"Anti-Americanism"...what is this critter?

I agree with c.i.'s assertion that we can't let Saddam, or anything else for that matter, shave down our freedom of speech.

I don't like anti-American protests abroad, and I don't like to hear Americans bad-mouthing America. But, I defend their right to do so.

With perception-- I agree that Americans protesting and down-grading America certainly does give aid to the enemy. That is without a doubt. Saddam's son reported the anti-war protests and used it against our government.

But, me not liking it, and it helping Saddam's case doesn't make me want to change the freedoms in this country.

I just hope those who protest remember how they got the right to protest. I know in dys' case, he does.

I protest against Lash. She's always picking on me the ole meanie. Pick, pick, pick!!!!

Just because I'm old and slow !!

Anon

Where've you been?

I've had relatively no one to insult.

Oh God, my dog just cut one. That's inhumane.

edit--
Regret sharing dogs gastointestinal distress. Anon, headed for bed.
Show up now and then for God's sake. See ya soon.

The Vietnam statement is an egregious falsification of history--that is crap, Perception, and i don't doubt for a moment that you are sufficiently intelligent to recognize it. That war was not "winable" without overrunning all of the former French Indo-China, and no President of that era, Nixon included, was willing to attempt that. You ought to know better than to throw out red herrings of that nature.

Equating protests against a war about which so many sincere and patriotic citizens have grave doubts with "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" is exactly the type of internal accusation of "unAmerican" activity to which BLatham referred. We are not yet at war, so there is no enemy to comfort. At all events, the obsession of the Shrub is Saddam, he doesn't give a damn about the cost to the Iraqi people, just as he doesn't give a damn about the cost to the American people. I suspect that you like and respect the President--what a shame, he doesn't feel the same way about you. He's intent on taking down Saddam, if it takes the last drop of somebody else's blood . . .

Blatham,

Interesting article - I read it with pleasure. Like most such things it was more an examination of the phenomenon from several (not all) relevant points of view, than it was an attempt to understand its deeper causes and outline a desirable resolution. Unfortunate because that is a very interesting, timely subject well worthy of our attention and contemplation.

I was also a bit bemused with the title "Anti Europeanism in America". I had the impression that the use of such terms as "un American, or Anti-American", etc. was unique to us - at least according to Blatham. Now we find that "Anti Europeanism" is also a part of this lexicon.

The most prominent impression left by the article was the of great over-simplifications implicit in the characterizations of the all the various protagonists of the party on the opposite side of the Atlantic. An examination of our similarities, balanced with the differences and the likely reasons for those differences, though it may be less marketable to the prominent journals, would be of great potential value.

Perhaps Blatham has gone off to an even higher plane where his petulance will be more appreciated and where, unlike here, the unique essence of his criticisms can be understood, commented on, criticised, and amplified by a more suitable audience.

Ah, Georgeob, yer a bad man, so . . .

No doughnut fer you this mornin' . . . it is really bad form to notice the emperor's lack of garments . . .

Setanta
The champion sneer-or has returned to bludgeon anyone who doesnt buy into his obsession against the "Shrub". How do you know the war in Vietnam was unwinable----how do you know that Saddam was not on the verge of abandoning the country and fleeing with his Billions. What you put out is "Crap" in my ipinion.

Why is it that when someone wishes to express a different point of view from yours you try to blow us away with both barrels of your
very nasty rhetoric. And besides my post was addressed to dys not you.

An' i wasn't talkin' to you anyway, so there . . . great comeback, Boss. Talk to those who went into Cambodia in the eventually unsuccessful attempt to shut down the Ho Chi Mihn trail--i didn't say the war was unwinable, i said it was not winable without overrunning all of the former French Indo-China, and that the administrations of that period were not willing to do so. Because i do not know that Saddam was ready to bolt does not mean that you know that he was. Which sounds as though you continue to contend that protests against this war are unpartiotic, or somehow in the nature of giving aid and comfort to the enemy--a scurrilous charge against people of good faith who abhor war and speak out against it as is their right. I'm not obsessed with the Shrub, he doesn't occupy 30 seconds of my thoughts, apart from the time i spend here. My job has allowed me to spend a good deal of time here yesterday and today, so the little nose-picker is in view a good deal. On the weekend, and next week, when i will likely be too busy to spend much time here, he won't matter much to me. But you're also ignoring my point that neither you nor i, nor anyone not a member of a select and small circle matter at all to him. He doesn't care if you live or die, nor the conditions of your living or dieing. He wants you to pay up without a murmur at the gas pump, vote a straight Republican ticket at the poll, and then go away and not bother him with things like your right to freedom of expression, freedom of the press, and the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Even if you could make the case that protests against a possible war were giving aid and comfort to the enemy, it remains the right of every citizen to exercise their rights as acknowledged in the first amendment.

