Anti-Americanism on this board

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Clarence is absolutely right. Every god damn last thing done by the CIA and the military is done for the benefit of America.

Or in the case of Guatemala, for the benefit of United Fruit Company.

Making fruit cheaper in the United States. The interests of the USA and the UFC were one and the same.

Which justify overthrowing a democratic government which gave voting rights to Indians and replacing them with a dictatorship which took that right away?

Silly. USA = UFC

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

It's possible to be both too pro-American and too anti-American (duh) but at least people who are pro-American tend to be fundamentally on the right track. Anti-Americans never commanded much respect from me. They tend to be intellectually shallow in the extreme.

That's because you don't live in the US and don't have to deal with idiotic blind jingoism and the like, yet have to deal with some idiotic knee-jerk anti-Americanism. The latter is often annoying, but harmless since it has no real influence beyond message board trolls. The former as displayed in this thread is quite disgusting.

For an analogy I'm sure most American liberals would argue that the childish anti-French crap from American conservatives ("Freedom fries" and all that junk) is worse than French nationalism because they have far more familiarity with the former than the latter. However as stupid and childish as that nonsense is, I don't think many would argue it's worse or more dangerous than Le Pen and the FN.

[Gustaf]

It's possible to be both too pro-American and too anti-American (duh) but at least people who are pro-American tend to be fundamentally on the right track. Anti-Americans never commanded much respect from me. They tend to be intellectually shallow in the extreme.

That's because you don't live in the US and don't have to deal with idiotic blind jingoism and the like, yet have to deal with some idiotic knee-jerk anti-Americanism. The latter is often annoying, but harmless since it has no real influence beyond message board trolls. The former as displayed in this thread is quite disgusting.

For an analogy I'm sure most American liberals would argue that the childish anti-French crap from American conservatives ("Freedom fries" and all that junk) is worse than French nationalism because they have far more familiarity with the former than the latter. However as stupid and childish as that nonsense is, I don't think many would argue it's worse or more dangerous than Le Pen and the FN.

That's a fair point, but trust me, it has influence beyond message boards. Our former UN ambassador described Fidel Castro as a "Renaissance Prince" who was "too large for his island."

Leaders of two of the parties in the (formerly) governing left coalition thought choosing between Castro and Bush was impossible because the choices were equally bad.

Hell, the leader of the Swedish Left Party was a member of the Swedish-Cuban Friendship Association, a pro-Castro organization financed by the Cuban government to spread propaganda on how Cuba is a democracy. And several high-ranking members of that party still insist that Cuba is a great country (I remember one of them claimed Cuba was at least as democratic as Sweden).

I've been to parties where people have not just Che Guevara t-shirts but bin Laden t-shirts and it's perfectly socially accepted.

Anti-Americanism also leads to stuff like (IIRC) 20% of the youths in this country being truthers.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's possible to be both too pro-American and too anti-American (duh) but at least people who are pro-American tend to be fundamentally on the right track. Anti-Americans never commanded much respect from me. They tend to be intellectually shallow in the extreme.

That's because you don't live in the US and don't have to deal with idiotic blind jingoism and the like, yet have to deal with some idiotic knee-jerk anti-Americanism. The latter is often annoying, but harmless since it has no real influence beyond message board trolls. The former as displayed in this thread is quite disgusting.

For an analogy I'm sure most American liberals would argue that the childish anti-French crap from American conservatives ("Freedom fries" and all that junk) is worse than French nationalism because they have far more familiarity with the former than the latter. However as stupid and childish as that nonsense is, I don't think many would argue it's worse or more dangerous than Le Pen and the FN.

That's a fair point, but trust me, it has influence beyond message boards. Our former UN ambassador described Fidel Castro as a "Renaissance Prince" who was "too large for his island."

Leaders of two of the parties in the (formerly) governing left coalition thought choosing between Castro and Bush was impossible because the choices were equally bad.

Hell, the leader of the Swedish Left Party was a member of the Swedish-Cuban Friendship Association, a pro-Castro organization financed by the Cuban government to spread propaganda on how Cuba is a democracy. And several high-ranking members of that party still insist that Cuba is a great country (I remember one of them claimed Cuba was at least as democratic as Sweden).

I've been to parties where people have not just Che Guevara t-shirts but bin Laden t-shirts and it's perfectly socially accepted.

Anti-Americanism also leads to stuff like (IIRC) 20% of the youths in this country being truthers.

By "this country" do you mean Sweden or the U.S.?

