Why All The Hate?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I personally redesigned the baffling and flow pattern through the aeration basins in one of the Baghdad waste water treatment plants.
[/quote]

Ummm…yeah I’m sure the stupid Iriqis couldn’t fix their own water problem. The problem isn’t the water.

[quote]vroom wrote:
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.

LOL!!![/quote]

Another enlightened comment of no value by vroom.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
No, I accept causality[/quote]

That was meant as a joke.

Not really. I don’t care what the outcome really is. I adventured a thesis based on my observation that the less Americans know about others, the more likely they’re to support the war. Kinda like the idiots who get indocrinated by Islamist fanatics have no clue what’s going on outside of their bubble.

Hmm…Kinda like the south was “fiercely independent and didn’t feel like they are missing something by not being a bigger “citizen of the States”” back in the 19th century.

The less you know about someone, the more likely you are to be apprehensive against him/her.

The last part of this comment is kinda scary. Can I infer - since you don’t consider being international a worthy goal - that, in the case my hypothesis is correct, you’d deliberatly keep Americans “in the dark” not to have their ideology shifted?

I’m not that naive. I know the system is so strongly riveted, that public opinion has little chance to influence it in any significant way.

How about keeping your “defense” system out of other countries and stop sending weapons to rogue states? I think that should be more than enough to please the “US haters”.

[/quote]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?[/quote]

Of course they should. In fact, that’s the primary goal of intelligence agencies. Waaayyy more important than orchestrating coups and arming secessionist factions. But, hey, nobody’s perfect…

Human relations 101 teaches us this much; If you don’t act on a lack of communication problem right away, it will degenerate into much bigger problems that are so messed up they become impossible to solve. I take the time to caring about my neighbour thinks about me and as such would resolve any latent problem before it gets out of hand. Same applies to countries interrested in peace.

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
vroom wrote:
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.

LOL!!!

Another enlightened comment of no value by vroom. [/quote]

Actually what you said would be laughed at anywhere in the world for the simple reason that, compared to other nations, your “liberals” are have not differed much from the “conservatives” when it comes to foreign policy. Matter of fact, issues like Israel or bases abroad are never discussed in presidential elections.

More importantly, the US’s mainstream is solely composed of corporate media. Hardly the kind of media you’d expect to care about the well-being of the ordinary people.

The myth of the liberal media has been debunked long ago. Hence, the LOL in response to your absurd comment.

There is no historical example to show that the “peace and love” style of international relations is successful for a world power.
We can define world power as a nation or an entity that has the power to influence world events.

The world is not a nice place to live. A nation should only be interested in self-preservation and self interest. There is no moral bank account in the universe in which good deeds will somehow accumlate. We could build all of the sewer systems and water filtration plants in the world, and still be as unpopular as we are now.

A humanitarian operation never benefits the entire population, someone is always going to be shorted out of water or food and then get pissed off and pick up an RPG or strap on a bomb vest to voice his opinion. A humanitarian action always shifts the power balance in the area you are operating in. Make the people healthy and well-fed, and suddenly they want education. Educate the people and suddenly they question their government. People who question their government tend to rise up to overthrow that government.

Then you have a civil war, caused by the humanitarian operation you conducted, so now you have to send in peacekeepers, who get shot at by both sides. It does no good. We would cause just as much hate and discontent in the world by building water treatment plants as we are right now in the war on terror.

Professors who sit in their air conditioned offices drinking Perrier and spewing forth great proclamations on the shortages of the United States have never walked the streets of third world country and tried to understand that power over others is the only thing people are interested in.

[quote]lixy wrote:

Hmm…Kinda like the south was “fiercely independent and didn’t feel like they are missing something by not being a bigger “citizen of the States”” back in the 19th century. [/quote]

Wow. What really bad analogy. You may do well to avoid subjects you don’t know much about.

Being a part of a nation is not the same thing as, well, not being part of a non-existent international society.

Again, wow.

Sometimes - and sometimes you get a great sense of clarity about who you don’t like.

Um, no - you are having trouble staying near the point.

I don’t think their ideology would, by an large, be shifted. So it is a moot question.

Well, I would disagree with the first part of that.

If our “defense” means taking care of business before one of our major metropolitan areas is reduced to rubble, then in we go. If our allies need assistance, then in we go.

