When did the world at large start hating America?

9-11 was a huge tragedy, but from the perspective of any cynical diplomat worth his salary it also was a golden opportunity to once again rally most countries of the world behind the USA, which is when you look at it from the perspective of the State department always a good thing(TM).

And when Bush&friends bungled that 'golden opportunity' as well, but got reëlected anyway that's when a certain level of irritation with the American way emerged overhere. Still if earlier events are anything to go by all will be well again in half a dozen years or so.

 

I think maybe it was the line, "you are either with us or you are against us".

Patently false and oh so irritating to many people.

 

When it comes to fighting terrorism and those who commit it, that's the way it should be whether you like it or not.

The world is just not used to such direct talk, but it was and is such an important message that it needed to be said in words no one would misunderstand. The President gets a "well done" from me for his directness.

 

Carpro, don't you realize it is a logical fallacy? Many people are neutral, many citizens of other countries support you guys yet don't want to get involved. Many sovereign nations don't want to get involved and it has nothing to do with "being for you OR against you".

Those words that Bush spoke were very scary words if you think about it. Someday they will apply to Christians...count on it.

 

Goes back to the US experiment in Imperialism during the McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt administrations.

Small Latin American nations have always felt threatened by our willingness to intervene.

Often, it was a good thing, to stop European oppression. Sometimes, it wasn't such a good thing. But we always acted in our perceived best interests, sometimes to the detriment of their perceived best interests.

Vietnam put us in the place of a surrogate colonial power (France). Our intentions were good, but by picking up where the French couldn't hold onto their colony, we looked like imperialists ourselves.

Iraq did us no good in that regard. Many moderate Muslim nations, like Malaysia and Indonesia, who had regarded Americans favorably, now see us as a problem.

Mostly, when we use our power for something other than self-defense, people resent it. Why is that a surprise?

 

The terrorists we are are facing aren't neutral. But they don't dicriminate either. You're a Christian, KJ. They want you dead. If you were an American, that would be better but, in the end, it doesn't matter. They want you dead. If you're not a Muslim, they want you dead. If you are a Muslim they will kill you in order to kill what they call "infidels".

Being uninvolved is not an option and verbal support doesn't cut it.

 

Carpro, you brought it home.

But you still have to understand the fear those words "if you're not with us, you're against us" convey. That and they are a logical fallacy.

Verbal support is all we as Canadians can offer. We can't just run over to Iraq and fight and we can't join your military because SOME people (not all) probably believe that we are terrorists too. I would put my life on the line to join your navy...but that doesn't matter to your bureaucrats.

 

Found this on the subject of America bashing. It's a long read. I've put just enough here to hopefully get your attention. I find it interesting and certainly plausible.

http://www.sullivan-county.com/bush/pr_116.htm

The Intellectual Origins Of America-Bashing

By Lee Harris

A specter haunts the world, and that specter is America. This is not the America discoverable in the pages of a world atlas, but a mythical America that is the target of the new form of anti-Americanism that Salman Rushdie, writing in the Guardian (February 6, 2002), says “is presently taking the world by storm” and that forms the subject of a Washington Post essay by Martin Kettle significantly entitled “U.S. Bashing: It’s All The Rage In Europe” (January 7, 2002). It is an America that Anatol Lieven assures us, in a recent article in the London Review of Books, is nothing less than “a menace to itself and to mankind” and that Noam Chomsky has repeatedly characterized as the world’s major terrorist state.

SNIP

America-bashing is anti-Americanism at its most radical and totalizing. Its goal is not to advise, but to condemn; not to fix, but to destroy. It repudiates every thought of reform in any normal sense; it sees no difference between American liberals and American conservatives; it views every American action, both present and past, as an act of deliberate oppression and systemic exploitation. It is not that America went wrong here or there; it is that it is wrong root and branch. The conviction at the heart of those who engage in it is really quite simple: that America is an unmitigated evil, an irredeemable enormity.

SNIP

Furthermore, this is no less true of those who, like Chomsky, have focused on what is seen as American military aggression against the rest of the world, for this aggression is understood as having its “root cause” in America’s systematic exploitation of the remainder of the human race. If American exploitation did not create misery, it would not need to use military force. It is the global immiserization thesis that makes the use of force an indispensable tool of American foreign policy and that is responsible, according to this view, for turning America into a terrorist state. This explains the absolute centrality of the global immiserization thesis in the creation of the specter of America now haunting so much of our world.

The Baran-Wallerstein revision of the classical immiserization thesis into its global context was far better adapted to fix what was wrong in Marxist theory than the revisionist notion of relative immiserization discussed above. For, as we have seen, what was needed was real misery, and not merely comparative misery, since without such misery there would be no breakdown of capitalism: no civil war, no revolution, no socialism. And who can doubt that great real misery exists in the Third World?

