T Nation

Why All The Hate?

An insightful piece by Prof. Feinberg, an Anthropologist at Kent State University includes the following comment from 1998.

"As Former Lieutenant Colonel Robert Bowman (October 2, 1998) commented in the National Catholic Reporter:

We are not hated because we practice democracy, value freedom, or uphold human rights. We are hated because our government denies these things to people in Third World countries whose resources are coveted by our multinational corporations. That hatred we have sown has come back to haunt us in the form of terrorism … Instead of sending our sons and daughters around the world to kill Arabs so we can have the oil under their sand, we should send them to rebuild their infrastructure, supply clean water, and feed starving children…

In short, we should do good instead of evil. Who would try to stop us? Who would hate us? Who would want to bomb us? That is the truth… the American people need to hear."

Remember that the comment is almost a decade old. The article in itself is definitely worth reading.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=51&ItemID=12470

At this point, I would like to adventure a hypothesis based on the observation that most scholars I know are against the 2nd Gulf war; If a selective poll of educated vs. uneducated people was made in the US about the war in Iraq, I suspect the former category would be highly opposed to it. A simple quiz could be enough to determine the “aware” from the “dumb”. Questions related to geography, history or political systems should do the trick. Any thoughts on this?

[quote]lixy wrote:
…We are not hated because we practice democracy, value freedom, or uphold human rights. We are hated because our government denies these things to people in Third World countries whose resources are coveted by our multinational corporations. That hatred we have sown has come back to haunt us in the form of terrorism … Instead of sending our sons and daughters around the world to kill Arabs so we can have the oil under their sand, we should send them to rebuild their infrastructure, supply clean water, and feed starving children…

…[/quote]

This is exactly what we are trying to do in Iraq. Remove a dictator, help them establish democracy, rebuild their infrastructure, improve water and wastewater treatment plants, buy their oil…

If the jihadists and other scum didn’t keep murdering and destroying Iraq would be far better off.

I’ll repost something from another thread.

The Trouble With Islam
Sadly, mainstream Muslim teaching accepts and promotes violence.

BY TAWFIK HAMID
Tuesday, April 3, 2007 12:01 a.m. EDT

Not many years ago the brilliant Orientalist, Bernard Lewis, published a short history of the Islamic world’s decline, entitled “What Went Wrong?” Astonishingly, there was, among many Western “progressives,” a vocal dislike for the title. It is a false premise, these critics protested. They ignored Mr. Lewis’s implicit statement that things have been, or could be, right.

But indeed, there is much that is clearly wrong with the Islamic world. Women are stoned to death and undergo clitorectomies. Gays hang from the gallows under the approving eyes of the proponents of Shariah, the legal code of Islam. Sunni and Shia massacre each other daily in Iraq. Palestinian mothers teach 3-year-old boys and girls the ideal of martyrdom. One would expect the orthodox Islamic establishment to evade or dismiss these complaints, but less happily, the non-Muslim priests of enlightenment in the West have come, actively and passively, to the Islamists’ defense.

These “progressives” frequently cite the need to examine “root causes.” In this they are correct: Terrorism is only the manifestation of a disease and not the disease itself. But the root-causes are quite different from what they think. As a former member of Jemaah Islamiya, a group led by al Qaeda’s second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, I know firsthand that the inhumane teaching in Islamist ideology can transform a young, benevolent mind into that of a terrorist. Without confronting the ideological roots of radical Islam it will be impossible to combat it. While there are many ideological “rootlets” of Islamism, the main tap root has a name–Salafism, or Salafi Islam, a violent, ultra-conservative version of the religion.

It is vital to grasp that traditional and even mainstream Islamic teaching accepts and promotes violence. Shariah, for example, allows apostates to be killed, permits beating women to discipline them, seeks to subjugate non-Muslims to Islam as dhimmis and justifies declaring war to do so. It exhorts good Muslims to exterminate the Jews before the “end of days.” The near deafening silence of the Muslim majority against these barbaric practices is evidence enough that there is something fundamentally wrong.

The grave predicament we face in the Islamic world is the virtual lack of approved, theologically rigorous interpretations of Islam that clearly challenge the abusive aspects of Shariah. Unlike Salafism, more liberal branches of Islam, such as Sufism, typically do not provide the essential theological base to nullify the cruel proclamations of their Salafist counterparts. And so, for more than 20 years I have been developing and working to establish a theologically-rigorous Islam that teaches peace.

