Defining the term "anti-Americanism"

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:
Big part of the extreme left calls themselves anti-german. They state that fashism and anti-semitism is part of our psychology.

So what they want?
Strangest thing so far: This year they are commemorating the bombing german cities in 1943 ("Thank You Bomber Harris")
Did I undersand right: Germans celebrating the bombing German cities?

[Mani Ram]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
How about if I said, "Why are Indians always cab drivers?"

[Mohanlal Karamchand]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
If this is the case, why did you make all those inflammatory "anonymous" posts several months ago.
.................. Anyway, I guess my question would be how do you reconcile the statement
I quoted above with the old anonymous posts you made?

They could have been motivated by things other than "anti-american" sentiment.
I shall explain.
Let's say Laloo gets into the habit of posting things like
"My country is the greatest in the world. The rest of you suck. etc. "
People dont like that sort of thing.
They would be tempted to say something to shut him up.
Even if you think Laloo's claims are valid you would still
want to discourage him from swanking.
So if T. Paul says
"Who gives a **** if your country is the greatest in the world.
If your country is the greatest in the world why are so many of
you working here as cab drivers ? "
You cannot say T. Paul is anti-Indian.
Similarly I would say nwither Ravish nor Laloo are anti-american.
In fact Laloo is a great humanitarian.
Laloo disapproves of many people who aren't American.
Thinku Mama , Tintin Herge (alis Sharad Patel) are notable among them.
I disapprove of Tintin Herge too.
I think he is a total write off.
Whereas there is still hope for you Jason.
Repent and reform, before it's too late.
If you dont, you will turn into an American version of Sharad Patel.

[Anonymous]

Who are these personalities,Sharad Patel/Thinku Mama?and when did you arrive on the earth again for giving the message of 'Ahimsa' alias non violance?Frightened of Indian Hitlor Narendra Modi ?

[Mapraputa Is]

Whereas there is still hope for you Jason.
Hope, this will be read in best possible sense...
Last warning: if this thread will go ugly, it will be closed!
--------------------------------------
"What I ought to do, is go to sleep!"
Frank Carver
[ January 14, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Mohanlal Karamchand]

Originally posted by <Nathuram Godse>:
Who are these personalities,Sharad Patel/Thinku Mama?and when did you arrive on the earth again for giving the message of 'Ahimsa' alias non violance?

This thread will tell you more about these people. I suspect Sharad Patel has resurfaced ( see the last message). Only he can refer to himself as "handsome but overweight" . Thinku Mama calls himself Nanhesru Ningyake these days.
As an answer to your second question I post a verse from the Bhagvat Gita.
<pre>
paritr���ya s�dh�n��
vin���ya ca du�k�t�m
dharma-sa�sth�pan�rth�ya
sambhav�mi yuge yuge
</pre>
It means.
" To protect the pious and to annihilate the wicked. To re-establish Dharma. To oppress Jason Menard , Thinku Mama and Tintin Herge (and occassionally Stevie Kaligis). I appear, millennium after millennium."
[ January 14, 2003: Message edited by: Mohandas Karamchand ]

[Paul Stevens]

But why change your display name?

[Rufus BugleWeed]

Keeps your post count up and removes your sins.

[Mapraputa Is]

Not that I object thread hijacking as such, no. Thread hijacking is cool and should be done regularly. However, this particular thread was designed to build MD official definition of anti-Americanism. We cannot proceed without it. Without it, we would have to spend our time discussin milk and newspaper delivery. Brrr...
So please, stay on topic. After the discussion is over, we can define "anti-Thinku Mama" and "anti-Tintin Herge" terms also.

[Jason Menard]

Okay Map, I'll respond, but only because I like you.

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Up to a point, yes. I agree that this generally works and should work. But imagine this situation: (all below is written without any particular relation to Jewish nation, and the word "Jew" can be freely substituted by any other) you criticized somebody's job (for example, your co-worker on whose output your job depends) and this person, who happened to be a Jew, tells that this is because you are anti-Semite. Now you would feel offended, because you know you are not, and you suspect that this person simply uses this "anti-Semitism" cover to protect himself from critics.