You don’t want the US to have such a strong presence in the ME? Begin to accept Israel and modernize your countries. Otherwise, the US military will continue to be implicated.

[quote]Of course they should. In fact, that’s the primary goal of intelligence agencies. Waaayyy more important than orchestrating coups and arming secessionist factions. But, hey, nobody’s perfect…

Human relations 101 teaches us this much; If you don’t act on a lack of communication problem right away, it will degenerate into much bigger problems that are so messed up they become impossible to solve. I take the time to caring about my neighbour thinks about me and as such would resolve any latent problem before it gets out of hand. Same applies to countries interrested in peace.[/quote]

Fascinating utopian vision - perhaps later you will realize that nation’s have interests and this silly idea of nations in a giant love-fest is irredicibly idealistic.

One thing you should note - of all the nations in the world, your precious Muslim nations are the ones least interested in this international love-fest: why not let bygones be bygones and accept Israel and live in peace and harmony?

The biggest violators of your rule are Muslim nations against Israel. The US - with all its warts - looks like a saint compared to that sordid affair of shame.

40 years ago, April 4th 1967, exactly one year before he was murdered, Martin Luther King Jr. gave his “Beyond Vietnam” speech at the riverside side church (NY) in which he called the US “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today”. Four decades later, the picture didn’t change much, now did it?

Just a reminder that April isn’t all about fools, eggs and bunnies…

R.I.P. Dr. King.(January 15, 1929 ? April 4, 1968)

[quote]lixy wrote:
40 years ago, April 4th 1967, exactly one year before he was murdered, Martin Luther King Jr. gave his “Beyond Vietnam” speech at the riverside side church (NY) in which he called the US “the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today”. Four decades later, the picture didn’t change much, now did it?

Just a reminder that April isn’t all about fools, eggs and bunnies…

R.I.P. Dr. King.(January 15, 1929 ? April 4, 1968)[/quote]

Martin Luther King was a jackass for saying that.

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

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…[/quote]

The truth is somewhere in the middle…or not.

I don’t dislike your opinions — I am above politics. But…I am the only one who can discern if you’ve studied and thought about a topic. No one else here can determine any of that.

ROFLMAO!!!

[quote]BH6 wrote:
There is no historical example to show that the “peace and love” style of international relations is successful for a world power.
We can define world power as a nation or an entity that has the power to influence world events.

The world is not a nice place to live. A nation should only be interested in self-preservation and self interest. There is no moral bank account in the universe in which good deeds will somehow accumlate. We could build all of the sewer systems and water filtration plants in the world, and still be as unpopular as we are now.
[/quote]

BH,

I can pretty much agree with this.

I would like to add that going to great lengths to piss off other nations, to the point of war, is not often in ones own self interest either…

As usual, somewhere, in the middle, is a good answer.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
vroom wrote:
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.

LOL!!!

Another enlightened comment of no value by vroom.

Actually what you said would be laughed at anywhere in the world for the simple reason that, compared to other nations, your “liberals” are have not differed much from the “conservatives” when it comes to foreign policy. Matter of fact, issues like Israel or bases abroad are never discussed in presidential elections.

More importantly, the US’s mainstream is solely composed of corporate media. Hardly the kind of media you’d expect to care about the well-being of the ordinary people.

The myth of the liberal media has been debunked long ago. Hence, the LOL in response to your absurd comment.

http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Liberal-Media-Edward-Herman/dp/0820441864 [/quote]

LOL! You post a book for sale on Amazon as proof the left media bias doesn’t exist? Is this the same kind of research you do for all your posts?

As it seems you are not interested in the facts, I’m probably wasting my time, but here is actual research done on the issue that shows that the media in the US IS much more liberal than the general population.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I don’t dislike your opinions — I am above politics. But…I am the only one who can discern if you’ve studied and thought about a topic. No one else here can determine any of that.

ROFLMAO!!![/quote]

Still nothing but trash talk? Nothing to add concerning the topic at hand?

How surprising. I’m also surprised at the mischaracterizations…

[quote]Lorisco wrote:
LOL! You post a book for sale on Amazon as proof the left media bias doesn’t exist? Is this the same kind of research you do for all your posts?

As it seems you are not interested in the facts, I’m probably wasting my time, but here is actual research done on the issue that shows that the media in the US IS much more liberal than the general population.