[Gustaf]

It's possible to be both too pro-American and too anti-American (duh) but at least people who are pro-American tend to be fundamentally on the right track. Anti-Americans never commanded much respect from me. They tend to be intellectually shallow in the extreme.

That's because you don't live in the US and don't have to deal with idiotic blind jingoism and the like, yet have to deal with some idiotic knee-jerk anti-Americanism. The latter is often annoying, but harmless since it has no real influence beyond message board trolls. The former as displayed in this thread is quite disgusting.

For an analogy I'm sure most American liberals would argue that the childish anti-French crap from American conservatives ("Freedom fries" and all that junk) is worse than French nationalism because they have far more familiarity with the former than the latter. However as stupid and childish as that nonsense is, I don't think many would argue it's worse or more dangerous than Le Pen and the FN.

That's a fair point, but trust me, it has influence beyond message boards. Our former UN ambassador described Fidel Castro as a "Renaissance Prince" who was "too large for his island."

Leaders of two of the parties in the (formerly) governing left coalition thought choosing between Castro and Bush was impossible because the choices were equally bad.

Hell, the leader of the Swedish Left Party was a member of the Swedish-Cuban Friendship Association, a pro-Castro organization financed by the Cuban government to spread propaganda on how Cuba is a democracy. And several high-ranking members of that party still insist that Cuba is a great country (I remember one of them claimed Cuba was at least as democratic as Sweden).

I've been to parties where people have not just Che Guevara t-shirts but bin Laden t-shirts and it's perfectly socially accepted.

Anti-Americanism also leads to stuff like (IIRC) 20% of the youths in this country being truthers.

By "this country" do you mean Sweden or the U.S.?

Why would I use this country to refer to the US Inks?

This country is obviously my country, i.e. Sweden.

[Vosem]

Clarence is absolutely right. Every god damn last thing done by the CIA and the military is done for the benefit of America.

Or in the case of Guatemala, for the benefit of United Fruit Company.

Making fruit cheaper in the United States. The interests of the USA and the UFC were one and the same.

Which justify overthrowing a democratic government which gave voting rights to Indians and replacing them with a dictatorship which took that right away?

Cold War politics. Which, as the child of Russian immigrants to the US, I find perfectly justified.

[politicus]

The Guatemalan government was not communist and wouldn't have become an ally to the Soviet Union.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Clarence is absolutely right. Every god damn last thing done by the CIA and the military is done for the benefit of America.

Or in the case of Guatemala, for the benefit of United Fruit Company.

Making fruit cheaper in the United States. The interests of the USA and the UFC were one and the same.

Which justify overthrowing a democratic government which gave voting rights to Indians and replacing them with a dictatorship which took that right away?

Cold War politics. Which, as the child of Russian immigrants to the US, I find perfectly justified.

"My people are under opression, so it's OK to opress another innocent people"?

Dude, you're a child of Russian immigrants. I'm a child of the people who actually lived under communism and neither me nor any member of my family, since they saw opression on their very eyes, would say such a thing.

[Mechaman]

The Guatemalan government was not communist and wouldn't have become an ally to the Soviet Union.

Yes, and I find it shocking that Vosem is actually defending the whole United Fruit Company incident.  I mean really, how can one defend it?  It was a pretty blatant military intervention on the benefit of produce corporations.

Maybe I'm just a naive idealist, but I don't believe we should be waging war to secure (insert company name x here)'s profits.  And as for cheaper food, what f***ing nerve.  Half of the f***ing world struggles to put food on the table on a daily basis!  And pretty much it's okay for the US to send in troops to topple democratically elected regimes to save a few cents on f***ing bananas and apples!?

Really!?

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Well, Vosem, your family was fortunate to be able to go West. Mine was not.

For example, my grandpa's father rootted for years in the Stalinist jail, barely escaping the noose. The family was left destitute.

One of my grandma's brothers was shot by the secret police while innocently riding a bike. Another spent a considerable time in prison, enduring daily torture. Another family was ruined.

And guess what: neither my grandma, nor my grandpa, would possibly agree with what you've just said.

And why? Perhaps because they actually know what oppression is.

Nazi opression? Communist opression? United Fruit opression? What's the difference for those who are suffering?

[Hash]

Clarence is absolutely right. Every god damn last thing done by the CIA and the military is done for the benefit of America.

Or in the case of Guatemala, for the benefit of United Fruit Company.

Making fruit cheaper in the United States. The interests of the USA and the UFC were one and the same.

Are you trying to be a parody or are you (gasp) serious there? I hope you're trying to be a parody... because if you're serious, you're an idiot.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Vosem just proved my point.

