Why do they hate us?

[teacher]

[

QUOTE=26 X World Champs]FYI - Iran & N. Korea are the two countries that DO have nuclear technology and/or weapons.

We don't have to worry about Iran. In my opinion the Jews will take that out before it's too late. Just like before.

Iraq never did! Your entire premise for our invasion is totally, and completely wrong, sorry.

Iraq was trying to make anything they could. Should we suffer evil because it doesn't YET have the capability? Or should we wait until, oh I don't know, THEY FLY PLANES INTO BUILDINGS? Preemptive measures? You betchya.

Free the women.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Yes it is my conviction. Being honorably discharded from the military it is now others turn. My friends still in theater almost to a man morally agree with their mission. They see women being beaten with sticks. They don't TELL them to lay off. Those men never beat women with sticks again.

I see. So more powerful men with guns who see someone acting in a way that they feel is wrong act in violence against that person to stop this activity. Wow, that sounds almost precisely like a micro-dictatorship to me. Sound that way to anyone else? Are you not under the impression that the courts that we have established here in America are not sufficient and that men with guns ought to regulate right on wrong here as well?

Moral obligation.

To force others into submission to our ways? Sorry, I see nothing moral in those actions.

We are not a democracy. Democracy is two terrorists and a US citizen gazing at a Jewish Pizzeria crowded with teens voting on what to do with a bomb.

Okay, then if the United States is not a Democracy, then what it is? And I fail to see the point you were driving at in your analogy.

If the religious conservatives in this country gained so much power to enact laws demanding Conversion to Christianity, attending of services, public execution for adultry, (women only), in other words turn us into a Christian theocracy, then I bet you would thank the first country to invade us and force us back to freedom. Don't think the cry of "but we are a soveriegn nation and you have no right" would posted much on this site.

To the contrary, what I would probably do is what the Puritans and the Pilgrams did. I would move to a place that was not a theocracy and start again. Or I would, begin to organize a revolution, such as the one we as Americans held two hundred years ago to secure our own freedom. You forget that these poeple who are under the tyrants have minds and physical capabilities just as we do. If they want freedom from their dictator, all they have to do is rise against them, as so many have in history. Why should we make it our job to do this for them?

Now that is just silly. We invade, force freedom upon them, get out of dodge. If then they vote themselves back to a savage, barbaric, intolerant, human rights nightmare then so be it. But they first must have that choice.

But they have that choice. They didn't start out as a tyrany you know? And every day they are capable of an uprising just as so many people in so many cultures before have done. This is the way of political evolution. To take out the leader of a nation just because he is at times oppressive is not always the most stabalizing effort onto a country. You say that it is their choice to vote themselves back to savagery, but if that is a plunge in a backward direction, what good have we done them?

If you were a soldier in Afghanistan who comes across a man taking food from a child that you had just given to him what would you do?

I would admonish him for stealing. And I would communicate to him that the next time he needed bread, simply ask me for it, and I will give him what I have to give.

If you were a man in this country come across two men beating a woman with a stick what would you do?

I would attempt to cease their weapons, but I would weigh whether or not to call the police first, because getting both of us killed would not be a smarter choice... but what does that have to do with anything?

 

[RightinNYC]

I see. So more powerful men with guns who see someone acting in a way that they feel is wrong act in violence against that person to stop this activity. Wow, that sounds almost precisely like a micro-dictatorship to me. Sound that way to anyone else? Are you not under the impression that the courts that we have established here in America are not sufficient and that men with guns ought to regulate right on wrong here as well?

What courts are regulating things over there?

To the contrary, what I would probably do is what the Puritans and the Pilgrams did. I would move to a place that was not a theocracy and start again. Or I would, begin to organize a revolution, such as the one we as Americans held two hundred years ago to secure our own freedom. You forget that these poeple who are under the tyrants have minds and physical capabilities just as we do. If they want freedom from their dictator, all they have to do is rise against them, as so many have in history. Why should we make it our job to do this for them?
But they have that choice. They didn't start out as a tyrany you know? And every day they are capable of an uprising just as so many people in so many cultures before have done. This is the way of political evolution. To take out the leader of a nation just because he is at times oppressive is not always the most stabalizing effort onto a country. You say that it is their choice to vote themselves back to savagery, but if that is a plunge in a backward direction, what good have we done them?

By that same logic, you'd leave Sudan, Rwanda, Kosovo, etc...to themselves. I mean, if they want freedom, all they have to do is rise up, right? It's their choice. Just political evolution. Not our job to protect them. They get what they deserve.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

What courts are regulating things over there?