What you present is certainly viable and holds for one-off comments. I would say the above wouldn't hold true over a period of time for a series of unrelated comments.

Imagine that there is a group of Jews on your job who are often bragging how great Jews are, what a great culture, and how many Nobel Prize laureates are Jews... At first you are only slightly irritated, but after certain period of being exposed to this kind of talking, you allow yourself a sarcastic comment "if you are so great, why..." Now these people most likely will say that this was anti-Semitic comment. You would probably feel that you are only against these particular group of Jews, not all Jews.

Again, another valid example which can certainly hold true. There is also the possibility though that the person making the sarcastic comment has let his imagination and perception of the situation run away with him. Additionally though, whether or not an anti-Semitic comment was only directed at this particular group, it doesn't mean that the comment wasn't anti-Semitic.

Now trying to summarize Jason's views on definition of "anti-Americanism". So you are saying that for you it's a certain hostile bias, which cannot be quite proved by one post, but is rather integral metric. Like if somebody criticizes you once, you think that you probably did something wrong, but after he did it 50 times, you almost sure he just hates you. Especially if he isn't too nice to you in other aspects also. Close?

I prefer "negative bias" over "hostile bias", and I wouldn't use the word "hates". Maybe after 50 times one might begin to think that some negative bias existed. But I guess what you are saying is pretty close.
This quote from an article you posted a link to:
"Anti-American means "opposed or hostile to the people or the government politics of the United States." Against one policy, including the Bush-Iraq plan? Doesn't qualify. Against a couple? Probably not. Convinced that key popular U.S. policies are rooted in a base desire to dominate other countries? Does qualify."

If you want to keep the peace, do not do it here!

I would have said "Just call me Mahatma Ghandi", but Laloo has already claimed that one.
[ January 14, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

So what they want?

They have an ideology. They know more than those opposed to this ideology. Like Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao... create new perfect breed of mankind.

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

Did I undersand right: Germans celebrating the bombing German cities?

Yup. In front of British embassy in Berlin.
With that I don't say anything against British war activities. I stated more than once in this thread that the ideas of terror bombing
(
1. breaking walls of houses with heavy bombs.
2. Throwing lots of fire bombs to create lots of fires in the city. In the "best" case the fires merge to one big fire.
3. Throwing lots of bombs to damage water suply.
)
was invented by nazi-germany and later used by British Air Force and in 1945 by American Air Force.
My communistic grandpa once told me that he had mixed feelings about the bombings. He had lots of fear, especially when he was separated from his family. But at the same time he said it was a sign of hope that the nazi stuff will end. He claimed to have sung socialist songs in the bunker, but he told lots of such stuff.
[ January 14, 2003: Message edited by: Axel Janssen ]

[Michael Ernest]

If it's lost somewhere in the morass of all this expository, forgive me, but what's wrong with just "opposed to American ideals and interests"?
Then the context just shifts to what an American ideal or interest is, but that's another matter. If the statement above is something we can agree on, we can try mincing some words that are easier to wrestle with.
It seems to me people generally like American (ok, US) ideals, in that everyone likes (or seems to like) the practice of US freedoms and opportunities. No one seems to mind coming here to try and find their fortune. At the same time, there is no US interest that everyone seems to agree on.
So I say when you've got a problem with the whole ball of wax -- you don't US society, don't like its politics, don't like all the various things our culture permits, like all the freaking yakking that goes on -- you're in that "anti-American" space.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
So I say when you've got a problem with the whole ball of wax -- you don't US society, don't like its politics, don't like all the various things our culture permits, like all the freaking yakking that goes on -- you're in that "anti-American" space.

There are plenty of people who enjoy parts of our culture/society that otherwise can't stand us. Palestineans celebrating 9/11 while wearing NFL jerseys, Egyptian terrorists who want to see an end to us but love some of our old movies (interviewed in The Eagle's Shadow), the 9/11 terrorists having a grand old time over here in strip clubs and what-not before committing their crimes, that kind of thing.

