Do you blame the US first?

[°Leprechaun]

So what's wrong with pointing out when the US makes mistakes?

[Gustaf]

Nothing...but many people go to great lengths, stretching the truth as they go along. Also, many people ignore other countries in their blaming. And the America-haters are often fundamentally irrational in their behaviour. That is the basis of severe hypocrisy which always makes me angry.

[adam]

There is a difference between criticising American...and expressing irrational hatred towards it.

The former: "I diagree with the current direction of America's foreign policy"
The latter: "Amerikkka is a bunch of warmonger fashists!!!11"

[°Leprechaun]

There is nothing irrational about pointing out facts.
Like the fact that the US is the only country that has ever used a nuclear weapon. Like the facts that a lot of civilians have died in Iraq.
etc etc
That doesn't mean I hate my country, only that I should have the right to point out her many mistakes.

[MODU]

Blame America if it is deserving of the blame.  However, blaming America for almost everything is idiotic and naive, after all it does so much more good than harm.

[°Leprechaun]

Nothing...but many people go to great lengths, stretching the truth as they go along. Also, many people ignore other countries in their blaming. And the America-haters are often fundamentally irrational in their behaviour. That is the basis of severe hypocrisy which always makes me angry.

Please elaborate, which truths are stretched? I think many truths are ignored, such as all those who have been killed.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Nothing...but many people go to great lengths, stretching the truth as they go along. Also, many people ignore other countries in their blaming. And the America-haters are often fundamentally irrational in their behaviour. That is the basis of severe hypocrisy which always makes me angry.

Please elaborate, which truths are stretched? I think many truths are ignored, such as all those who have been killed.

Zing.

Though I think it is impossible to be impartial about your country, especially one with such a sense of identity as the United States.

The United States should get the blame for actions when it can seen as partially responsible, which sadly is alot more than most people recognize.

[Gustaf]

Nothing...but many people go to great lengths, stretching the truth as they go along. Also, many people ignore other countries in their blaming. And the America-haters are often fundamentally irrational in their behaviour. That is the basis of severe hypocrisy which always makes me angry.

Please elaborate, which truths are stretched? I think many truths are ignored, such as all those who have been killed.

Zing.

Though I think it is impossible to be impartial about your country, especially one with such a sense of identity as the United States.

The United States should get the blame for actions when it can seen as partially responsible, which sadly is alot more than most people recognize.

The genocide in Rwanda was America's fault for not acting
The civil war in Somalia is America's fault for pulling out
The civil war in Iraq is America's fault for not pulling out
The genocide in the Balkans is America's fault for not intervening
The war in Kosovo is America's fault for intervening
The human rights violations in China is America's fault for being too pragamatic
The human rights violations in Iraq are America's fault for not being pragmatic enough
The US polices the world too  much
The US is too isolationist
America should listen to all countries of the world, especially the UN
America shouldn't cooperate with dictatorships

-----------------------------------------------------

Etc. It is contradictory because it is deep down based on the sentiment "Down with America" or possibly the idea "everything America does is wrong" rather than any reasoned position.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Why do your polls always have such awful choices?

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Nothing...but many people go to great lengths, stretching the truth as they go along. Also, many people ignore other countries in their blaming. And the America-haters are often fundamentally irrational in their behaviour. That is the basis of severe hypocrisy which always makes me angry.

Please elaborate, which truths are stretched? I think many truths are ignored, such as all those who have been killed.

Zing.

Though I think it is impossible to be impartial about your country, especially one with such a sense of identity as the United States.

The United States should get the blame for actions when it can seen as partially responsible, which sadly is alot more than most people recognize.

The genocide in Rwanda was America's fault for not acting
The civil war in Somalia is America's fault for pulling out
The civil war in Iraq is America's fault for not pulling out
The genocide in the Balkans is America's fault for not intervening
The war in Kosovo is America's fault for intervening
The human rights violations in China is America's fault for being too pragamatic
The human rights violations in Iraq are America's fault for not being pragmatic enough
The US polices the world too  much
The US is too isolationist
America should listen to all countries of the world, especially the UN
America shouldn't cooperate with dictatorships

-----------------------------------------------------

Etc. It is contradictory because it is deep down based on the sentiment "Down with America" or possibly the idea "everything America does is wrong" rather than any reasoned position.

When I made that post I was thinking about the US' role in supporting (and sometimes installing) military dictatorships such as those in Greece, Indonesia, Chile, Iraq (Saddam didn't come to power by accident you know), Nicaragua, Most of South America, etc and it's role in supporting invasions of countries like Cyprus and East Timor. None of what you address is what first came to mind, and if it did, I would be an anti-American hypocrite, most of the world's goverments operates on that standard.

In the Case of the US should we apply a new version of Orwell's Rule: "Something is true even if Noam Chomsky (who really is an anti-American hack) says it's true".