The American Journalist | Pew Research Center [/quote]

Lorisco,

Strangely, your research is also lacking. What it points to is the people who work at gathering the news. It does not actually have anything to say about the fairness of the resulting news with respect to leaning left or right…

You can’t go making whatever conclusions you want based on such a study. You need to actually go find a study that represents the claims you are making.

[quote]orangecola wrote:
Martin Luther King was a jackass for saying that.
[/quote]

What does saying this make you?

[quote]vroom wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
LOL! You post a book for sale on Amazon as proof the left media bias doesn’t exist? Is this the same kind of research you do for all your posts?

As it seems you are not interested in the facts, I’m probably wasting my time, but here is actual research done on the issue that shows that the media in the US IS much more liberal than the general population.

Lorisco,

Strangely, your research is also lacking. What it points to is the people who work at gathering the news. It does not actually have anything to say about the fairness of the resulting news with respect to leaning left or right…

You can’t go making whatever conclusions you want based on such a study. You need to actually go find a study that represents the claims you are making.[/quote]

vroom, stop bailing lixy out when he gets schooled. He clearly was talking out of his ass and got called on it. So let him fight his own losing battles.

Now, as far as your issue, you are twisting what I stated. I stated that the Media (those that research, write, and communicate news) have a left-leaning bias. That doesn’t mean they always report the information with a bias, but the majority are liberal in terms of politics.

So does this prove that they report the news in a biased manner? No, that would be very difficult to prove as it is very subjective. But, just because it can’t be proved doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.

Common sense would indicate that if the majority of the Media lean left that it does affect how they report the news. In fact, if you look at research it has been proven that the bias of the researcher can and does affect the research results, consciously or unconsciously. In research, this is called the Observer Effect and is why most legitimate research designs use a double-blind design in which neither the investigator nor the subjects know the focus of the study.

So while it cannot be proven that the left-leaning media always report the new in a left-leaning favorable light, based on the facts of human behavior as understood by researchers, it is highly likely that they do spin the news towards the left, either consciously or unconsciously.

Lastly, since it is clear that the media is more liberal than the general public, this should highlight the fact that the media in the US is out of touch with the general public politically. That is very telling in itself.

[quote]lixy wrote:

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]

lol I love this quote. Are you suggesting that intellectuals do not support the Bush administration? We should take a test on geography, history and the political system should we?

I think it’s funny because the thought of Bush being elected president 2 terms in a row because all the dumb people voted for him and the number of dummies out weighs the number of intellectuals. What a country we live in! lol

But IMO I would say it takes more thought and inquisitiveness to support Bush. You see the media and celebrities are always bashing Bush, so any 10 year old with a remote can be influenced by the media and end up hating Bush. Right now it’s the “IN” thing to do, and most Americans are following suit. However it takes a conscious choice to oppose the media and formulate your own opinions.

As far as scholarly individuals are concerned, most of them miss the good 'ol Vietnam era when they were marching in the streets opposing a seemingly unjust war, and they felt important. Well now all those young hippies are Scholars and miss the good old days of rebellion and protests. Which is why you see so many anti-goverment, anti-war, pro-isolationist professors. No one side is more intelligent then the other. It’s all a matter of ethics. The country is split on it’s beliefs of what is right and what is wrong, which is to be expected in such a diverse nation. In the grand scheme of things no one side is smarter than the other, they just have different beliefs which fuel their political opinions.

The only question I pose to the anti-Bush “get out now crowd” is this: If we leave Iraq tomorrow and the government fails to self sustain, then what’s going to happen? Chances are someone will rise to power and rule the country. Maybe he’ll be pro-America, but chances are he wont. So we will have a leader running Iraq with an American trained military, American trained special forces, and American supplied weapons. Granted they may not have enough weapons to effectively wage war, but I’m sure China in all their generosity will step in and fill that request. So you are looking at a potentially catastrophic failure of democracy in Iraq, coupled with a new foe in the war on terror. It’s a good thing we are on the other side of the Globe so we don’t have to worry too much about an Iraqi Army, and hell Israel has been fighting off enemies for years, they should be able to handle one more lil army.

Guess I went on a tangent, sorry, but I’m curious to hear your opinions on the matter.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
How convenient to dismiss all professors as Marxists a priori.

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.