[Michael Ernest]

Nothing in the real world is so perfectly cut and dried that any of us are free of apparent contradictions.

[Axel Janssen]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

It seems to me people generally like American (ok, US) ideals, in that everyone likes (or seems to like) the practice of US freedoms and opportunities.

For me ideals or values like for example like pursuit of happines, freedom, tolerance, justice, etc. are abstraction.
In space and time we find different implementation of those, US is one.

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

For me ideals or values like for example like pursuit of happines, freedom, tolerance, justice, etc. are abstraction.
In space and time we find different implementation of those, US is one.

I'm thinking more along the lines of what we're able to codify: Congress shall make no law prohibiting freedom of speech, worship. etc. You can't say those two simple things about a lot of the world. Democracy, open markets, NFL-approved jerseys, tittie bars, stuff like that.

[Mapraputa Is]

Jason Menard: What you present is certainly viable and holds for one-off comments. I would say the above wouldn't hold true over a period of time for a series of unrelated comments.
1) You can be right here. I forgot exact wording, but there is a joke that goes like: "if something looks like a dog, walks like a dog, barks like a dog, than chances are it is a dog"...

2) it can be the same effect we often observe on this very site. When we like something, we do not say it, it isn't that much necessarily after all. It's when something irritates or infuriated us, then we cannot keep our mouth closed. The result: a lot of critical comments. I like a lot of things about the US, but it rarely occurs to me to say them.
Jason Menard: Again, another valid example which can certainly hold true. There is also the possibility though that the person making the sarcastic comment has let his imagination and perception of the situation run away with him. Additionally though, whether or not an anti-Semitic comment was only directed at this particular group, it doesn't mean that the comment wasn't anti-Semitic.
Two good points. Regarding the last, back to our situation, you are saying "you, XXX, demonstrated certain anti-American tendencies", and the poster XXX reads it as "you are anti-American" which is not the same. It is possible not to be particularly "anti-American" yet make a comment that will be considered "anti-American", for whatever reason, (you feel provoked, or decided to use "the same tactics" etc). And I agree that it's better (for rare exceptions) to leave it up to "accepting" party to decide was the comment offensive or not.

I remember once reading epithet "fascist" in rather light context, where for me it would be much too offensive word to use. Conversely, I already confessed that the word "racist" doesn't bear the same level of offense for me as for American people - it's too abstract. There can be more subtle moments that non-Americans may not realize as potentially offensive and wonder why they "demonstrate anti-American tendencies" when they only want to be fair.
---------------------------------------
"what happend to us..."
Ravish Kumar

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:
It seems to me people generally like American (ok, US) ideals, in that everyone likes (or seems to like) the practice of US freedoms and opportunities. No one seems to mind coming here to try and find their fortune.

A-ha. And here we are back to Jason's thesis "has let his imagination and perception of the situation run away with him". You know how much I like Michael, yet his words prompted me to put this arrogant Americans in their place. So here it goes.
Axel already provided theoretical basing, so I will act on factual level mostly.
It does look so from here that "everyone likes (or seems to like)" what America has to offer. But.
1) I heard a lot of people in Russia who proudly stated they aren't going to move to America any time soon.
2) I know a family that lived here for a year (some research contract in physics) and then came back - they did not want to stay.
3) I personally know the guy who decided to emigrate, and from his words, "when I saw face of a guard in American embassy, I realized that this country not for me" and emigrated to Israel I was puzzled how he made a serious decision on such a ground, he was neither young (about 40) nor stupid (he is a PhD) and generally very reasonable and nice person. Perhaps people feel emotional when they make this decision and any small thing can acquire inadequate importance.
And some people even move in the opposite direction. Admittedly only a few (at least one) - yet enough to undermine Michael's "No one seems to mind coming here to try and find their fortune" too self-confident comment.
"... John regards it as a badge of honor to have left the United States as a poor young man from the South Side of Chicago when the country embarked on the pointless murder of something like three million Vietnamese in their own land because they happened to embrace the wrong economic loyalties. He lives in Canada, which he is fond of calling "the peaceable kingdom."
http://www.democracymeansyou.com/serious/foreign-policy.htm
The USA is only one of countries that accept immigrants, so do Canada and Australia, Germany and Israel (though last two on national ground mostly, if I am not mistaken). And if other European countries opened the doors wider...
If to speak about immigration of masses and not individuals, it's mostly level of living, I am afraid. And not even absolute level, relative differences can do. Last years there is a significant population of illegal Chinese immigrants in East part of Russia. Makes me wonder what Chinese government does to their people that they voluntarily come to Russia