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Iraq (Saddam didn't come to power by accident you know)

Nor was he installed by the US

[°Leprechaun]

Why do your polls always have such awful choices?

Well, this particular one was supposed to humorous (based on something Bill Mahrer said), perhaps I should stop trying so hard to be funny, sorry if it offended anyone.

[°Leprechaun]

Nothing...but many people go to great lengths, stretching the truth as they go along. Also, many people ignore other countries in their blaming. And the America-haters are often fundamentally irrational in their behaviour. That is the basis of severe hypocrisy which always makes me angry.

Please elaborate, which truths are stretched? I think many truths are ignored, such as all those who have been killed.

Zing.

Though I think it is impossible to be impartial about your country, especially one with such a sense of identity as the United States.

The United States should get the blame for actions when it can seen as partially responsible, which sadly is alot more than most people recognize.

The genocide in Rwanda was America's fault for not acting
The civil war in Somalia is America's fault for pulling out
The civil war in Iraq is America's fault for not pulling out
The genocide in the Balkans is America's fault for not intervening
The war in Kosovo is America's fault for intervening
The human rights violations in China is America's fault for being too pragamatic
The human rights violations in Iraq are America's fault for not being pragmatic enough
The US polices the world too  much
The US is too isolationist
America should listen to all countries of the world, especially the UN
America shouldn't cooperate with dictatorships

-----------------------------------------------------

Etc. It is contradictory because it is deep down based on the sentiment "Down with America" or possibly the idea "everything America does is wrong" rather than any reasoned position.

So how much of the criticism of the US *is* valid? For example, do you think we invaded Iraq for noble reasons?

[°Leprechaun]

I am interested in what everyone's take (whether in the US or not) of how they think the US is thought of outside the US.
My perception is that some people would be less likely in other countries, to be friendly, based on their opinion of the US and/or Bush; but isn't my assumption a kind of prejudice? However, this is what I hear a lot of people say.

[°Leprechaun]

Why do your polls always have such awful choices?

sometimes I try to provide a lot of options, but then again, the option to write in is always available

[MODU]

For example, do you think we invaded Iraq for noble reasons?

Yes, which is why so many nations joined us both in 1991 and 2003 (same war).

[Gustaf]

Nothing...but many people go to great lengths, stretching the truth as they go along. Also, many people ignore other countries in their blaming. And the America-haters are often fundamentally irrational in their behaviour. That is the basis of severe hypocrisy which always makes me angry.

Please elaborate, which truths are stretched? I think many truths are ignored, such as all those who have been killed.

Zing.

Though I think it is impossible to be impartial about your country, especially one with such a sense of identity as the United States.

The United States should get the blame for actions when it can seen as partially responsible, which sadly is alot more than most people recognize.

The genocide in Rwanda was America's fault for not acting
The civil war in Somalia is America's fault for pulling out
The civil war in Iraq is America's fault for not pulling out
The genocide in the Balkans is America's fault for not intervening
The war in Kosovo is America's fault for intervening
The human rights violations in China is America's fault for being too pragamatic
The human rights violations in Iraq are America's fault for not being pragmatic enough
The US polices the world too  much
The US is too isolationist
America should listen to all countries of the world, especially the UN
America shouldn't cooperate with dictatorships

-----------------------------------------------------

Etc. It is contradictory because it is deep down based on the sentiment "Down with America" or possibly the idea "everything America does is wrong" rather than any reasoned position.

So how much of the criticism of the US *is* valid? For example, do you think we invaded Iraq for noble reasons?

That wasn't exactly the point. But it is obvious that it was in a sense idealistic. The idea was, after all, to spread democracy. Of course, creating a stable, Muslim, pro-US democracy in the Middle East is definitely in the interest of America. So it isn't necessarily altruistic. But a pragmatic, realist view of the situation obviously wouldn't have considered all the costs of war when there was no guaranteed short-term gains to be had. Of course, there is some truth in some of all the accusations directed at America. There are many examples of mistakes (like Vietnam) and morally repugnant actions (like Chile). But taken as a whole it's a contradictory mess which lies very far from the truth.

One of my points is also that it is often very far-fetched. Looking at Rwanda for instance, the chief blame obviously lies with th eperpertrators: i.e. the hutu extremists. Secondly, France, which aided the genocide and supplied it with weapons could also be accused. But the left commonly blames America instead. There are many such cases where the US is made out to be the bad guy even though there are many othe rmuch more plausible candidates.

[°Leprechaun]

For example, do you think we invaded Iraq for noble reasons?

Yes, which is why so many nations joined us both in 1991 and 2003 (same war).

That is certainly open to debate... you have a point about 1991, but 2003 is another matter... many nations also refused to join us, which made our ability to gain world support very difficult.