Yet it is ironic and discouraging that many non-Muslim, Western intellectuals–who unceasingly claim to support human rights–have become obstacles to reforming Islam. Political correctness among Westerners obstructs unambiguous criticism of Shariah’s inhumanity. They find socioeconomic or political excuses for Islamist terrorism such as poverty, colonialism, discrimination or the existence of Israel. What incentive is there for Muslims to demand reform when Western “progressives” pave the way for Islamist barbarity? Indeed, if the problem is not one of religious beliefs, it leaves one to wonder why Christians who live among Muslims under identical circumstances refrain from contributing to wide-scale, systematic campaigns of terror.

Politicians and scholars in the West have taken up the chant that Islamic extremism is caused by the Arab-Israeli conflict. This analysis cannot convince any rational person that the Islamist murder of over 150,000 innocent people in Algeria–which happened in the last few decades–or their slaying of hundreds of Buddhists in Thailand, or the brutal violence between Sunni and Shia in Iraq could have anything to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict.
Western feminists duly fight in their home countries for equal pay and opportunity, but seemingly ignore, under a fa?ade of cultural relativism, that large numbers of women in the Islamic world live under threat of beating, execution and genital mutilation, or cannot vote, drive cars and dress as they please.

The tendency of many Westerners to restrict themselves to self-criticism further obstructs reformation in Islam. Americans demonstrate against the war in Iraq, yet decline to demonstrate against the terrorists who kidnap innocent people and behead them. Similarly, after the Madrid train bombings, millions of Spanish citizens demonstrated against their separatist organization, ETA. But once the demonstrators realized that Muslims were behind the terror attacks they suspended the demonstrations. This example sent a message to radical Islamists to continue their violent methods.

Western appeasement of their Muslim communities has exacerbated the problem. During the four-month period after the publication of the Muhammad cartoons in a Danish magazine, there were comparatively few violent demonstrations by Muslims. Within a few days of the Danish magazine’s formal apology, riots erupted throughout the world. The apology had been perceived by Islamists as weakness and concession.

Worst of all, perhaps, is the anti-Americanism among many Westerners. It is a resentment so strong, so deep-seated, so rooted in personal identity, that it has led many, consciously or unconsciously, to morally support America’s enemies.

Progressives need to realize that radical Islam is based on an antiliberal system. They need to awaken to the inhumane policies and practices of Islamists around the world. They need to realize that Islamism spells the death of liberal values. And they must not take for granted the respect for human rights and dignity that we experience in America, and indeed, the West, today.

Well-meaning interfaith dialogues with Muslims have largely been fruitless. Participants must demand–but so far haven’t–that Muslim organizations and scholars specifically and unambiguously denounce violent Salafi components in their mosques and in the media. Muslims who do not vocally oppose brutal Shariah decrees should not be considered “moderates.”

All of this makes the efforts of Muslim reformers more difficult. When Westerners make politically-correct excuses for Islamism, it actually endangers the lives of reformers and in many cases has the effect of suppressing their voices.
Tolerance does not mean toleration of atrocities under the umbrella of relativism. It is time for all of us in the free world to face the reality of Salafi Islam or the reality of radical Islam will continue to face us.

*Dr. Hamid, a onetime member of Jemaah Islamiya, an Islamist terrorist group, is a medical doctor and Muslim reformer living in the West

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I’ll repost something from another thread.
[/quote]

If your point was that Dr. Hamid’s is Muslim (something that’s been rehashed ad nauseum by Thunderbolt), I would point out that Prof. Feinberg is American.

Dr. Hamid’s view is the exception. Remember that he was in the Jama’a Islamya. I mean, an extremist is more likely to revert to the other extreme side than to adopt a rational, well-thought stance. Keep in mind that he recieved numerous death threats and escaped attempts on his life. Prof. Feinberg, however. seem to represent the majority opinion in the states.

But my question was whether you think educated people are more likely to be pro-Bush policies or against them.

[quote]lixy wrote:
An insightful piece by Prof. Feinberg, an Anthropologist at Kent State University includes the following comment from 1998.