SNIP

The answer to this question, according to many of those who accept the global immiserization thesis, came on 9-11. Noam Chomsky, perhaps America’s most celebrated proponent of the Baran-Wallerstein thesis, expressed this idea in the immediate aftermath. Here, for the first time, the world had witnessed the oppressed finally striking a blow against the oppressor — a politically immature blow, perhaps, comparable to the taking of the Bastille by the Parisian mob in its furious disregard of all laws of humanity, but still an act equally world-historical in its significance: the dawn of a new revolutionary era.

This judgment can make sense only in the context of the Baran-Wallerstein thesis. For if 9-11 was in fact a realistic blow against the advanced capitalist countries — or even just the most advanced — then here was an escape from the utopian deadlock of the global immiserization thesis. Here was a way that the overthrow of world capitalism could be made a viable historical outcome once again, and not merely the fantastic delusions of a sect. This explains the otherwise baffling valorization of 9-11 on the part of the left — by which I mean the enormous world-historical significance that they have been prepared to attribute to al Qaeda’s act of terror.

But was 9-11 truly world-historical in the precise sense required to sustain the Baran-Wallerstein revision? For 9-11 to be world-historical in this sense, it would have to contain within it the seeds of a gigantic shift in the order of things: something on the scale of the decline and collapse of capitalist America and with it the final realization of the socialist realm.

SNIP

The Baran-Wallerstein thesis cannot save Marxism; and, in fact, it is a betrayal of what is genuinely valid in Marx — namely, the insistence that any realistic hope of a world-historical transformation from one stage of social organization to a more humane one can come only if men and women do not yield to the temptation of fantasy ideology, even — and, indeed, especially — when it is a fantasy ideology dressed up to look like Marxism.

Instead, the Baran-Wallerstein thesis has sadly come to provide merely a theoretical justification for the most irrational and infantile forms of America-bashing...

SNIP

America-bashing has sadly come to be “the opium of the intellectual,” to use the phrase Raymond Aron borrowed from Marx in order to characterize those who followed the latter into the twentieth century. And like opium it produces vivid and fantastic dreams.

SNIP

The left, if it is not to condemn itself to become a fantasy ideology, must reconcile itself not only with the reality of America, but with its dialectical necessity — America is the sine qua non of any future progress that mankind can make, no matter what direction that progress may take.

 

Joseph Botwinic, June 26, 2005 11:11PM GMT
"Don't know and don't care. Seriouslyu."

I don't know (ignorant) and don't care (apathy).
But i'm somewhat FLIPPANT about my ingorance and apathy.

I notice that President Reagan was voted the Greatest
American by the Discovery Channel (poll).
I didn't vote for Regan the first term -- he
was an actor. I voted for Reagan the second term
-- a good vote.
I didnt' vote for Geo. W. Bush the first term
-- I'm not for any American Dynasty. I voted
for Geo. W. Bush the second term -- A good vote.

 

Carpro, thanks for the link. I saved it and will read it more carefully when I get the chance. This chair is killing me.

 

I actually believe Osama and those of his ilk, do hate us because of who we are and the Christ centered history of our fantastically sucessful adventure. Good old fashioned jealosy, with a dollop of greed tossed in.

 

hillclimber, but what are they jealous of? They have control over their women, loads of oil and money, and they hate Christ anyways. What are they jealous of?

 

That's very much akin to saying "I am against your wife being raped but I would never help stop a rapist."

You weren't the target. We were.

When did the world start hating the US? Probably a progressive thing as most have stated going all the way back to our founding ideals.

Hatred has intensified as America has taken a leading role in the world over the past 100 years.

Much of the world sees problems, wants them solved, expects us to solve them, then are offended and critical when we actually take action to solve them. It is like most people are about their boss. They expect action but sit in judgment over any and every flaw in a decision.

It's alot easier just to say "Someone ought to do something" then sit in judgment of those who actually do than it is to actually get involved and help solve the problem.

If the world or even our "allies" like Canada, Germany, France, et al. would join us in a united front, the enemy wouldn't be finding encouragement, aid, and comfort in our disagreement.

Someone made a point about Bush blowing an opportunity for world support and sympathy over 9/11. No one wants to see planes fly into buildings and they're real sorry that it happened to our buildings... but can't stomach a decisive, if not perfect, response.

No. It has to do with being far more self-centered than the Americans that they are so happy to condemn for being arrogant. When our help is needed, we are supposed to show up. When we need help then we are supposed to respect your right to be sovereignly neutral.

Your idea of "friendship" is a one-way street... rightly or wrongly, we Americans have largely accepted this responsibility and act as a friend even to nations that betray us.

 

"Your idea of "friendship" is a one-way street"
So say you. Please tell me why Mr.Bush "forgot" to mention Canada as an ally and friend after we sent hundreds of thousands of dollars in aid, took into our homes stranded Americans from the airports?