[Хahar 🤔]

Yes, some people saying 'America is always bad' annoys me, particularly when they are clearly Americans, and even more particularly when (this is a common thread) they believe anyone who doesn't think so is a dumb redneck. I've gotten into a real-life fistfight over this. opebo (look, BRTD, I don't capitalize opebo at the beginning of a sentence!) is the exception; it's part of his persona, which is very entertaining.

You've gotten into a fight over this?

Man, pick better fights.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Yes, some people saying 'America is always bad' annoys me, particularly when they are clearly Americans, and even more particularly when (this is a common thread) they believe anyone who doesn't think so is a dumb redneck. I've gotten into a real-life fistfight over this. opebo (look, BRTD, I don't capitalize opebo at the beginning of a sentence!) is the exception; it's part of his persona, which is very entertaining.

You've gotten into a fight over this?

Man, pick better fights.

Come on, Xahar. He was serving his country, just like Mitt Romney did, when he was a missionary in France and got into a fight with some Vietnam War opponents.

[Vosem]

Clarence is absolutely right. Every god damn last thing done by the CIA and the military is done for the benefit of America.

Or in the case of Guatemala, for the benefit of United Fruit Company.

Making fruit cheaper in the United States. The interests of the USA and the UFC were one and the same.

Are you trying to be a parody or are you (gasp) serious there? I hope you're trying to be a parody... because if you're serious, you're an idiot.

This was not serious; it was a joke, and in reflection seriously bad taste. I don't think intervening in another country over fruit prices is worth it.

Well, Vosem, your family was fortunate to be able to go West. Mine was not.

For example, my grandpa's father rootted for years in the Stalinist jail, barely escaping the noose. The family was left destitute.

One of my grandma's brothers was shot by the secret police while innocently riding a bike. Another spent a considerable time in prison, enduring daily torture. Another family was ruined.

Guess what? My great-grandmother survived famine in the Ukraine because of a secret stash of honey, for the maintenance of which she could easily have been shot. It's pointless to argue over whose family was oppressed more, and serves no purpose.

On the topic of what we were discussing at first, I'll admit that the Guatemalan coup was not one of the finer moments of American foreign policy, but Arbenz had set up a system in which the eventual entry of Soviet influence into Guatemala was inevitable. With hindsight, replacing him with Armas was a terrible concept, but (Cold War politics) the removal of Arbenz was justified.

Yes, some people saying 'America is always bad' annoys me, particularly when they are clearly Americans, and even more particularly when (this is a common thread) they believe anyone who doesn't think so is a dumb redneck. I've gotten into a real-life fistfight over this. opebo (look, BRTD, I don't capitalize opebo at the beginning of a sentence!) is the exception; it's part of his persona, which is very entertaining.

You've gotten into a fight over this?

Man, pick better fights.

Come on, Xahar. He was serving his country, just like Mitt Romney did, when he was a missionary in France and got into a fight with some Vietnam War opponents.

My country couldn't care less. I was just in a rather foul mood, and, for the record, he started the fight.

Clarence is absolutely right. Every god damn last thing done by the CIA and the military is done for the benefit of America.

Or in the case of Guatemala, for the benefit of United Fruit Company.

Making fruit cheaper in the United States. The interests of the USA and the UFC were one and the same.

Which justify overthrowing a democratic government which gave voting rights to Indians and replacing them with a dictatorship which took that right away?

Cold War politics. Which, as the child of Russian immigrants to the US, I find perfectly justified.

"My people are under opression, so it's OK to opress another innocent people"?

Dude, you're a child of Russian immigrants. I'm a child of the people who actually lived under communism and neither me nor any member of my family, since they saw opression on their very eyes, would say such a thing.

I'm also a child of people who actually lived under communism.

The Guatemalan government was not communist and wouldn't have become an ally to the Soviet Union.

Maybe I'm just a naive idealist, but I don't believe we should be waging war to secure (insert company name x here)'s profits.  And as for cheaper food, what f***ing nerve.  Half of the f***ing world struggles to put food on the table on a daily basis!  And pretty much it's okay for the US to send in troops to topple democratically elected regimes to save a few cents on f***ing bananas and apples!?

Really!?

No, we shouldn't. I agree with this. But we were justified in waging war to prevent Warsaw Pact-style communism from spreading (as I'm sure Kalwejt's grandparents would testify, Warsaw Pact-style communism is not a good thing).

[Mechaman]

Vosem, I'm sorry I was stupid enough to take your posts seriously.