"As Former Lieutenant Colonel Robert Bowman (October 2, 1998) commented in the National Catholic Reporter:

We are not hated because we practice democracy, value freedom, or uphold human rights. We are hated because our government denies these things to people in Third World countries whose resources are coveted by our multinational corporations. That hatred we have sown has come back to haunt us in the form of terrorism … Instead of sending our sons and daughters around the world to kill Arabs so we can have the oil under their sand, we should send them to rebuild their infrastructure, supply clean water, and feed starving children…

In short, we should do good instead of evil. Who would try to stop us? Who would hate us? Who would want to bomb us? That is the truth… the American people need to hear."

Remember that the comment is almost a decade old. The article in itself is definitely worth reading.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=51&ItemID=12470

At this point, I would like to adventure a hypothesis based on the observation that most scholars I know are against the 2nd Gulf war; If a selective poll of educated vs. uneducated people was made in the US about the war in Iraq, I suspect the former category would be highly opposed to it. A simple quiz could be enough to determine the “aware” from the “dumb”. Questions related to geography, history or political systems should do the trick. Any thoughts on this?[/quote]

This seems an odd post, and really just a regurgitation of your other points to which answers and thoughts have already been provided.

I’d start by noting that the author is an anthropology professor at the university, which means he is likely starting with a Marxist point of view (as most of them do).

Now, I am not featuring that as an ad hominem attack outright - but I am saying that I completely reject his starting point from the outset.

His is a viewpoint that thinks all evil in the world is merely a reaction to the bad acts of a Big Meanie with Power - and if only the Big Meanie would act nice, the terrorists/insurgents/whoever would suddenly stop their violence and aggression.

As has been stated over and over and over - that is complete nonsense. This thread is a mere rehash of that tired theory.

As for your educated/uneducated hypothetical, besides the inherent arrogance of the entire thing, you may be getting confused as to what passes for “education”. If by “uneducated”, you mean not duped by people like this anthropology professor at a young impressionable age, then you might be on to something.

You fall into a familiar trap - a hubris that “smart” people will automatically think a certain way and “dumb” people won’t, all based on some presupposition that “the educated open mind” will generate some particular point of view.

As much as I like and encourage higher education, something has to be said for the individual who has never had to deal with the “long march through the institutions” and the indoctrination it promised.

Many people who fancy themselves as “educated intellectuals” are some of the most naive and soft-minded people I have confronted. They are some of the worst victims of rank demagoguery and can be convinced that nearly every single idea - no matter how outrageous - deserves merit.

Used to be, a good education was designed to strengthen your mind against demogoguery - it produced critical thinking, skepticism, and rationalism that rejected loopy ideas - now, as we can see from the anthropology professor, it produces no such thing and has instead opted to replace it with radicalism, theory, and indoctrination.

And Lixy, to be frank, you have become its latest victim.

Btw, a corrolary to this is not that I somehow think that the US has never done any wrong. But too often, the prevailing theory is one of reflexive victimization - US foreign policy, corporations, white dudes, the New England Patriots, etc., are to blame for the world’s ills, from stuff as large as international terror all the way down to affirmative action.

This ridiculous idea keeps us from candidly discussing the real problems - and it exists not to provide us with better answers, but only to assuage the soft-minded who don’t have the stomach for the strong medicine of talking about the issues bluntly and honestly.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’ll repost something from another thread.

If your point was that Dr. Hamid’s is Muslim (something that’s been rehashed ad nauseum by Thunderbolt), I would point out that Prof. Feinberg is American.

Dr. Hamid’s view is the exception. Remember that he was in the Jama’a Islamya. I mean, an extremist is more likely to revert to the other extreme side than to adopt a rational, well-thought stance. Keep in mind that he recieved numerous death threats and escaped attempts on his life. Prof. Feinberg, however. seem to represent the majority opinion in the states.

But my question was whether you think educated people are more likely to be pro-Bush policies or against them.[/quote]

Lixy, you ask why all the hate?