Well, I hope it looks pretty anti-American and inflammatory already, and I wasn't really that much disturbed by Michael post, just to explain how you can provoke "anti-American tendencies" if these tendencies are willing to be provoked (in case anybody needs my explanations :roll: )
---------------------------------------
"what happend to us..."
Ravish Kumar

[Paul Stevens]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

1) You can be right here. I forgot exact wording, but there is a joke that goes like: "if something looks like a dog, walks like a dog, barks like a dog, than chances are it is a dog"...

It is a duck.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:

It is a duck.

Does it matter ... dog or duck ??

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:

It is a duck.

What? Bark as a duck? :roll:

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:

What? Bark as a duck? :roll:

No, it's bark of a tree! :roll:

[Paul Stevens]

Trees have leaves. See Ya.

[Michael Ernest]

My words can be interpreted to mean "everyone wants to be in America" but that's not what I'm after. You can find any number of people who think America is a morally corrupt place, unsuitable for children and whatnot, to about the same degree you can find any number of Virginians who feel the same way about California.
No place in the world makes all people forget what makes them comfortable, and change is a hard thing anyway. And people emigrate to places that are possible in their imaginations and to their sense of life.
So I'm not saying everyone wants to be in the US. I am saying that if you ask most people over which fence they think the grass is greenest, the US comes up a whole lot more often. Where can you say whatever you want? Where can you have as much success as your ambitions and talents and luck will allow? Where can you start over and build a life from scratch at 35 years old?
Canada? Or more specifically, Vancouver, Ottawa or Toronto? Under the right conditions I suppose so. China? Maybe, if you know people and know the system and have some money to start.
If you want to talk about opportunity, this is the place. I'm not just saying it; I've had my own good (inexplicable) fortunes. I started adult life 20 years ago waiting tables and working at a bank as a teller. I started university three years late on the verge of declaring bankruptcy, literally broke after paying tuition and board, returning the car I had bought on time to save the trouble of a repossession, and I had a couple thousand dollars in medical bills from a disk in my neck I'd managed to do something to with stress and whatever else.
Then I got a degree in English (barely). I found a job as a firefighter (no previos skills) that paid for my education. During my doctoral program, I found an entry-level job in IT. I did some programming, later built high-end server systems, then started my own business, and so on. Co-wrote a best-selling tech book, and so on.
I haven't seen many places where it feels like that kind of life is possible for one person without money, without contacts, without social standing. All I brought to the picture was my body, a full-on competitive streak, and whatever I had learned along the way.
Of course there are success stories all over the world. If it sounds like I'm saying you can only succeed in America, consider that it just might be ready anticipation of American arrogance that helps people hear that. I have my own views about what is good and bad about the American state of mind and I sure haven't shown up here as some kind of zealous flag-waver.
But I've been to a few other places too, and I'm trying to imagine which other country I've seen where you can practically do whatever you want if you put your mind to it. A liberal arts major in Germany making a name in technology? Sure. If it did happen, I bet it would make the news. Here, hardly worth mentioning.
There are plenty of comfortable places in the world to live; good living simply varies with what a person finds comfortable. But for the sheer possibilities of doing whatever you want, however you want, where else does one go? America doesn't merely tolerate such things, America depends on them.
I'd call that pride, by the way, not arrogance. If other people think America sucks because so many Americans think America is hot shit, deal with it. It's a good place and also a proud place. I'm struggling to find the rationale some people have for feeling satisfaction at the events of 9/11 -- or that it was something America brought on itself -- but we can all admit that some people feel exactly that: someone finally showed America they're not so great. Someone embarrassed America on their own turf.
Anti-Americanism isn't just a foreign problem, you know. As I suggested before, it's not so much a question of being anti-American as agreeing to what America is that drives the bigger debate. Ted Kazcynski{sp?), Timothy McVeigh, David Koresh, the kids at Columbine -- they all are (or were) Americans too. We don't need some jackass wealthy zealot like OBL -- whose only problems in life are the ones he brought on himself and his followers -- telling us we got issues. OBL's problem, as it seems to be with every a-hole who would rather point fingers at the US rather than tackle their own worries, is that we don't hang our heads in abject humiliation at every one of their accusations. You know, that's just not our style. But take a look around you: neither is it anyone else's.
[ January 15, 2003: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Mapraputa Is]

