. I do disagree with invading the country and getting 20,000 people killed however.

A CIA report, if I remember correctly, said that was not possible to Saddam to kill Kurds with gas, that he could not produce but Iranians had.
To me the enemy number one of the peace in the world are Israel and U.S., just look who caused wars in more or less underhand ways in the last century.
Every people must have their land and their sovranity :wink:

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

I don't remember seeing a CIA report that said such a thing. If you have a source, I would love to read it. As a matter of fact I'm pretty sure Saddam had gas because hell, we sold it to him.

What country is responsible for the highest body count in wars in the past century?

I think Germany...

Wars that America started... Vietnam, Gulf wars... I don't think the body counts add up to the toll of both World Wars.

 

[Folgore]

One source is this: even if I don't love Indymedia is a source like other's
For the historical debate about who caused wars in the last century is a very long and interesting argument, but cannot make it here in a few words. Hope we will can talk about it.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

That was very interesting, thank you. However, just as one of the comments under the article stated:

If Iran had Chemical weapons, why did they not use them on Iraq when Iraq used chemical weapons on Iran? That seems out of place. However, both sides are under investigation and have yet to be proven.

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Wars that America started... Vietnam, Gulf wars...QUOTE]

You're joking...right?

Vietnam...the North invaded the South/the French had been fighting them for years...enter: the USA, we thought we'd show the French how to win a war...however, anti-war/anti-American activists worked harder to ensure American defeat than our government did at trying to win.

1st Gulf War...Iraq invaded Kuwait...enter: the USA, couldn't let another country mess with an ally...though this war was also touted as a war about oil we never did run off with Iraq's oil or Kuwait's oil. Plus the deal we had already been getting from Iraq would have made sense to let them gain a sea port & more oil fields. So much for the oil theory.

2nd Gulf War/Iraq War...after 9/11 we could no longer allow a thorn to continue to be thrust into our side. Saddam had been playing games with us since the end of the 1st Gulf War. Multiple resolutions were written & rewritten to accomodate & try to convince Saddam to cooperate. He never did. A threat without action is empty. This is where the USA & the UN split on dealing with Saddam.

Now for the real wars started by America...the American Revolution & the American Civil War...& aren't we glad they did...?

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

I'm sorry I was just thinking about wars we really didn't need to be in. I suppose you are correct about initiation. My apologies.

2nd Gulf War/Iraq War...after 9/11 we could no longer allow a thorn to continue to be thrust into our side. Saddam had been playing games with us since the end of the 1st Gulf War. Multiple resolutions were written & rewritten to accomodate & try to convince Saddam to cooperate. He never did. A threat without action is empty. This is where the USA & the UN split on dealing with Saddam.

Now it's your turn to be joking.

Saddam complied... weapons inspectors and all... by the way in case you hadn't heard they didn't find anything. What kind of games was Saddam? Thorn in our side?

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

I'm sorry I was just thinking about wars we really didn't need to be in. I suppose you are correct about initiation. My apologies.



Now it's your turn to be joking.

Saddam complied... weapons inspectors and all... by the way in case you hadn't heard they didn't find anything. What kind of games was Saddam? Thorn in our side?

***David Kay said the trace residue of mustard gas found in an artillery shell earlier this month was likely a relic overlooked when Saddam said he had destroyed such weapons in the mid-90s.

***Hans Blix said his team found 16 warheads that were tagged as 'used for containing Sarin,' but were empty.

*** Saddam's government had disclosed binary Sarin testing & production after the 1995 defection of Iraqi weapons chief Lt. Gen. Hussein Kamel al-Majid, Saddam's son-in-law. But Saddam's government never declared that any Sarin or Sarin-filled shells still remained.

***A dozen chemical shells were also found by UN inspectors before the war; they had been tagged for destruction in the 90s but somehow were not destroyed.

***Iraq acknowledged making 3,859 tons of Sarin, Tabun, mustard and other chemical weapons. Iraq began producing Sarin in 1984 and admitted to possessing 790 tons of it in 1995.

***The mustard gas shell may be one of 550 projectiles Saddam failed to account for when he made his weapons declaration shortly before Operation Iraqi Freedom began last year. Iraq also failed to account for 450 aerial bombs with mustard gas.

***Kimmitt said the shell belonged to a class of ordnance that Saddam's government said was destroyed before the 1991 Gulf War.

Now can you seriously say they didn't find anything?

NOTE: these are excerpts from many articles I read when doing research for a letter to the editor of my local newspaper. All I did at the time was use a simple Yahoo search. This was obviously a while ago so I don't even recall how I searched this info. Probably WMDs or mustard gas, or artillery shell or some combination. Plus the articles would have also been from a variety of sources. Most likely NY Times, Washington Post, maybe even AP, Reuters, etc.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Okay, Fonzy. I'll bite. Where did the WMDs go? Are they in Saddams little white panties? Did they move 'em to Iran? "Hey, Iyatollah. I know we don't like each other that much(understatement), but can you do me a huge favor?"