Please invite Mohammed Kohalia an Imam in Rome calling on Muslims to hate Christians and Jews and praying for their death - to this critical dialogue. Notice how the Imam does not base his hate on Iraq. Rather he relys on the prophet’s instructions.

http://www.adnki.com/index_2Level_English.php?cat=Religion&loid=8.0.401306032&par=0’’

[quote]lixy wrote:

we should send them to rebuild their infrastructure, supply clean water, and feed starving children…

In short, we should do good instead of evil. Who would try to stop us? Who would hate us? Who would want to bomb us? That is the truth… the American people need to hear.[/quote]

We send (sent) people to rebuild infrastructure, they execute them;

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6449811

[i]The giant engineering and construction firm Bechtel has wrapped up its work in Iraq. Bechtel won two contracts totalling $2.3 billion to repair infrastructure: water, power, sewage, and telecom systems. It was also hired to rebuild airports and bridges, hospitals and schools.

Bechtel completed all but two of its 99 projects. In the process, 52 of its contracted workers were killed.

Cliff Mumm was Bechtel’s program manager IN Iraq - he’s the company’s president of infrastructure.

Melissa Block talks with Cliff Mumm, president of Bechtel’s infrastructure, who was the company’s program manager in Iraq.

Mumm says that the company’s work was largely successful, but it was undercut by violence.[/i]

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6449811

As to your implied association between intellect and approval of the Second Gulf War… I guess we should expect no less from someone who denies the positive association between economic means and intelligence in favor of a more tenuous association like global warming. Just like a socialist to dissociate individual accolade from individual acumen.

I’m sure Cliff Mumm is just uneducated about how the situation in Iraq is not in line with the decade old one you presented. His contractors were probably collateral damage from the suppressive fire the insurgents were laying down to ward off the US attack strategy that would restore their infrastructure.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
This seems an odd post, and really just a regurgitation of your other points to which answers and thoughts have already been provided.[/quote]

Not exactly. The lieutenant quoted was sharing his insight back in 1998. That’s the point.

[quote]I’d start by noting that the author is an anthropology professor at the university, which means he is likely starting with a Marxist point of view (as most of them do).

Now, I am not featuring that as an ad hominem attack outright - but I am saying that I completely reject his starting point from the outset.[/quote]

How convenient to dismiss all professors as Marxists a priori.

So, I take it that you reject causality.

Well done. I hope some people around here could learn from your constructive way of debating.

I don’t agree with your definition though.

[quote]You fall into a familiar trap - a hubris that “smart” people will automatically think a certain way and “dumb” people won’t, all based on some presupposition that “the educated open mind” will generate some particular point of view.

As much as I like and encourage higher education, something has to be said for the individual who has never had to deal with the “long march through the institutions” and the indoctrination it promised.[/quote]

I didn’t “educated” in the “smart” sense. I meant that they have a minimum of culture and read books instead of the sport section of the papers. You don’t need to be “smart” to know that turning fat into muscle is a myth, yet, millions of people believe it to be true.

In that sense I’d consider a “fitness-educated” person as someone who can identify some amino-acids and know the the difference between HIT and steady-state. It’s subjective, but it should work pretty well in practice.

The same can be said about any subject, and to get back to the issue at hand, I’d consider a “geopolitically-educated” person, one who can list the countries in NATO, locate nicaragua on a map and tell you the name of its capital as well as be able to roughly retrace the history of more than 50% of countries.

Once again, it’s not a guarantee that the person could qualify as able to analyze anything, but it probably comes close.

There’s no denying it; A lot of people lack the culture necessary to comprehend modern geopolitics and rely on other to hash it for them out of sheer laziness. From my personal experience, this political laziness is more pronounced in the US than other develloped countries. I don’t mean this as an offensive statement, it’s merely my observation.

You’ll always find exceptions in any group.

I didn’t mean “educated” in the sense of having gone thru formal education.

Glad to hear you say that. We both know things aren’t black or white and that trying to oversimplify them is a horrible thing to do.

Few questions though: The majority of the world’s population thinks the US is a threat to peace and are opposed to its foreign policy. According to you, why is it that they would not side with your standpoint?

Ignorance, jealousy or legitimate response to decades of terror by Americans? Why do they oppose the war in Iraq? Is it because they’re “caving in” to Al-Qaeda or because they know the real reasons behind the invasion?

[quote]lucasa wrote:

I’m sure Cliff Mumm is just uneducated about how the situation in Iraq is not in line with the decade old one you presented. His contractors were probably collateral damage from the suppressive fire the insurgents were laying down to ward off the US attack strategy that would restore their infrastructure.
[/quote]

No no no, you got it all wrong, man! The fact is that because those 52 people were working for a rich American (i.e. IMPERIAL) company (i.e. “cog in the sadistic mil-industrial complex”), they were therefore legitimate ‘military’ targets, just like all those wicked capitalists in the World Trade Towers.