[/quote]

I did my undergraduate work in anthropology and you are correct in that Marxism is alive and well in the minds of anthro prof’s as it doesn’t have to deal with all the messy real world stuff that shows that it doesn’t work. I’ve studied it myself and it is a nice little theory or platform to analyze some limited aspects of a culture with but this been blown out of all proportion by cultural anthro’s who live in this fascinating land of cultural relativity and arrogance.

Their is this liberal mindset of equality and yet at the same time that “we” Westerners are “bad” for all the terrible things our culture has done to other cultures, what other cultures do is given a raincheck for responsibility because all cultures must be viewed only in context for cultural relativity to be viable. So, female clitorectomy, rape as punishment, and stoning are all just value neutral culture traits.

But American propensity to think highly of themselves because they have “oppressed” their way to the top is inherently evil and wrong… Anthro as a western phenomenon still thinks that it is able to sit out of reality and pronounce judgements without influencing and being influenced by the culture it springs from.

[quote]AndrewG909 wrote:
lol I love this quote. Are you suggesting that intellectuals do not support the Bush administration?[/quote]

I’m suggesting that they might know more than the media present to them, and be therefore able to see how screwed up and empirialistic current foreign policy is viewed outside of the US.

Nope. It seems like a simple way to verify that hypothesis though.

The number of dummies will always outweigh the number of intellectuals in any society. Don’t feel offended by that.

Bush was elected because Americans were scared shitless.

The problem with American politics isn’t Bush. The problem is that Democrats and Republicans are the only choices. The problem is that neither of those discuss important foreign policy issues during presidential campaigns. To the outside world, it doesn’t make much difference who’s in the white house. There’s a nuance though, and that’s that Bush is open and arrogant about it while his predecessors were doing things more quietly.

This isn’t much of an argument. You’re arguing as if the anti-war opposition of Vietnam was an undefendable and unjustifiable position in the first place.

I don’t think many people judge intelligence by the amount of knowledge one has, and I sure don’t do that either. What I suggested wasn’t that a side was “smarter”, but that it appears to be more knowledgeable in issues that happen outside of the mainland.

I’d say those chances are extremely high given what those people suffered at the hand of a US-backed dictator, a US attack (GW1), more than a decade of sanctions which ensured the dictator gets ever more power while the people starve and to finish a five years occupation (GW2).

If there’s any democracy involved in the process of electing a leader, there is no chance of him coming out as pro-US.

If the US gets out of Iraq, the government will lean towards Iran. That, in my opinion, is the primary reason a withdrawal is off the table.

Good point. Note how you associated a anti-US leader with “catastrophic failure of democracy”. Washington only accepts the results of ballots as long as the winner is on its side. Take a peak at how they responded to Hamas, Allende, Aristide, Sukarno, Chavez and the many others who were forced out of office by the US despite popular support.

May I also point out that Saddam, despite being an absolute monster and bloody dictator, was as secular as an Arab leader could get, and was therefore nowhere near a foe in the war on terror. If anything, he was an ally as the Islamist extremists were his enemies.

[quote] It’s a good thing we are on the other side of the Globe so we don’t have to worry too much about an Iraqi Army, and hell Israel has been fighting off enemies for years, they should be able to handle one more lil army.
[/quote]

Israel has received trillions of US taxpayer dollars in cash and in military equipment. By many accounts, it has the fourth or fifth most powerful army in the world. It also has the ultimate deterrent: Nukes.

The vulnerability of Israel is a myth. Yet, it’s a strategic ally of the US. In fact, the US owes Israel because the latter got rid of Arab nationalism, something that would have installed democratic governments in the Arab world and ensured petrodollars and other resources benefit the local population rather than fly off to bank accounts in NY, London or Berne. That’s among the reasons Israel will always keep US support. The other being the taboo, yet well documented, Jewish lobby influence in Washington.

Anyway, it’s very late around here, gotta get my rest. I hope that made sense. If you want any clarifications/evidence on my claims, feel free to ask.

[quote]lixy wrote:
May I also point out that Saddam, despite being an absolute monster and bloody dictator, was as secular as an Arab leader could get, and was therefore nowhere near a foe in the war on terror. If anything, he was an ally as the Islamist extremists were his enemies.[/quote]

This is something that was swept under the rug quite thoroughly by the pro-war crowd.

Saddam was power-hungry. His enemies were anyone that defied his rule. This included al-qaeda and most all(if not all) extremists. He saw them as subverting his power structure and otherwise being stupid assholes.