[°Leprechaun]

Nothing...but many people go to great lengths, stretching the truth as they go along. Also, many people ignore other countries in their blaming. And the America-haters are often fundamentally irrational in their behaviour. That is the basis of severe hypocrisy which always makes me angry.

Please elaborate, which truths are stretched? I think many truths are ignored, such as all those who have been killed.

Zing.

Though I think it is impossible to be impartial about your country, especially one with such a sense of identity as the United States.

The United States should get the blame for actions when it can seen as partially responsible, which sadly is alot more than most people recognize.

The genocide in Rwanda was America's fault for not acting
The civil war in Somalia is America's fault for pulling out
The civil war in Iraq is America's fault for not pulling out
The genocide in the Balkans is America's fault for not intervening
The war in Kosovo is America's fault for intervening
The human rights violations in China is America's fault for being too pragamatic
The human rights violations in Iraq are America's fault for not being pragmatic enough
The US polices the world too  much
The US is too isolationist
America should listen to all countries of the world, especially the UN
America shouldn't cooperate with dictatorships

-----------------------------------------------------

Etc. It is contradictory because it is deep down based on the sentiment "Down with America" or possibly the idea "everything America does is wrong" rather than any reasoned position.

So how much of the criticism of the US *is* valid? For example, do you think we invaded Iraq for noble reasons?

That wasn't exactly the point. But it is obvious that it was in a sense idealistic. The idea was, after all, to spread democracy. Of course, creating a stable, Muslim, pro-US democracy in the Middle East is definitely in the interest of America. So it isn't necessarily altruistic. But a pragmatic, realist view of the situation obviously wouldn't have considered all the costs of war when there was no guaranteed short-term gains to be had. Of course, there is some truth in some of all the accusations directed at America. There are many examples of mistakes (like Vietnam) and morally repugnant actions (like Chile). But taken as a whole it's a contradictory mess which lies very far from the truth.

One of my points is also that it is often very far-fetched. Looking at Rwanda for instance, the chief blame obviously lies with th eperpertrators: i.e. the hutu extremists. Secondly, France, which aided the genocide and supplied it with weapons could also be accused. But the left commonly blames America instead. There are many such cases where the US is made out to be the bad guy even though there are many othe rmuch more plausible candidates.

I think there is some truth to what you are saying, but I would guess that what you are talking about is a small minority of people, most people who are critical of the US for things like Iraq do not belong to this small group.

[°Leprechaun]

Isn't the point about Rwanda, that we interfere in Iraq and ignore more logical endeavors (if human rights is you criterion) like Rwanda, rather than that we are to blame for Rwanda? In other words, obviously we are not primarily responsible for Rwanda, but we could have done something; and yet we go into Iraq and make things worse. I think that is more to the point.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Iraq (Saddam didn't come to power by accident you know)

Nor was he installed by the US

No he wasn't, but the Ba'ath was installed on what can be a CIA-backed gravy train in 1963.

Saddam had as a matter of fact had been previously hired by the CIA to assasinate the then president of Iraq General Qassim, who had taken power from the old-British installed monarchy. This plan backfired badly causing Saddam to flee to Egypt where he studied at Cairo university and made regular contact with CIA agents there, who were still plotting Qassim's flaw. While Qassim was undemocratically elected he was extremely popular among many Iraqis, the situation was not too different to Mossadeq and Iran actually.

After Five years as a leading party underling from 1963-1968 (Including at which he had personally oversaw the execution of many Iraqi jews in 1967 due to the Six days war.) an internal coup - which may or may not have been backed by the CIA - put Saddam's cousin Al-Bakr into power, and appointed Saddam as Vice-President. The CIA had been worried that the Ba'ath party once in power was growing closer to other Arab nationalist regimes and Soviet Union.

Ironically, This is exactly what happened under Al-Bakr. Who Nationalized the Iraqi Oil industry in 1970s. Which is one of the major reasons Henry Kissinger incited the Kurds to revolt during that period (Even going as far as trying to break up a peace conference where the Kurds would have been promised a semi-automonous state, like what they had post-1991 - which he did successfully). Throughout the 70s the US had a large love-hate relationship with the Ba'ath party and President Al-Bakr.

They were far more accomodating after 1979 when while Al-Bakr was out of the country Saddam held an internal coup in the party to make himself President while across the border in Iran the regime of the US-installed Shah was suddenly collapsing.

While Saddam itself did not directly rise to power thanks to the US, without his training by US agents it's unlikely he would have ever risen to that position.

For example, do you think we invaded Iraq for noble reasons?

Yes, which is why so many nations joined us both in 1991 and 2003 (same war).

There are many instances of similiar invasions which many western goverments threw a blind eye to. East Timor, anyone?

I am interested in what everyone's take (whether in the US or not) of how they think the US is thought of outside the US.
My perception is that some people would be less likely in other countries, to be friendly, based on their opinion of the US and/or Bush; but isn't my assumption a kind of prejudice? However, this is what I hear a lot of people say.