If they didn’t want to get shot or blown up, they clearly should have stayed at home instead of trying to force their evil culture upon the (previously free and happy but currently oppressed) people of Iraq.

[quote]lucasa wrote:
The giant engineering and construction firm Bechtel has wrapped up its work in Iraq. Bechtel won two contracts totalling $2.3 billion to repair infrastructure: water, power, sewage, and telecom systems. It was also hired to rebuild airports and bridges, hospitals and schools.[/quote]

Sure, you destroy the country, then you bring on your corporations to rebuild it. Why the fuck were the contracts part of a limited bidding process that forbade public review?

The Bechtel case is notorious for its wrongdoings, I’d urge you to read the following report:

On a side note, here’s a historical look at what they did in other parts of the world:

? In Papua New Guinea, Bechtel partnered in constructing the world?s largest gold mine in 1970. The mine daily dumps hundreds of thousands of tons of toxic waste from the mining operations directly into local rivers. In 2000, a waste dump accident resulted in four deaths.

? Environmental and human rights groups have charged that Bechtel, in a partnership with Shell called InterGen, circumvented U.S. environmental laws by building a power plant on the Mexican border for the sole purpose of exporting energy to the United States.

The La Rosita InterGen plant located in Mexicali, Baja Calif., and partly owned by Bechtel, was the subject of a May 6, 2003, court ruling that found that the U.S. Department of Energy and Bureau of Land Management had acted illegally in granting permits to InterGen to build this power plant.

? In Cochabamba, Bolivia, in 1999, Aguas del Tunari, a subsidiary of Bechtel, provoked protests that shut down the city when it privatized the city?s water system, then implemented massive price hikes that left many people unable to afford water.

The United Nations has formally declared water to be a human right - Bechtel violated this international resolution when it deprived people of their right to water. The outcry forced the Bolivian government to cancel Bechtel?s contract; Bechtel is now suing the country in a World Bank court for $25 million in lost profits.

? At nuclear power plants in Palisades, Mich.; Humboldt Bay, Calif.; Three Mile Island, Penn.; San Onofre, Calif., and Davis-Besse, Ohio, Bechtel was involved in some of the U.S. commercial nuclear industry?s more notable mishaps.

? In Nevada, Bechtel was awarded the management contract for a proposed nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, a site considered sacred by the Western Shoshone people and part of a decades-long land dispute between the United States government and the Native Americans.

On these same lands, Bechtel manages a Nevada test site and counterterrorism facility where nuclear, biological and chemical weapons construction and testing are carried out. The operation of the facility and its environmental and health effects have prompted ongoing protests from Native Americans, environmental and disarmament advocates.

? In Boston, Bechtel?s mismanagement and cost overruns have been unprecedented. Bechtel designed and manages the Boston Central Artery tunnel project, also known as “the Big Dig.” This federally funded project is the most costly civil engineering undertaking in U.S. history; estimated at $2.5 billion in 1985, it reached $14.6 billion in 2003.

? In San Francisco in 2002, the Board of Supervisors phased out a contract with Bechtel for the management of the upgrade of the city?s water systems before its completion date. Bechtel was charged with doing unnecessary and overpriced work and charging the city for tens of thousands of dollars? worth of personal expenses.

http://www.countercurrents.org/iraq-bechtel090603.htm

Back off a sec’. Can you actually prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, that rich implies intelligent? No, you can’t. Lottery winners alone would have you pegged.

Comparing that to associations like global warming and man-made pollution is retarted. One is impossible to prove or disprove because of its projection in the future and its inherent scale, while the other merely requires down-to-Earth common sense to disprove. For those of you lost, see the thread on global warming.

Let me know when you’re ready to discuss my claim that the more the people know, the more they’ll oppose the war.

[quote]Cunnivore wrote:
lucasa wrote:

I’m sure Cliff Mumm is just uneducated about how the situation in Iraq is not in line with the decade old one you presented. His contractors were probably collateral damage from the suppressive fire the insurgents were laying down to ward off the US attack strategy that would restore their infrastructure.