No...you want help from everyone yet the ones who help you, you continue to offend with your arrogance, ethnocentrism, etc. Why do you need our help? It "happened to you, not us". And regardless of what you say it IS a logical fallacy to say "you are either with us or you are against us". 'nuff said

As for the rest of your post...it contains false accusations against me...intended to draw me into a fight and I am not going to take the bait.

 

So your feelings are hurt since Bush didn't pat you on the back?

See above....

Plus, How have you helped us in a significant way? When have you helped us in a way that wasn't more beneficial to you than us? When has Canada made a real sacrifice for the sake of nothing more than being a friend to the US?

For the most part we are ideal centered.

Obviously, we don't. A force made up mostly of Americans with due credit to the Brits dispensed with one of the world's largest standing armies and took over a land mass about the size of California... it a few weeks.

But OTOH, "help" is what friends do for each other when asked.

OK. If that's the way you want it. Canadians should SHUT UP AND MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS WHEN WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT.

You are either with us or your not. 'nuff said. You are either part of the solution or part of the problem (in this case apathy since it didn't happen to you). 'nuff said.

Whatever you say.

I was responding to "you" generically, not "you" personally. That is how I perceived your post... that you were speaking "generally" for others.

If you cannot respond to my arguments then don't... but don't try to escape by making it personal.

 

"Plus, How have you helped us in a significant way? When have you helped us in a way that wasn't more beneficial to you than us? When has Canada made a real sacrifice for the sake of nothing more than being a friend to the US?"

Try after 9/11. You know...the things I said that we did to help you.

As for the pat on the back from Bush....that was a sarcastic comment rooted in ignorance. I can say the same...do you want a pat on the back from the rest of the world to tell you we still love you?

You said "it didn't happen to you..'nuff said". I can say the same...it didn't happen "TO YOU". It happened to others...you weren't in those buildings were you.

I can respond to your arguments and YOU made it personal. You better go back and read. No trying to escape here...why don't you go find out what Canada did to help you guys out after 9/11. Better yet, don't bother. I really don't care if you find out or not.

Oh yeah...you said: "Canadians should SHUT UP AND MIND THEIR OWN BUSINESS WHEN WE DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT." LOL Rambo...your credibility is shot. I could say so much in response to that but it is not worth it. carry on...*yawn* more of the same empty rhetoric

 

KJV John 15:18-19
If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

Yes darkness does hate the light.

The USA is sought out more than any other country by those who would leave their birthplace to become an American citizen. FACT

 

Thanks... BTW, there are individual Americans who did more than you are claiming for your whole nation.... just to put your claims into perspective.

Hardly. I want the loyalty and mutual support that we deserve. Words of support have limited value without actions that match.

My countrymen... my country. Yes, it happened to me.

Would you care to place it on par with say what America did for the tsunami victims... or for the west as a whole during the Cold War... or for Europe during WWII... or countless other occasions when Americans sacrificed both blood and resources with little to no expectation for repayment?

Go ahead and tell me. Why if it is such a big deal, surely the Canadian government or press has a website detailing what Canada did for the US.

My credibility? You are the one claiming that you can be neutral... yet at the same time you sit back and critically judge what we are doing. That isn't being neutral.

Whatever you say. Being a good friend is about making sacrifices when you'd really rather not... Canada hasn't proven to be a very good friend lately.

Frankly, if I had been Bush, there would have been economic repercussions for our "friends" who decided to take their (not so) neutral position.

 

"Canada hasn't proven to be a very good friend lately."
Alrighty then...

"Frankly, if I had been Bush, there would have been economic repercussions for our "friends" who decided to take their (not so) neutral position"
Oh you're such a big bad bully. Good thing I've learned that your country isn't as terrible as the impression given off some of it's braggarts. Fine with me. You need us more than you realize. Otherwise you wouldn't have even said this:

"Hardly. I want the loyalty and mutual support that we deserve. Words of support have limited value without actions that match."
That you deserve??? You don't deserve anything. If you are fighting a war for the "thanks you deserve" then you have the wrong motive mister.

Hmmm...what wouldest thou have liked me to have done? There is only so much I could do since I don't LIVE THERE Sherlock. I sent money and lifted prayers to heaven. If that isn't good enough for you...AHHH don't even get me started.


Last point. Who is criticizing what you are doing? Not this guy...and if I were...what would you do about it?

Go ahead...criticize my country. I don't know if there's a website detailing what our country did but we don't have to brag and pound our chests you know. I know what I did. I know what our firefighters did. I know what my country did and with an attitude like yours maybe we shouldn't have done anything.

I've already said enough...I care not to discuss issues with you. Buh bye

 

I repeat, frankly I don't care what the slime bags in the rest of the world think of us. Those with half a brain in other countries realize that if it were not for US of A they would all either be little Nazis, Communists, or wearing stitches in the corners of their eyes.