None that I know of.... But I think you're missing my point. I was simply arguing that taking matters of law into your own hands because you're holding the gun sounds a lot like the tyrany we entered Iraq to destroy.

By that same logic, you'd leave Sudan, Rwanda, Kosovo, etc...to themselves. I mean, if they want freedom, all they have to do is rise up, right? It's their choice. Just political evolution. Not our job to protect them. They get what they deserve.

That's right. It is not the United States job to play worldwide cops. We have the UN that is supposed to be taking care of these things. Granted, the UN is weak and stagnant at this point. But that is why we work to reform it. Instead of playing renegade cop, let's pour our efforts into rebuilding the UN into what it was meant to be. Once that happens, we won't have to keep making these calls using our resources alone, but rather, the UN, which was created to do this work to begin with, will be held responsible for it.

 

[RightinNYC]

None that I know of.... But I think you're missing my point. I was simply arguing that taking matters of law into your own hands because you're holding the gun sounds a lot like the tyrany we entered Iraq to destroy.

There's a difference between vigilantism and an announced, carefully planned military operation.

That's right. It is not the United States job to play worldwide cops. We have the UN that is supposed to be taking care of these things. Granted, the UN is weak and stagnant at this point. But that is why we work to reform it. Instead of playing renegade cop, let's pour our efforts into rebuilding the UN into what it was meant to be. Once that happens, we won't have to keep making these calls using our resources alone, but rather, the UN, which was created to do this work to begin with, will be held responsible for it.

Well, I think you'd find yourself in the vast minority on this matter. What do we do when the UN becomes ineffective in a way we can't fix, such as the situation in Haiti right now?

There are UN peacekeepers in Haiti, and their term is ending. EVERYONE involved, from the Haitian govt to the entire security council, wants to extend their stay. Except China. Why? Because Haiti recognizes Taiwan. So, political games have taken precedence over saving lives, and there's not a damn thing the UN can do about it.

The US shouldn't be World Police. But at the same time, sitting idly by and letting genocide occur in Rwanda/Sudan is not acceptable.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

There's a difference between vigilantism and an announced, carefully planned military operation.

And there are striking similarities as well... But I was refering to teacher's explanation of what troups seem to be doing while they are currently in Iraq.

Well, I think you'd find yourself in the vast minority on this matter. What do we do when the UN becomes ineffective in a way we can't fix, such as the situation in Haiti right now?

There are UN peacekeepers in Haiti, and their term is ending. EVERYONE involved, from the Haitian govt to the entire security council, wants to extend their stay. Except China. Why? Because Haiti recognizes Taiwan. So, political games have taken precedence over saving lives, and there's not a damn thing the UN can do about it.

The US shouldn't be World Police. But at the same time, sitting idly by and letting genocide occur in Rwanda/Sudan is not acceptable.

But we as the cowboys of the world ride in on our white horses and save the day by killing another thousand people as we did in Iraq? The problem is that we're being drawn in to foreign conflict after foreign conflict. The world is always going to have problems. There is always going to be tyrany, and mass murder, and any number of ills. But we as Americans cannot live our existance fighting foriegn conflict. We cannot continue to be at war for the remainder of our history as the US. Conflicts like that in Hatie right now are tragic. And they do need to be handled properly. But if, instead of restrengthening the UN, the US simply continues to go and be the muscle in every conflict the UN cannot handle, we spend our history in war. And I do not accept the fact that America will forever have to be recruiting troups to go and die for yet another conflict in a foreign land when it is for that very purpose that the UN exists. Think on a larger scale. We can either continue to attempt to set right these problems every time they arise ourselves, or we can work to restrengthen the UN so that when these problems arise, the UN can handle them, and we, as America, do not have to again come to the rescue.

 

[RightinNYC]

And there are striking similarities as well... But I was refering to teacher's explanation of what troups seem to be doing while they are currently in Iraq.


But we as the cowboys of the world ride in on our white horses and save the day by killing another thousand people as we did in Iraq? The problem is that we're being drawn in to foreign conflict after foreign conflict. The world is always going to have problems. There is always going to be tyrany, and mass murder, and any number of ills. But we as Americans cannot live our existance fighting foriegn conflict. We cannot continue to be at war for the remainder of our history as the US. Conflicts like that in Hatie right now are tragic. And they do need to be handled properly. But if, instead of restrengthening the UN, the US simply continues to go and be the muscle in every conflict the UN cannot handle, we spend our history in war. And I do not accept the fact that America will forever have to be recruiting troups to go and die for yet another conflict in a foreign land when it is for that very purpose that the UN exists. Think on a larger scale. We can either continue to attempt to set right these problems every time they arise ourselves, or we can work to restrengthen the UN so that when these problems arise, the UN can handle them, and we, as America, do not have to again come to the rescue.