See, what I started...
But this was a good one: "And that's pride, by the way, not arrogance"

[Paul Stevens]

Very good Michael. Brought a tear to my eye and I thought I saw the flag on my desk move.

[Rufus BugleWeed]

As long as you are getting a definition - I think you missed a few.
Burning US flag, Uncle Sam, or the presidents image in demonstration before the TV cameras.
Dancing in the streets and celebrating after US citizens have been killed in a horrific act.
Blowing up US soldiers on UN mandated peace keeping missions.
Summarily executing US citizens on airplanes and throwing them out on the ground before the TV cameras.
I'm sure I missed a few others.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
"... John regards it as a badge of honor to have left the United States as a poor young man from the South Side of Chicago when the country embarked on the pointless murder of something like three million Vietnamese in their own land because they happened to embrace the wrong economic loyalties. He lives in Canada, which he is fond of calling "the peaceable kingdom."

John was most likely just a coward. If he was not a coward, he would have stayed and tried to peacefully bring about change. I've always suspected that the fear people like John felt about the possibility of finding themselves drafted and shipped overseas, outweighed their sense of social and moral outrage. I suppose I could be mistaken though.
On the plus side, at least he packed his bags and left. In that regards at least he was better than the draft dodgers who didn't leave, who were willing to continue to enjoy the benefits of citizenship without the prospect of facing up to their responsibilities, meanwhile more than willing to let someone else go off and serve and possibly die in their place.
I have several issues with the Vietnam War, but really a person only has four valid choices if their name comes up in a similar situation: serve in the military, claim conscientious objector status, serve jail time, or leave and never come back. Anything else is unacceptable imho.
Like Michael said, anti-Americanism isn't just a foreign thing. If somebody is not living here and does not hold citizenship here, I really don't care if they are anti-American. I mean ok it's annoying and I might debate them on it, but I don't have any strong emotions towards them one way or the other unless they are trying to kill me or support those who want to kill me. Now what really chaps my ass though are US citizens who are anti-American, and there are plenty of them (including all the ones Michael mentioned). It's just all too hypocritical to me.
Like their 60's bretheren before them, they are more than willing to enjoy all the benefits, yet accept none of the responsibility, content to let others shoulder the load for them. You got something you don't like about this country? Protest, petition, debate, constructively work to bring about change. That's the right and duty of every citizen. But along with the privileges, there are responsibilities, and if someone isn't willing to live up to them if need be, they need to find another place to live imho.

[Michael Ernest]

This John character doesn't much impress me either. You want a badge of honor that people besides a self-described wearer can see, look at Muhammad Ali. A man who makes his living in the boxing ring, a black man in America in the 60's no less, who refused to fight in Vietnam based on his principles, which rested in a religion that far more Americans were hostile to than they are today (and that's sayin' sumpn'). He lost his right to make his living for a while, served time in jail, and became a focal point for "what's wrong with colored people" in the US. Yet stood up and simply declared his position, taking most of the consequences on the chin.
This John character who thinks he stood for something by running away doesn't fool anybody. Anyone with a website can stay in Canada and snipe at his home country all he wants; if he's proud to run, let him keep running.
[ January 15, 2003: Message edited by: Michael Ernest ]

[Thomas Paul]