[quote]lixy wrote:

The number of dummies will always outweigh the number of intellectuals in any society. Don’t feel offended by that.[/quote]
Don’t worry not offended at all.:slight_smile:
I can definitely agree that the number of dummies will always outweigh the number of intellectuals, however we live in a very blessed society. Most people have attended and graduated from some type of schooling. So although they may still be classified as dummies most people have decent logic based reasoning abilities. They don’t have to be intellectuals to listen to 2 candidates speak on a subject and choose whom they agree with, which is basically all elections are.

[quote]
Bush was elected because Americans were scared shitless.[/quote]
And they had a right to be. Most politicians both left and right see the increasing threat of certain muslim sects and their declaration of war against all non-muslim nations.

[quote]
The problem with American politics isn’t Bush. The problem is that Democrats and Republicans are the only choices. The problem is that neither of those discuss important foreign policy issues during presidential campaigns. To the outside world, it doesn’t make much difference who’s in the white house. There’s a nuance though, and that’s that Bush is open and arrogant about it while his predecessors were doing things more quietly.[/quote]
I can agree with you here, I hate this 2 party system our country has created. However complaining about our current president our government doesn’t solve any of these problems. I prefer to support our government and our leaders. Even if I think we have an idiot in office, I have the “he’s our Idiot” mentality. Reason being, I have yet to see another country with a government or leader that I look at and say, “wow, thats how America should be”. Until that day, I will do what I can to improve our government by voting, supporting our leaders but opposing certain decisions they make, and trying to learn as much as possible about history and policy making.

[quote]
This isn’t much of an argument. You’re arguing as if the anti-war opposition of Vietnam was an undefendable and unjustifiable position in the first place.[/quote]
My point had nothing to do with the Vietnam war and was more directed at the fact that during that time many of the protesters began to take on an anti-government mentality, and they began protesting not only because they we against the war but because they began to enjoy the feeling of opposing something greater than themselves and the feeling of making a difference. Many of these protesters went on to be professors and very intelligent individuals, however they still have the protester mentality which is why many college professors are anti-Iraq or anti-bush or anti-religion.

[quote]
I don’t think many people judge intelligence by the amount of knowledge one has, and I sure don’t do that either. What I suggested wasn’t that a side was “smarter”, but that it appears to be more knowledgeable in issues that happen outside of the mainland.[/quote] Kind of a moot argument as that depends on where you go. There are a lot of knowledgeable republicans and democrats. However I wont argue this point with you because you may be right and it could have a lot to do with the point I made about most college professors.

[quote]
I’d say those chances are extremely high given what those people suffered at the hand of a US-backed dictator, a US attack (GW1), more than a decade of sanctions which ensured the dictator gets ever more power while the people starve and to finish a five years occupation (GW2).

If there’s any democracy involved in the process of electing a leader, there is no chance of him coming out as pro-US.[/quote]
5 year occupation? I think it’ll be a lil longer than that. Don’t let the coming election lies full you. I doubt any president will be able to get us out of Iraq by '08.

[quote]
If the US gets out of Iraq, the government will lean towards Iran. That, in my opinion, is the primary reason a withdrawal is off the table.[/quote]
Either way we’re screwed, but none of the Iraq war critics address this extremely important issue.

I apologize I should have been more clear on what I meant. I meant a catastrophic failure on the part of the American Government to establish a working democratic government in Iraq. If the American backed government fails, and a new leader rises, which has alot of support from the Iraqi people, it is still an embarrassment for the US and a catastrophic failure on the part of our government.

With the influence of Iran a kurd will more than likely take power in which case we probably will have a new foe in the war on terror

[quote]
Israel has received trillions of US taxpayer dollars in cash and in military equipment. By many accounts, it has the fourth or fifth most powerful army in the world. It also has the ultimate deterrent: Nukes.

The vulnerability of Israel is a myth. Yet, it’s a strategic ally of the US. In fact, the US owes Israel because the latter got rid of Arab nationalism, something that would have installed democratic governments in the Arab world and ensured petrodollars and other resources benefit the local population rather than fly off to bank accounts in NY, London or Berne. That’s among the reasons Israel will always keep US support. The other being the taboo, yet well documented, Jewish lobby influence in Washington.

[quote]
True but that doesn’t justify failing in an attempt to establish a government, then washing our hands of the matter when the going gets tough, just because we are not a neighboring country as Israel is.