Well...that's what the US does. That's what we've always done since WWI, and it's made us the greatest nation in the world. We rescue nations, protect people from tyranny, and secure democracy around the world. The US has a definite and measurable interest in spreading democracy, its called the Democratic Peace Principle. No democracy has ever fought another democracy, so as democracy spreads, so will peace. There is no way to structure a multilateral group so as to allow it the flexibility to involve intself in peacekeeping when there are so many competing interests.

"All it takes for evil to succeed is for a few good men to do nothing"

 

[anomaly]

Well...that's what the US does. That's what we've always done since WWI, and it's made us the greatest nation in the world. We rescue nations, protect people from tyranny, and secure democracy around the world. The US has a definite and measurable interest in spreading democracy, its called the Democratic Peace Principle. No democracy has ever fought another democracy, so as democracy spreads, so will peace. There is no way to structure a multilateral group so as to allow it the flexibility to involve intself in peacekeeping when there are so many competing interests.

"All it takes for evil to succeed is for a few good men to do nothing"

Actually, the USA has had quite a few cases where we have either not protected people from tyranny or not secured democracy. In Zaire, we supported an extremely cruel dictator for over 30 years. We also supported dictators in South Korea, Panama, South Vietnam, Greece, Iraq, Cuba, among others. As for the 'securing of democracy', we overthrew the democratically elected leader of Chile in 1973.

 

[teacher]

I see. So more powerful men with guns who see someone acting in a way that they feel is wrong act in violence against that person to stop this activity.

Feel? If I feel that a man beating a woman with a stick is wrong? There's no feeling in stick beating. It is wrong. What friggin world do you come from that puts that little scenario into gray area. With such ambiguity how do you decide which shoe to put on first?

Wow, that sounds almost precisely like a micro-dictatorship to me. Sound that way to anyone else? Are you not under the impression that the courts that we have established here in America are not sufficient and that men with guns ought to regulate right on wrong here as well?

We get to vote. Arab women don't.

To force others into submission to our ways? Sorry, I see nothing moral in those actions.

Never said our way. Force them to listen to all in their own country.

Okay, then if the United States is not a Democracy, then what it is?

Representative republic.

And I fail to see the point you were driving at in your analogy.

Democracy is mob rules.

To the contrary, what I would probably do is what the Puritans and the Pilgrams did. I would move to a place that was not a theocracy and start again.

World is full now.

You forget that these poeple who are under the tyrants have minds and physical capabilities just as we do.

I forget? Yes they have minds and physical capabilities, as we do. Guns? Not as we do. I guess their founding fathers neglected to include a 2nd amendment in their constitution to ensure the public would have the power to get out of a situation that they FIND THEMSELVES IN NOW.

If they want freedom from their dictator, all they have to do is rise against them, as so many have in history. Why should we make it our job to do this for them?

Because we can.

But they have that choice.

Really? Last I checked the maximum effective range of a AK-47 was slightly better than that of a ROCK.

You say that it is their choice to vote themselves back to savagery, but if that is a plunge in a backward direction, what good have we done them?

Free people rarely vote themselves to oppression. But if they did at least I would sleep better knowing I tried.

I would admonish him for stealing. And I would communicate to him that the next time he needed bread, simply ask me for it, and I will give him what I have to give.

Then he would laugh his ass off while he beats you with his stick and takes YOUR bread. Admonish. Really? Tell the truth. You are not wearing shoes now because you couldn't decide which to put on first.

I would attempt to cease their weapons, but I would weigh whether or not to call the police first, because getting both of us killed would not be a smarter choice... but what does that have to do with anything?

But you would do something. But only in this country. Any other country is not your problem. (Until the nukes come. And they will.)

Just curious. Would you have picked up a gun in the 1700's against the British? (Maybe the left one first......)

 

[Gandhi>Bush]

Just curious. Would you have picked up a gun in the 1700's against the British? (Maybe the left one first......)

Gandhi overcame the British without guns.

 

[RightinNYC]

Actually, the USA has had quite a few cases where we have either not protected people from tyranny or not secured democracy. In Zaire, we supported an extremely cruel dictator for over 30 years. We also supported dictators in South Korea, Panama, South Vietnam, Greece, Iraq, Cuba, among others. As for the 'securing of democracy', we overthrew the democratically elected leader of Chile in 1973.

As has every nation from time to time.