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Okay, Fonzy. I'll bite. Where did the WMDs go? Are they in Saddams little white panties? Did they move 'em to Iran? "Hey, Iyatollah. I know we don't like each other that much(understatement), but can you do me a huge favor?"

Did I say I knew what happened to them? Of course not. But there are theories...Syria might be able to shed some light on it...problem is that they won't...Iran...?...probably not...

BUT...you claimed nothing was found...I simply quoted several articles that showed that violations had been made & we did find those violations. Some being of the WMD type. So sure attack me because I can admit I don't have all the answers. Then shut your eyes to reality.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Now it's your turn to be joking.

Saddam complied... weapons inspectors and all... by the way in case you hadn't heard they didn't find anything. What kind of games was Saddam? Thorn in our side?[/quote[

Okay, Fonzy. I'll bite. Where did the WMDs go? Are they in Saddams little white panties? Did they move 'em to Iran? "Hey, Iyatollah. I know we don't like each other that much(understatement), but can you do me a huge favor?"

If you took any of the above mentioned statements as an attack, I apologize. I've had a very long day and the sarcasm was meant to be more humorous than spiteful. I apologize.

We could chat about Saddam all day, but I'd rather center this thread back on "Why do they hate us?" I understand you were correcting what I said earlier, and thank you for that, but that turned into a whole new debate that I didn't intend on going into when I started this thread.

So Fonz, do you have an idea as to why they hate us?

 

[Arthur Fonzarelli]

Why they hate us...?...HHHhhhMMMmmm...

Why does anybody hate anybody else?

Probably due to lies, misunderstanding & not being able to see other people's culture & appreciate it. Then over years of this it turns to a mess nobody knows how we got into. Or how the situation got so out of hand that it's turned to terrorism & war. This happens daily on a smaller scale in personal relationships. Nobody ever wants to admit they're wrong. Thus the struggle continues.

 

[Folgore]

Wars that America started... Vietnam, Gulf wars...QUOTE]

You're joking...right?

Vietnam...the North invaded the South/the French had been fighting them for years...enter: the USA, we thought we'd show the French how to win a war...however, anti-war/anti-American activists worked harder to ensure American defeat than our government did at trying to win.

1st Gulf War...Iraq invaded Kuwait...enter: the USA, couldn't let another country mess with an ally...though this war was also touted as a war about oil we never did run off with Iraq's oil or Kuwait's oil. Plus the deal we had already been getting from Iraq would have made sense to let them gain a sea port & more oil fields. So much for the oil theory.

2nd Gulf War/Iraq War...after 9/11 we could no longer allow a thorn to continue to be thrust into our side. Saddam had been playing games with us since the end of the 1st Gulf War. Multiple resolutions were written & rewritten to accomodate & try to convince Saddam to cooperate. He never did. A threat without action is empty. This is where the USA & the UN split on dealing with Saddam.

Now for the real wars started by America...the American Revolution & the American Civil War...& aren't we glad they did...?

Von Klausewitz wrote that responsible of a war is not him who fires the first shot, but him who created a tension that made someone to shot.

 

[akyron]

I'm copying and pasting this from earlier because I found this to be quite an idea:

I thought Garza's comment was quite creative. A warning bomb? I mean I know Japan's an incredibly crowded place so I don't know if there's a desolate place that one could find a target area for a "warning bomb." Pre-supposing there is one, and that's what had happened, how do you think Japan would have reacted to a "warning bomb?"

If they had more bombs and plenty of time that might have been an option.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Do you think that could have ended the war?

 

[akyron]

Do you think that could have ended the war?

No but it would have placated any hindsighted naysayers.


I really do not see the relavancy in this thread.

Is there some kind of analogy we are supposed to be drawing about the Japanese and the Middle Eastern violent fundamentalist?

I am missing the connection.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

My apologies, it was a tangent that strayed from some things that biblemark said...

 

[akyron]

My apologies, it was a tangent that strayed from some things that biblemark said...

He tends to be off the beaten path to begin with but yeah.

Since this has been an issue I have been researching this question and the answers I am finding are more than any one thing.


It appears to be a combination of many things.
US government policies in the region obviously make some people unhappy.(Several levels to this)
An oppressive religion that has stagnated growth for literally thousands of years.(There are many levels to this).
Terrorists are trained from kindergarden age in madrassas.

Another reason may have something to do with environmental conditions.
It is hot. Like really hot.(People might scream about that one but I bet they are screaming from an air conditioned room)
There are extensive studies from credible sources around this board tying aggression to higher temperatures. People reply they have lived there for thousands of years and yes there has been sustained conflict in the region for thousands of years as well.

There is not much water in the desert regions either and being thirsty generally pisses people off too.

Communication,Travel,technology advances. The same people have been oppressing each other there for centuries. Now advances have extended the reach of this behavior.