The US is still greatly respected here, and former Presidents such as Clinton and Kennedy are greatly admired here, Especially Clinton for the work he did on the Northern Irish peace process.
But since 2001 anti-US sentiment is extremely high, especially among the Middle Class. Of course Ireland has too much emotional roots in the United States to think of it as anything other than a friend and ally, but the Iraq War and Bush were not the height of popularity here.
And I imagine that the pattern here would pretty much be the same for the rest of Western Europe.

[MODU]

For example, do you think we invaded Iraq for noble reasons?

Yes, which is why so many nations joined us both in 1991 and 2003 (same war).

There are many instances of similiar invasions which many western goverments threw a blind eye to. East Timor, anyone?

Yes, there has been.  Indonesia had no right at the time to invade East Timor, especially before the hand-over from Portugal went into effect.  Personally, I believe that to have been a NATO issue.  NATO and Indonesia should have resolved the issue early and allow the hand-over to be completed.  This was not a US issue.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Except that the United States (and more to the point Sec. Of State Henry Kissinger) supported the invasion of East Timor by Indonesia under the Tyrant Suharto (was also achieved power in a CIA coup.. boy, the CIA do get around alot) - East Timor was no more a US issue than Kuwait was.

It was only once Suharto had been removed that East Timor won independance.

[MODU]

Except that the United States (and more to the point Sec. Of State Henry Kissinger) supported the invasion of East Timor by Indonesia under the Tyrant Suharto (was also achieved power in a CIA coup.. boy, the CIA do get around alot) - East Timor was no more a US issue than Kuwait was.

It was only once Suharto had been removed that East Timor won independance.

Like I said, there has been cases where the US has turned a blind eye.  However, the problem here is when the invasion occurred.  If it had happened prior to the handover process, the US and NATO would have been in the area in short notice since it was still Portuguese territory at the time.  Once the handover was to be completed, East Timor was not automatically a US ally, so if Indonesia had invaded at that point, there probably wouldn't have been a US response.  Since the invasion occurred during the transition period itself, NATO should have been the ones to have intervened due to NATO members (being the Portuguese) were still in the country at the time of the attack.  That is what makes East Timor a tough one to call.  On the other hand, Kuwait was a US ally when it was invaded, and as such, we were obligated to liberate the nation.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Except that the United States (and more to the point Sec. Of State Henry Kissinger) supported the invasion of East Timor by Indonesia under the Tyrant Suharto (was also achieved power in a CIA coup.. boy, the CIA do get around alot) - East Timor was no more a US issue than Kuwait was.

It was only once Suharto had been removed that East Timor won independance.

Like I said, there has been cases where the US has turned a blind eye.  However, the problem here is when the invasion occurred.  If it had happened prior to the handover process, the US and NATO would have been in the area in short notice since it was still Portuguese territory at the time.  Once the handover was to be completed, East Timor was not automatically a US ally, so if Indonesia had invaded at that point, there probably wouldn't have been a US response.  Since the invasion occurred during the transition period itself, NATO should have been the ones to have intervened due to NATO members (being the Portuguese) were still in the country at the time of the attack.  That is what makes East Timor a tough one to call.  On the other hand, Kuwait was a US ally when it was invaded, and as such, we were obligated to liberate the nation.

Except of Course the United States who had supported the Invasion in the first place. And the reason for Portugal's lack of response had to do with the political turmoil in the country in 1975 due to the overthrow of the long-standing dictatorship in a peaceful military coup. (Which is what led East Timor's independance in the first place - Many of the coup leaders were strongly pro-decolonization, as opposed to the regime which had fought tooth and nail to keep it's colonies.)

NATO's lack of response was due to fears that an independant East Timor might turn out to be a strongly leftist state under the left-wing pro-independance movement FRETLIN, which had widespread support across the region. Most NATO members actually supported the continued colonization of East Timor (now by Indonesia), not just the US as already mentioned, but also Australia was a major backer of the invasion.

While Kuwait may well have been a US ally, one must be spectical about the actual aims of the invasion, Consider US ambassador April Glaspie's words to Saddam Hussein prior to the Invasion of Kuwait on the border dispute:

"We have no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts, like your border disagreement with Kuwait. I was in the American Embassy in Kuwait during the late ’60s. The instruction we had during this period was that we should express no opinion on this issue and that the issue is not associated with America. James Baker has directed our official spokesmen to emphasize this instruction. We hope you can solve this problem using any suitable methods via [Chadli] Klibi [then Arab League General Secretary] or via President Mubarak. All that we hope is that these issues are solved quickly."

Why the sudden change of heart? And whatever happened to the democracy George HW Bush promised Kuwait would be after the Invasion? Clearly there was more to this invasion than simple "morality".