No no no, you got it all wrong, man! The fact is that because those 52 people were working for a rich American (i.e. IMPERIAL) company (i.e. “cog in the sadistic mil-industrial complex”), they were therefore legitimate ‘military’ targets, just like all those wicked capitalists in the World Trade Towers.

If they didn’t want to get shot or blown up, they clearly should have stayed at home instead of trying to force their evil culture upon the (previously free and happy but currently oppressed) people of Iraq.[/quote]

In the words of Ward Churchill they were all “little Eichmans”.

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
This is exactly what we are trying to do in Iraq. Remove a dictator, help them establish democracy, rebuild their infrastructure, improve water and wastewater treatment plants, buy their oil…

[/quote]
Iraq never had a clean water problem. They are smack in the middle of the “Fertile Crescent”.

You completely miss the point. Spreading peace with military imperialism doesn’t work. Nor can we spread democracy with rifles and bombs.

Handing out food from the back of armored military vehicles doesn’t exactly send a very positive message either.

[quote]lixy wrote:

Not exactly. The lieutenant quoted was sharing his insight back in 1998. That’s the point.[/quote]

So what? The basic premise has been around since the 1960s. Nothing new.

Well, were you to read, you’d know I didn’t do that.

I dismissed him as likely having the Marxist or equivalent assumptions. Not all professors, Lixy - anthropology professors, especially cultural anthropologists.

And I really didn’t dismiss him - I merely said that his jumping off point is where I begin disagreeing with him.

No, I accept causality, just not one that ignores rational analysis in order to further a political agenda. That is exactly the opposite - neo-Marxists pick an outcome (or an assumption) they like and work backwards. That isn’t “causality” - that is ideology.

Neo-Marxists don’t know a damn thing about causality - they already have their minds made up before they even look at the problem.

Good, then you won’t confuse “education” with “wisdom” in the future - many around here do.

But while this is good stuff to know, what conclusions does it lead to? You really don’t care if someone happens to be able to name all the countries in NATO - you want (and believe) in a certain ideological outcome from doing so.

I reject that.

Probably because - and this is just a hunch - Americans are fiercely independent. Not everyone in America (and others places likely) feel like they are missing something by not being a bigger “citizen of the world”.

Now that is bad and good - I, too, regret that more Americans don’t broaden their travels and experiences. But you seem to think that being more “international” would shift ideology in a way that you like - I don’t think so, nor do I even think that is a worthy goal.

Your assumption is that the US treats the world “bad” and if only the US would take a stronger interest in the world, it would stop treating the world “bad” and a wonderful utopia would blossom. I reject that view absolutely - it is naive, narrow, and lazy thinking.

Yes, which stands in direct contrast to the neo-Marxist frame of thinking, which is the dumbest, oversimplified, and wrong cause and effect we have today.

Too many factors to list. I’d start, though, with the growing idea in modernism of Entitlement. Many across the world take certain values and qualities of life for granted, as if they will always exist.

Again, a complex topic, but I’d say first: they have lost the nerve to protect important values that they think are permanent and never subject to attack.

Many people will hate the US regardless of what it does: if it is interventionist, it will be condemned. If it is isolationist, it will also be condemned.

Until the US becomes the world’s giant socialist silent business partner - where it generates massive wealth and then delivers it lavishly across the globe, but demands nothing in return, policy or otherwise - then the US will be scorned. Is that reflex against a superpower? Probably.

And it will never happen.

Interestingly, the world at large has the luxury of sitting around coffee houses and lecturing about the evils of the US. How many Arab nations are trying to help out in Darfur (or anywhere doing anything for anyone)? How many European countries are jumping into the Sudan? How many nations who don’t like the US are actively trying to sever their relationship?

I don’t exactly spend a lot of time worrying about whether or not foreign citizens like or dislike the US - I’d rather they did, but it isn’t an enormous priority to remedy.

And I have a question that no one ever seems to answer - are foreigners worried that Americans don’t like them or their countries? Should non-US countries spend a lot of time worrying if they are liked by the US?

If your answer is ‘no’, then you have answered your own question.

Oh man, what a train wreck of a thread.

The answer lies somewhere in the middle. It’s that fucking simple. You can’t just simply discard the whole concept that how people perceive their treatment affects their attitudes.

However, neither can you give them a free pass to blame all their problems on outside agents.