But we are the only nation ever to involve ourselves militarily in something from which we did not hope to gain land, money, or power.

 

[anomaly]

As has every nation from time to time.

But we are the only nation ever to involve ourselves militarily in something from which we did not hope to gain land, money, or power.

Well, yes of ocurse, we're not the only ones. My aim was simply an attempt to dispell the myth that America is always pro-democracy, anti-tyranny, a view you seemed to advance in your post. Hell, we're buddy-buddy with a tyrannical nation right as we speak (Saudi Arabia).

 

[teacher]

Well...that's what the US does. That's what we've always done since WWI, and it's made us the greatest nation in the world. We rescue nations, protect people from tyranny, and secure democracy around the world. The US has a definite and measurable interest in spreading democracy, its called the Democratic Peace Principle. No democracy has ever fought another democracy, so as democracy spreads, so will peace. There is no way to structure a multilateral group so as to allow it the flexibility to involve intself in peacekeeping when there are so many competing interests.

"All it takes for evil to succeed is for a few good men to do nothing"

Most excellent. I would have just said "because we are the good guys".

 

[teacher]

[

QUOTE=Gandhi>Bush]Gandhi overcame the British without guns.

[/QUOTE]

If only such could always be the case.

 

[teacher]

Well, yes of ocurse, we're not the only ones. My aim was simply an attempt to dispell the myth that America is always pro-democracy, anti-tyranny, a view you seemed to advance in your post.

Hell, we're buddy-buddy with a tyrannical nation right as we speak (Saudi Arabia).

True. Delicate situation there. If Saudi royalty is overthrown we get a Iran type theocracy. Now in that country there are 6 man teams with sticks who go around beating breakers of Islamic law. I wonder if the Muslims took over would there then be 5 or 7 man teams. Maybe if this Iraq thing works then the Saudi's will look to them as an example that freedom is obtainable.

Imagine a middle east where a Arab woman can wear jeans and a tool belt as she installs a satellite dish so her and her friends can watch desperate housewives. If it gets that far it will never go back.

Free the woman.

 

[26 X World Champs]

True. Delicate situation there. If Saudi royalty is overthrown we get a Iran type theocracy. Now in that country there are 6 man teams with sticks who go around beating breakers of Islamic law. I wonder if the Muslims took over would there then be 5 or 7 man teams. Maybe if this Iraq thing works then the Saudi's will look to them as an example that freedom is obtainable.

Imagine a middle east where a Arab woman can wear jeans and a tool belt as she installs a satellite dish so her and her friends can watch desperate housewives. If it gets that far it will never go back.

Free the woman.

Your crass generalizations about all Muslim men is racist, period. Your assumption that the world would be better if everyone was just like us is just plain wrong.

Perhaps you need to teach yourself that the world is a very diverse place and that what works for you might be hell for someone else? Perhaps you need to stop making out entire races of people to be something that they're not?

 

[RightinNYC]

Perhaps you need to stop making out entire races of people to be something that they're not?

"Muslim" is not a race...

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Your crass generalizations about all Muslim men is racist, period. Your assumption that the world would be better if everyone was just like us is just plain wrong.

Perhaps you need to teach yourself that the world is a very diverse place and that what works for you might be hell for someone else? Perhaps you need to stop making out entire races of people to be something that they're not?

Do you believe that you can be opposed to what a religion stands for without hating a person or thinking that a person is worth less than you because they believe that faith? I continually see you finding the medium in that.

 

[teacher]

Your crass generalizations about all Muslim men is racist, period. Your assumption that the world would be better if everyone was just like us is just plain wrong.

For the record. When I speak of Muslim men beating their woman with sticks needing a wuping themselves I speak only of those with the sticks and those who support them. If I generalized and stereotyped with such a broad brush then I would be just like, oh I don't know......you.

Perhaps you need to teach yourself that the world is a very diverse place and that what works for you might be hell for someone else? Perhaps you need to stop making out entire races of people to be something that they're not?

What works for me is a world that doesn't have people who target children with bombs. So that world would be hell only for people who want to blow up children. In such a world that would be hell for who else?(besides you I guess)

Entire races? I would think the majority don't want what the terrorists want.
Better yet don't put words into my mouth instead read my words exactly. I don't believe I've said all Arabs want to bomb Jewish children and all little Arab girls want to grow up and be beaten with sticks. It's pretty obvious what we are dealing with is a bunch of old men clinging to their power using religion as their justification. Just as have many white nations in the past. But we grew up. Now it is their turn. The difference is that sword and catapult are now planes and nukes. The trouble is not so limited or localized anymore. The stakes are much higher. If you think it is not our right to do what we are doing then you have that right. Thats why we vote. But this time the guys that want to do something won. Or is it that you think it's just fine to beat woman with sticks?