Of all people on this forum, I should know better when one is just being ridiculous.
I hereby resign the presidency at 1618 hours and 14 seconds and Vice President JakeMatthews will take over.

[dead0man]

Half of the f***ing world struggles to put food on the table on a daily basis!

hyperbole or ?  Maybe 20 years ago, but I don't think that's true anymore.

Looking at the stats confirms my suspicions.  It's still an ugly ugly picture but the best thing we can do to fix it won't get done because we don't want to pay the price in blood and coin to do it.  There is plenty of food.

[Gustaf]

Half of the f***ing world struggles to put food on the table on a daily basis!

hyperbole or ?  Maybe 20 years ago, but I don't think that's true anymore.

Looking at the stats confirms my suspicions.  It's still an ugly ugly picture but the best thing we can do to fix it won't get done because we don't want to pay the price in blood and coin to do it.  There is plenty of food.

About 13% according to the below link.

http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm#Number_of_hungry_people_in_the_world

Abolishing planned economy in favour of freer markets has done a lot to reduce the problem of world hunger.

[dead0man]

Indeed.  GM crops making food cheaper/more plentiful has helped a lot as well.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Unlike Mechaman, I accept no apology, Vosem. When you post something, in appearently serious tone, you must assume the people will take this seriously. Beside, if it was supoused to be a joke/irony, it was in a poor taste.

[Mechaman]

Half of the f***ing world struggles to put food on the table on a daily basis!

hyperbole or ?  Maybe 20 years ago, but I don't think that's true anymore.

Looking at the stats confirms my suspicions.  It's still an ugly ugly picture but the best thing we can do to fix it won't get done because we don't want to pay the price in blood and coin to do it.  There is plenty of food.

Yeah, I was mostly referring to the past in that statement (specifically, whenever the Guatemala struggle happened).  And, as Gustaf noted, this is due mostly to liberalized trade and governmental policies, not American militarist mindset.
Free trade will help the world's poor, not misguided borderline New Dealesque in nature interventionism by force.

I recommend that you see the very true and accurate documentary "Team America: World Police".

I think it's pretty obvious why anti-Americanism is so strong.

[dead0man]

While I agree with your point, the thing that would help starving people the most would heavily involve our military (or at least the threat of our military).  It's not a lack of food that makes people starve, it's sh**tty governments.  But we lack the will for that and even if we had that will and the best of intentions in mind, the world would look wearily at any action we took to that end because of our actions in the recent (and not so recent) past.

[Gustaf]

The simplified truth is that Deadoman is right - people are poor because of bad institutions. Whether good institutions can be brought about through foreign intervention is a matter of debate though. It seems to have worked decently in Japan but less well in many other places.

[Mechaman]

While I agree with your point, the thing that would help starving people the most would heavily involve our military (or at least the threat of our military).  It's not a lack of food that makes people starve, it's sh**tty governments.  But we lack the will for that and even if we had that will and the best of intentions in mind, the world would look wearily at any action we took to that end because of our actions in the recent (and not so recent) past.

First off, I apologize for the statement "for someone of your character".  In hindsight it made me sound like a jackass.  So, I'm going to edit it out after making this post.
Secondly, I'm not sure about this idea that American military is needed to cure the ails of the world.  In my mind, that is little different from saying the American government is needed to cure economic ails and poverty.  Sure, it may make you feel good that America is coming in force for these countries, toppling dictatorships left and right, but more of than not (like our misguided "war on poverty) it opens a door of problems in it's wake.  Corrupt governments get toppled, corrupt governments replace them.
There may be an example or two of how this policy was successful, but in a number of places (like the hawks' favorite example of Iran) American military intervention was brought in to keep administrations in place that the people of said country did not want and in the end said administration was overthrown and oppressive vehemently anti-American and anti-western governments took control.
So what would you suggest we do in those scenarios?  Just keep sending in the troops every time a nation goes corrupto?

I guess the argument in response to my complaints are that US foreign policy is misguided as to what constitues corrupt regimes.  Or that the military is handling regime change the wrong way (example: Iraq).  That I'm oversimplifying the argument for intervention to mean that we stop every tin point sh*tty government that gets in the way of people getting food.
I admit that I have committed this oversimplification in the past and would welcome pro-interventionists to list what measures of "corruptness" should be used for intervention.

[Mechaman]

The simplified truth is that Deadoman is right - people are poor because of bad institutions. Whether good institutions can be brought about through foreign intervention is a matter of debate though. It seems to have worked decently in Japan but less well in many other places.

I'm not so sure I would call the war with Japan "intervention" more so as "self defense", considering they attacked us.