It’s in the middle you retards.

Unfortunately, asking people to think and consider the issues, instead of wrapping it into a simple neat slogan is elitist or something.

I’d like to buy a buzzword…

[quote]lixy wrote:
Sloth wrote:
I’ll repost something from another thread.

If your point was that Dr. Hamid’s is Muslim (something that’s been rehashed ad nauseum by Thunderbolt), I would point out that Prof. Feinberg is American.

Dr. Hamid’s view is the exception. Remember that he was in the Jama’a Islamya. I mean, an extremist is more likely to revert to the other extreme side than to adopt a rational, well-thought stance. Keep in mind that he recieved numerous death threats and escaped attempts on his life. Prof. Feinberg, however. seem to represent the majority opinion in the states.

But my question was whether you think educated people are more likely to be pro-Bush policies or against them.[/quote]

I think that most of the uneducated people tend to believe whatever the media tells them. And since the media in the US is liberal, they push the position that any conservative is wrong. So based on this biased media campaign, it is likely most uneducated people will be against the war.

For those who are educated, it comes down to a deeper level, one of core philosophy and values. But overall, the issue of the war is not whether it is a good idea or faulty. The issue is who is promoting it.

If it is promoted by Conservatives, it tends to be viewed as bad (regardless of the actual merit), and good if promoted by Liberals. A comparison of media reaction to the very same military actions in recent years by Clinton and Bush highlights this point.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
This is exactly what we are trying to do in Iraq. Remove a dictator, help them establish democracy, rebuild their infrastructure, improve water and wastewater treatment plants, buy their oil…

Iraq never had a clean water problem. They are smack in the middle of the “Fertile Crescent”.

…[/quote]

Iraq has a huge clean water problem. Their waste water treatment plants were/are inadequate and often discharged raw sewage.

I personally redesigned the baffling and flow pattern through the aeration basins in one of the Baghdad waste water treatment plants.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
I think that most of the uneducated people tend to believe whatever the media tells them. And since the media in the US is liberal, they push the position that any conservative is wrong. So based on this biased media campaign, it is likely most uneducated people will be against the war.[/quote]

LOL!!!

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
lixy wrote:
An insightful piece by Prof. Feinberg, an Anthropologist at Kent State University includes the following comment from 1998.

"As Former Lieutenant Colonel Robert Bowman (October 2, 1998) commented in the National Catholic Reporter:

We are not hated because we practice democracy, value freedom, or uphold human rights. We are hated because our government denies these things to people in Third World countries whose resources are coveted by our multinational corporations. That hatred we have sown has come back to haunt us in the form of terrorism … Instead of sending our sons and daughters around the world to kill Arabs so we can have the oil under their sand, we should send them to rebuild their infrastructure, supply clean water, and feed starving children…

In short, we should do good instead of evil. Who would try to stop us? Who would hate us? Who would want to bomb us? That is the truth… the American people need to hear."

Remember that the comment is almost a decade old. The article in itself is definitely worth reading.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=51&ItemID=12470

At this point, I would like to adventure a hypothesis based on the observation that most scholars I know are against the 2nd Gulf war; If a selective poll of educated vs. uneducated people was made in the US about the war in Iraq, I suspect the former category would be highly opposed to it. A simple quiz could be enough to determine the “aware” from the “dumb”. Questions related to geography, history or political systems should do the trick. Any thoughts on this?

This seems an odd post, and really just a regurgitation of your other points to which answers and thoughts have already been provided.

[/quote]

His cell leaders tell him to keep saying this shit.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Oh man, what a train wreck of a thread.

The answer lies somewhere in the middle. It’s that fucking simple.

It’s in the middle you retards.

Unfortunately, asking people to think and consider the issues, instead of wrapping it into a simple neat slogan is elitist or something.

I’d like to buy a buzzword…[/quote]

Alright, Vroom is here with his ‘objectivity’ and insults!! NOW its a party!!

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Alright, Vroom is here with his ‘objectivity’ and insults!! NOW its a party!!
[/quote]

Two thoughts…

  1. I don’t suppose you’d care to offer comments on the thread topic at all?

  2. Are you that desperate to find and fling personal insults?

Hmmm, maybe a bonus thought…

  1. My opinions aren’t wrong just because you don’t happen to like them…