"The improvised explosive device is a metaphor for our time. The killers cannot even make the artillery shells or the timers that detonate the bombs, but like parasites they use Western or Western-designed weaponry to harvest Westerners. They cannot blow up enough Abrams tanks or even Humvees to alter the battlefield landscape. But what they can accomplish is to maim or kill a few hundred Westerners in hopes that our own media will magnify the trauma and savagery of their attack — and do so often enough to make 300 million of us become exhausted with the entire "mess." The message of Arabic television is that the Iraqis are supposed to blame us, not their brethren who are killing them, for the carnage. Not our power, but our will, is the target." --John Hawkins

 

[wim00]

Back to the reasons .... although you don't really want to know why, just keep things as they are, with you on top .....

The humiliation - it will drive anyone crazy. (1 million 'displaced' from Palestine is a good historical starting point).

Swagger and arrogance - very unattractive traits. You can do whatever you want, and you do. People don't like that, and this is dangerous.

Betrayal of former friends - you had the world behind you, admired and respected. You can only be let down by someone you care for.

Double standards - rank hypocrisy undisguised by any cogent arguements. Your policies contradict your basic values when applies to those living outside the "homeland". (A word with frighteningly Orwellian tones to many of us (when did "country" fall out of favour), but I suppose it has to be put in the same category as "extraordinary rendition" or "enemy combatants").

Imposition of unfair conditions of trade - dont argue, just accept it. Our lawyers will spin this out for years.

I can't go on - just google it, this thread isn't upto much. I dont 'hate' the US, but I fear for all of us. Since the 70's things have turned for the worse with you. It's down to you to change it, if you can see yourselves as others see you, and as we sure can't get a vote.

God be with you - still a great nation.

 

[wim00]

I didn't mean to kill off the conversation ;-)

.. just wanted to chip in.

 

[Hornburger]

9/11 happened because of our support for Israel.

Along the same lines, I feel that many hate us because we are trying to be the "global police force"-sticking our noses in business that we are not supposed to be a part of and does not directly affect us. Too much intervention worldwide. I say stick to our own interests before looking out for the interests of others, because we have plenty of problems we still have to deal with.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

To the contrary, I believe it is our lack of action. We have the power to do so much. We're filthy rich, in comparison to most other countries in the world. There are problems that really can be solved with money, and we don't do it.

The terrorists...

Look at their way of life. They live in the desert, for the most part in poverty. They generally do not lead happy and care free lives. Most are oppressed on a daily basis. I think it is easy to hate the the United States, because we are so strong but are still with inaction. I do believe that trying to remove Saddam from power is noble, but I do not believe that removing him with balance is what the world of islam needs to see.

They do not need to see the strongest and most powerful and self proclaimed greatest country on earth, solving problems with violence. I believe that is a terrible lesson to teach. I believe that is a terrible role model to exude.

 

[Hornburger]

Solving problems through violence...were we supposed to sit idly by and do nothing after they attacked us in 9/11? Just saying "That was bad don't do it again" won't help any, will encourage them further, and only devastate our own country politically and economically.

How did the disaster of 9/11 happen? Through our intervention. How did Pearl Harbor happen? Through our intervention. How did Vietnam happen? Through our intervention.

Yes, Poverty is the root problem of why people turn to terrorism. But that is not the obligation of wealthy countries to solve poverty. The U.S. is obligated to protecting its own citizens, not the citizens of the world. Solving poverty is what organizations such as the WTO and World Bank are for, not the Western countries. The aid the U.S. pays to Third-World nations is usually squandered by unstable, corrupt governments and economies. The Western Countries have constitutions and declarations that protect their own people-no one else.

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Solving problems through violence...were we supposed to sit idly by and do nothing after they attacked us in 9/11? Just saying "That was bad don't do it again" won't help any, will encourage them further, and only devastate our own country politically and economically.

Yours is a reasonable yet boring common argument. Terrorism will not end through any war. It won't. Your throwing gasoline on an already out of control fire. Hatred will not be undone with violence, because they are too closely related and intertwined. What do you think would have happened to terrorism against the US around the world if, instead of blowing up Afghanistan, we just started sending food(not money)?

I honestly don't know how to continue without ranting non-vionence and pacifism. It was not my intention to do so when starting this thread. If you like I would love to discuss/rant the components, tools, and makeup of such ideals.

Yes, Poverty is the root problem of why people turn to terrorism. But that is not the obligation of wealthy countries to solve poverty. The U.S. is obligated to protecting its own citizens, not the citizens of the world. Solving poverty is what organizations such as the WTO and World Bank are for, not the Western countries. The aid the U.S. pays to Third-World nations is usually squandered by unstable, corrupt governments and economies. The Western Countries have constitutions and declarations that protect their own people-no one else.

Back to topic

So you would tell the already starving children of Darfur, "Not our problem?" We have so much power, and in that power lies the potential to do so much good, yet we would rather flex our military and blow things up and fill coffins and add to the problems of the world. This is where hatred comes from. Our lack of acting, not our excess of it.

It is not the obligation of the of the wealthy countries to undo poverty, but when violence is thrown back at such indifference and arrogance it is unreasonable to grow angry and confused.

I have more to say but I must go. Bye.