I am not impressed by draft dodgers. When John ran off to Canada someone else had to go in his place. And if John really thinks that the Vietnam War was about economics he should go look at the mass graves in Hue of the Vietnamese who were massacred by the Viet Cong when they captured the city.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
See, what I started...
But this was a good one: "And that's pride, by the way, not arrogance"

Very good post.
Am I reviving dead thread. NO.
Proud : My mom is best.
Arrogant : My mom is better than yours.
I thought of not replying. But I am
Here are some remarks in an old thread, unfortunately I found them in one thread.
although defense also means continuing to destroy Iraqi attempts at producing nuclear capabilities. Otherwise, Iraq can do what they want in the region.
China's basically been a sleeping giant on the world scene ... they're starting to wake-up; the US is reminding them who's running the show. Date : posted April 25, 2001 08:32 AM
They treat us like shit, then get mad when we sell weapons to their enemies. I hope we end up selling them the more advanced battleships so they can get even more pissed. Date : posted April 24, 2001
So really China is not worthy the respect they think they deserve. Date : posted June 07, 2001
China treats their people like slaves and the people are either too brainwashed to see the truth or they just dont want to see it. The government is so ass backwards that without all of the exports it would probably collapse. Date : posted June 07, 2001
The leaders of China are criminals. Date : posted June 07, 2001
say that China is no worse or better than the USA simply boggles my mind. Date : posted June 07, 2001
when these things have happened we are not proud of them, as opposed to governments like China, Iraq, North Korea, USSR, Cuba, and countless others who have absolutley no problem with the way they behave.
[Good one]
I've been in England, Germany, Japan, Turkey, Bosnia, Mexico, and various other European countries. And although I've liked things about each of them (especially England, awesome country, i could go back and live there for awhile) I've found that the way of life I prefer is back in the good ol U S of A.
[/Good one]
The last one, I like best. Do you know how many of my Indian friend are in US? None of them has said that they really want their kids to grow up in US. This only money for which they are there
What do all these posts say? think ...
If you want respect/love you have to give the same.
All the things which you said applies to all countrymen regardless of their country.
Can you leave your mother coz she is ugly ?
AW I heard one story abt Abrahim Lincoln.
Once he was going some where, an old man came and wished him by bowing himself. Linclon (I wish spelling is correct) bowed more than that old man and wished him back. His secretary asked him, "You are president of America, you are not suppose to bend". He replied, "if I dont wish him, next time he will not wish me. And I want him to wish me again thats why I bend more than him. What I will give, thats what I will get back."
All the best with your arrogance.

[Thomas Paul]

Some of examples you posted may be arrogant and most aren't. Certainly, someone saying that they have lived in many countries and like the US best is not arrogant. The post said, "the way of life I prefer best..." The post did not say that the US is better or that other countries suck. Is it arrogant to like your own country better than others?
China's leaders are criminals. They have violated the UN charter and if they weren't leaders of such a powerful country they would be arrested for the murders they committed in Tiananmen Square.
China does treat their citizens like slaves denying Catholics, for example, the right to practice their religion. They did use political prisoners as slaves in their factories and only stopped when the US threatened to stop accepting imports.
I'm not sure what you are trying to say in your post. Do you mean that we must love other countries even if they have policies that are inhuman? And when we do treat countries like China without regards to their human rights violations, we get complaints for that.

[Pranav Jaidka]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:

China's leaders are criminals. They have violated the UN charter and if they weren't leaders of such a powerful country they would be arrested for the murders they committed in Tiananmen Square.
China does treat their citizens like slaves denying Catholics, for example, the right to practice their religion. They did use political prisoners as slaves in their factories and only stopped when the US threatened to stop accepting imports.

Thomas Just curious What do you instruct at the university ??
Also according to the beliefs that you follow it seems to me that the only way the US mediates is 'Sanctions' if it cannot gain anything from the country or 'War and sanctions' if it can gain something.
As an example ...China ,India,Pakistan ,Iraq and now N Korea.....of course you lifted sanctions on pakistan and also went to war there even if it was not against that country.
What purpose do sanctions serve according to you Thomas when you lift or impose them as it is convenient for you?? Where is the UN involved??

