Wonder why they don't hate America.

Have you been to all of these places? I suspect not. There are plenty of nice places to live in China, Cuba, Africa, and probably the others as well. It's nice that you so easily dismiss 'every country in Africa', as if they are the same, and as if you have personal experience there. Africa is very culturally, geographically, politically, diverse throughout the continent, and varies greatly from country to country...certainly there are some select places there where we could probably all say that America is 'better' by almost any standard, but you can't so easily dismiss the entire continent.

These types of posts just reek of ethnocentric ignorance, and you're going to have to qualify what you mean when you use the comparative 'better' here.

If you want to bring up logical fallacies, you should quickly review all of the hasty generalizations you've made in this thread. You obviously can't make a very informed decision about one place being better to live than another, if you have only experienced living in one of the places.

If you want to believe every horror story in the media regarding foreign countries, that's your choice; a resignation to ignorance. Just like if I had never been to America, yet I had read half of the news coming out of any large city about the violence and corruption taking place, I'd probably think that this country is hell, yet it's not.

If you want to bring up logical fallacies, you should quickly review all of the hasty generalizations you've made in this thread. You obviously can't make a very informed decision about one place being better to live than another, if you have only experienced living in one of the places.

If you want to believe every horror story in the media regarding foreign countries, that's your choice; a resignation to ignorance. Just like if I had never been to America, yet I had read half of the news coming out of any large city about the violence and corruption taking place, I'd probably think that this country is hell, yet it's not.

Of course, if your contention is that all my information about North Korea (for instance) is wrong, and that it is actually paradise on Earth, I don't know how to reply. But I think you would be wrong. Of course I mean that if what I believe about these places is substantially correct, then I would rather live in the United States.

The fact that the US is almost entirely populated by immigrants and their descendents testifies to the situation that has existed for at least a century now: the west has drained many places in the world of dynamic, innovative people. The US has been the happy recipient of many of these people. From Afghanistan to Zimbabwe, the US contains their genotype. And this drain has been sorely felt by those left behind.

The question might be: is this migration in conflict with the real value of living in the US? Is it in conflict with anti-US sentiment that is occasionally expressed? Josh told us that to realize that anti-US sentiment isn't to be taken personally, but refers to dishonorable behavior on the part of the US Military and the CIA, demonstrating an outrageous arrogance.

Pangloss: I haven't seen you addressing the question. All I've seen so far is biting condemnations of those offering thoughts on the issue.

The bulk of anti-American sentiment is foreign policy, but there is also a massive amount of distaste for American consumer culture and materialism.

The bulk of anti-American sentiment is foreign policy, but there is also a massive amount of distaste for American consumer culture and materialism.

The peculiar thing is that a number of other countries are as, or more, materialistic than the United States. France, for instance. South Korea, for another.

American foreign policy is often pursued in American interests.

And these sometimes conflict with the interests of other countries. What the other countries seem to resent is that the Americans succeed in their pursuit.

They would like it better if we failed when our interests conflict with theirs. That is understandable.

You have been to these nations, spent time there?



And often pursued against American interests, too.



Or, as an alternative explanation, maybe these people are upset that we bomb wedding parties, cause tens of thousands of civilian casualties in wars all over the globe fought without any clear reason.



Or maybe they would just like it better if we stopped slaughtering people. Stopped over-consuming every resource imaginable.

The clear reason in Normandy was that the Nazi armies had to be defeated. The clear reason in Iraq and Afganistan was that the terrorist and in insurgents had to be defeated. The difference, of course, is that the battle of Normandy was approved of by most foreigners. The battles in the Mideast were disapproved of by many foreigners.

Consumer culture and materialism seems to be quite popular worldwide, and it makes sense that countries with higher per-capita incomes are more well-known for it. Basically, this type of lifestyle seduces those who can afford it, in many countries, though it is quite pronounced in the US.

Of course this type of mindset isn't that deplorable when you compare it to those of the hawks running our foreign policy, who don't seem to care much about bombing villages, assassinating foreign political figures, and generally meddling with foreign affairs at any opportunity.



Oh boy...so you consider village people and workers turned freedom fighters to be 'terrorists' and 'insurgents' because they are defending their homes from a vicious foreign invader? Your comparison between Normandy and Iraq, the Nazis and the 'insurgents', is beyond comprehension...where on earth do you get this stuff?

Al Quaida was composed of freedom fighters? And the insugents (which is what they were) were finally put down in Iraq by the Sunni "great awakening". Namely the Sunni farmers and worker of the cities of Iraq who were fed up with being terrorized and murdered by the insurgent Shiites. Read some recent history. (By the way, terrorists can be freedom fighters, and freedom fighters also terrorists. It happens all the time. Look at South Africa).

Pangloss, on the one hand I want to agree about the hawks being more deplorable than our rampant materialism. But do you imagine our rampant materialism to contribute to the ability of these hawks to succeed in their agenda?

But whether it is better to live anywhere than to be dead is not the question.

You are lumping together Iraq and Afghanistan, Al-Qaeda and Iraqi insurgents, when the two are entirely different. There was never any established connection between Saddam's Iraq and 9/11, or Saddam's Iraq and Al-Qaeda...even Bush's cronies finally stated that this was the case. And sure, you can call them terrorists, but I'll call them freedom fighters. Iraq was bombed and invaded in the fashion of a 'war of aggression'...read: illegally, according to international law.

As I said, the terms are not mutually exclusive. The same person can be both. He can use terrorism as a means, and freedom (really independence, since most of these fellows would not know freedom if they tripped over it) as a goal. Whether or not someone is called something is, of course, irrelevant, since someone can be called something he is not, and not be called something he is.