Free the woman. Give them sticks.

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Do you believe that you can be opposed to what a religion stands for without hating a person or thinking that a person is worth less than you because they believe that faith? I continually see you finding the medium in that.

Sorry, let me edit that quickly, I meant "failing to find the medium"

 

[akyron]

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.

Nah. It's the heat. Stop sending food. Send Air Conditioners and generators.

 

[farleft]

I hate the USA because they force their way of life on other nations.

 

[vandree]

Yes, Poverty is the root problem of why people turn to terrorism

Actually that is not correct:

Does Poverty Cause Terrorism?
"Countries in an intermediate range of political rights experience a greater risk of terrorism than countries either with a very high degree of political rights or than severely authoritarian countries with very low levels of political rights."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, politicians and policy experts drew a quick and intuitive line between terrorism and poverty. Much of the existing academic literature on conflict suggested that poverty increased the likelihood of political coups and civil war, so conflating terrorism with poor economic conditions seemed logical. Indeed, just a few weeks following 9/11, then U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick spoke out on the need to liberalize international trade -- and thus reduce poverty -- as a means to fight terrorism.

In Poverty, Political Freedom, and the Roots of Terrorism (NBER Working Paper No. 10859) Alberto Abadie explores this link in greater detail and finds that the risk of terrorism is not significantly higher for poorer countries, once other country-specific characteristics are considered. In particular, Abadie finds that a country's level of political freedom better explains the presence of terrorism.

Unlike other recent studies on the causes of terrorism, Abadie's work explores not only transnational instances of terrorism but also domestic ones. This difference is telling: In 2003, the MIPT Terrorism Knowledge Base reported only 240 cases of transnational terrorism compared to 1,536 instances of domestic terrorism. Furthermore, Abadie suggests that the determinants of transnational and domestic terrorism may differ. "Much of modern-day transnational terrorism seems to generate from grievances against rich countries," he writes. "In addition, in some cases terrorist groups may decide to attack property or nationals of rich countries in order to gain international publicity. As a result, transnational terrorism may predominantly affect rich countries. The same is not necessarily true for domestic terrorism."

While many studies have relied on measures of terrorism-related casualties or terrorist incidences as a proxy for the risk of terrorism, Abadie uses country-level ratings on terrorist risk from the Gglobal Tterrorism Iindex of the World Market Research Center, an international risk-rating agency. The index assesses terrorism risk in 186 countries and territories. In order to measure poverty, Abadie uses World Bank data on per capita gross domestic product as well as the United Nations Human Development Index and or the Gini coefficient (a measure of country-level income inequality). He also uses Freedom House's political rights index as a measure of country-level political freedom and employs measures of linguistic, ethnic, and religious fractionalization. Finally, he includes data on climate and geography, since it is well known that certain geographic characteristics -- such as being land-locked or in an area that is difficult to access -- may offer safe haven to terrorist groups and facilitate training.

After controlling for the level of political rights, fractionalization, and geography, Abadie concludes that per capita national income is not significantly associated with terrorism. He finds, though, that lower levels of political rights are linked to higher levels of terrorism countries with the highest levels of political rights are also the countries that suffer the lowest levels of terrorism. However, the relationship between the level of political rights and terrorism is not a simple linear one. Countries in an intermediate range of political rights experience a greater risk of terrorism than countries either with a very high degree of political rights or than severely authoritarian countries with very low levels of political rights.

Why this relationship? Abadie offers two possibilities. "On the one hand, the repressive practices commonly adopted by autocratic regimes to eliminate political dissent may help [keep] terrorism at bay," he explains. "On the other hand, intermediate levels of political freedom are often experienced during times of political transitions, when governments are weak, political instability is elevated, so conditions are favorable for the appearance of terrorism." Finally, this study reveals that geographic factors -- such as measures of average elevation, tropical weather, and country area -- are also powerful predictors of terrorism

-- Carlos Lozada

http://www.nber.org/digest/may05/w10859.html

 

[Hornburger]

But if you are politically oppressed...aren't you also most likely to be economically oppressed? I mean...if the government has that much control over you, it would want to take your money too...Why? Because it can.

 

[teacher]

Let me see if I get this. I'm poor, in poverty, so I think I'll blow up someone else's children. That will help my situation. Break it down to its simplest components and poverty causes terrorism makes no sense. Maybe that book called the Koran that says "kill them" has something to do with it.