Has it occured to you that Sanctions May not directly effect the people that you need to change......for example........Im sure the people responsible for the Tiananmen square massacre would probably still drive good cars and not care about sanctions. Also Mr Saddam Hussain who you people so fiercely consider and enemy of the state......does not care a hoot about what sanctions are imposed. However around half a million people may have died as a direct result of these sanctions which you consider were effective in 'Catholic rejuvination' In china ???
Do you mean that we must love other countries even if they have policies that are inhuman? And when we do treat countries like China without regards to their human rights violations, we get complaints for that.
Tsk Tsk .....Thomas...........no Dont love or Hate any country .....Just leave them alone .The complaints you get are from imposing sanctions /removing them according to your whims and fantasies..... As an indian I did not care about the sanctions .......but I did care when it was lifted from two countries just because of your selfish reasons. Be equal with your foreign policies.
[ January 16, 2003: Message edited by: Pranav Jaidka ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Pranav Jaidka:

Thomas Just curious What do you instruct at the university ??
Also according to the beliefs that you follow it seems to me that the only way the US mediates is 'Sanctions' if it cannot gain anything from the country or 'War and sanctions' if it can gain something.

I teach Java.
If the question is, does the United States act in its own best interest? the answer is, of course it does. Sanctions should be imposed when they have a chance of changing the actions of the country you are trying to change. Sanctions on Iraq have been successful in preventing Iraq from re-arming after the Gulf War. They were imposed by the UN, not the USA acting unilaterally. The US has not imposed sanctions on China because the UN would never support them and they wouldn't be effective in changing anything since too many other countries would be more than happy to trade with China.
As far as leaving other countries alone, should the US adopt this policy and let Iraq destroy the Kurds? Should the US have let the Serbs wipe out the Bosnians? Or should the US intervene when the UN approves it?
[ January 16, 2003: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]

[Jason Menard]

AFAIK, Thomas does not have the power to personally impose or remove sanctions on any country. My guess is that the limit of Thomas's sanction abilities extends to his family and the Ranch.

Originally posted by Pranav Jaidka:
Also according to the beliefs that you follow it seems to me that the only way the US mediates is 'Sanctions' if it cannot gain anything from the country or 'War and sanctions' if it can gain something.

Sanctions are but one punitive instrument of any nation's foreign policy, although there are many others. Sanctions are levied by one nation against another as punishment for some act or behavior on the part of the country who is sanctioned. The degrees of the sanctions generally depend on the act or behavior of the sanctioned country, they are rarely "total" sanctions.
Sanctions are of course more effective when a) levelled by major economic powers, and b) respected by other countries. They can be an effective tool for changing behavior when other means (such as diplomacy) fail or are not appropriate (such as open warfare). Sanctions may be imposed by individual nations, or more commonly international bodies such as the UN.

of course you lifted sanctions on pakistan

As a reward for helping us out. To keep things balanced though, we also removed sanctions on India at the same time.

Has it occured to you that Sanctions May not directly effect the people that you need to change......for example........Im sure the people responsible for the Tiananmen square massacre would probably still drive good cars and not care about sanctions. Also Mr Saddam Hussain who you people so fiercely consider and enemy of the state......does not care a hoot about what sanctions are imposed.

Sanctions affect the entire population of the country, including the ruling elite, as profits from imports and exports quickly dwindle.

However around half a million people may have died as a direct result of these sanctions which you consider were effective in 'Catholic rejuvination' In china ???

This is not a correct statement. The sanctions that were put in place included measures for ensuring adequate food and medical supplies continued to flow into that country. I believe this was called the Oil-For-Food Program. The Iraqi government chooses to not distribute this aid sufficiently. Hussein enjoys the press and sympathy that he gets by starving his own people and then blaming the US (the sanctions are UN sanctions btw). Despite these sanctions, his military remains well fed and well equipped. European and Middle Eastern entities defy the sanctions and smuggle goods into the country. These goods that the Iraqis are having smuggled are not food and medicine, they are as has been pointed out recently by Hans Blix, materials of a military purpose. There is only one person to blame for any starving Iraqis, and that is the ruler of Iraq.

Tsk Tsk .....Thomas...........no Dont love or Hate any country .....Just leave them alone .

I think there have been several threads already which have gone into what might happen if the US adapted a more laissez-faire attitude in foreign policy.

The complaints you get are from imposing sanctions /removing them according to your whims and fantasies.....

I would say that the tone of this goes towards the overall topic of this thread. But anyway, it is all a matter of cause-and-effect, and not related to "whims" or "fantasies". Country X commits some act or behavior deemed unacceptable by the international community, sanctions may be levied. They atone for those acts or behaviors by following the guidelines set forth by the international community, the sanctions may be lifted. Cause-and-effect.

As an indian I did not care about the sanctions .......but I did care when it was lifted from two countries just because of your selfish reasons. Be equal with your foreign policies.

Are there other nations's whose interests we should be concerned about when we decide to lift sanctions we have imposed? It seems to me what you are most upset about is that we have lifted sanctions on Pakistan. Realistically though, a nation's foreign policy is going to be guided by it's own best interests, and not altruism.
[ January 16, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Rufus BugleWeed]

Is the NY Times attempt to sell this picture of Nikita Krushchev beating his shoe on the desk at the UN anti-Soviet?

[ January 16, 2003: Message edited by: Rufus BugleWeed ]

[Pakka Desi]

Arguing over the foriegn policies of US government is like arguing over the type of the fruit that will grow from the seed that has been sowed recently.
Only time will tell how good or bad is that policy. The indication currenly that we are getting (terrorism and wide spread anger against US in some parts of the world ) shows that the policy is probably detrimental to the US.
As far as sanctions against India and Pakistan are concerned, I find US policy quite stupid actually. India and Pakistan are based on diametrically opposite principals. There is a vast difference between the abilities of the two. However, US usually tries to club India with Pakistan (balancing act). This will not pay off because betting on Pakistan is like loosing it already. The way Pakistan is going, nobody can save them. India may not be a lot better off than Pakistan in some respects but it is definitely on the right track.
Sometimes I really wondor how can two countries (US and Pak) which are also based on diametrically opposite principals, cooperate for long? US an Pak can never work as cohesively as US and India can. Somehow this is lost on the policy makers of the US.

[Pranav Jaidka]

It seems to me what you are most upset about is that we have lifted sanctions on Pakistan.
Yes Jason you hit the nail on the head here......because even though you dont realise it ..this reward in exchange for cooperation..... or the money which is made from Trade and the profits which are made are then directed to support terrorism (As I think even the US has also experienced ).
And now not Deviating from the topic ....judging from the past few posts ..I guess Americanism ..or for that matter .....Indianism....or Iraqism...what whatever 'ism' can then be defined as being selfish in order to obtain whatever motive or goal profitable for ones own state ......WITHOUT any altruistic motive in mind. No thought should be given if people die in a different country if my own state profits. Right ??
[ January 16, 2003: Message edited by: Pranav Jaidka ]

[Pranav Jaidka]

Originally posted by Pakka Desi:

US an Pak can never work as cohesively as US and India can. Somehow this is lost on the policy makers of the US.

Pakka ......not completely true.......the policy makers in the US are smart.......and helpless at times. Thats why they had to remove sanctions.
However every pakistani citizen is required to register himself in the US !!! right ??
So its not that they dont realize whats going on.........its only that they change with the situation.......for their own benefit.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Pakka Desi:
India and Pakistan are based on diametrically opposite principals.

There's a B-Movie called Cannibal Women in the Avocado Jungle of Death, in which some scientists (Shannon Tweed, Bill Maher) go in search of some Amazons who kill men and eat them with avocado dip. Along the way they run into another tribe of Amazon women, and trying to reassure our heroes, one of these other women says something like:
"We are diametrically opposed to the Pirranha women. They actually believe that men should be killed and eaten with avocado dip, whereas we believe that men should be killed and eaten with clam dip."