Setanta

There you go again ----how do you know what Bush wants me to do.
You are a very intelligent guy but your crystal ball is giving you the wrong pictures most of the time when it comes to forcasting what I or President Bush thinks or will do.

I protect your right to protest against the administration but you also must protect my right to protest against your words and actions.

I don't deny you that right. As for a crystal ball, i haven't any; as for the depth of compassion of the Shrub, you don't need a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowin' . . .

Georgeob1

Once again you summarized the article by Ash very clearly. Do you agree with my earlier statement that since the world no longer has a "Common Enemy" that we are now engaged in childish self interest criticism(speaking now of countries not individuals)

just a comment: when we came home from Southeast asia we were confronted-assailed pretty much from all sides, we got the "welcome home, baby killers" to the other side "America love it or leave it" we were very young, we had endured what i am sure those that were there can tell you was the "smell of war-the smell of death" and many of us protested the policy of LBJ. In return we, as persons were protested against. The Viet Nam Veterans Against the War become the target of those from all sides of the spectrum. For those that supported Johnson's dirty little asian war, we were the scourge of patriotism, to those that were against the war, we were the symbol of American Imperialism, gun toting, killing machines. To have been there, spit upon then told "america love it or leave it" left very little beyond dispair in our hearts and our minds.

George - the article by Professor Ash starts with these quotes on his alleged subject:
_______________________________________________________

"...anti-Europeanism in the United States? Consider this:

To the list of polities destined to slip down the Eurinal of history, we must add the European Union and France's Fifth Republic. The only question is how messy their disintegration will be.
(Mark Steyn, Jewish World Review, May 1, 2002)
And:

Even the phrase "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" is used [to describe the French] as often as the French say "screw the Jews." Oops, sorry, that's a different popular French expression.
(Jonah Goldberg, National Review Online, July 16, 2002)
_______________________________________________________

....while in the text we see his principal source on U.S. policy is Mr. Richard Perle - a consultant of some influence, but consultant nonetheless, with no executive brief. Hardly a representative sample of U.S. views - indeed, a remarkably skewed one, being limited to those actively campaigning for war on Iraq, to which Europe (and much of the U.S., starting with all the advisors of the elder George Bush) is opposed.

Note to Dys: it is no disrespect to you and your fellow vets to oppose policy in advance of its execution - and in time for a possible policy reversal. As of today we're not in wartime, so the "comfort to the enemy" etc clauses don't apply.

Dys

When I came back from Vietnam in 1965---I was not assailed from all sides but then I had volunteered for Vietnam so I didn't come back and protest against it although I was disallusioned. Not because if was not a war that had to be fought but because of the manner in which it was waged. McNamarra micromanaged the war from his office with people wearing 3 piece suits and drinking coffee and joking about how many F-105s they could get shot down that day. We were denied the right to destroy the war making capability of the enemy which is the primary objective when diplomacy fails and they send in the dogs of war

Did you come back to a campus environment?

Somebody said:
(Been typing too long)

Equating protests against a war about which so many sincere and patriotic citizens have grave doubts with "giving aid and comfort to the enemy" is exactly the type of internal accusation of "unAmerican" activity to which BLatham referred. We are not yet at war, so there is no enemy to comfort.

There is an enemy. The al-Quaida terrorist network, Saddam Hussien (if you don't think he is an enemy of the United States you haven't been paying attention) the extremist Muslim population...

And Uday Hussien gleefully used the anti-war demonstrations in a piece in his newspaper to make the US look wrong, and his father to be 'victorious.'

All this is fair in love and war. And calling someone un-American will just have to be handled, just as people like me handle hearing all manner of tripe by protesters.

dys knows who he is and what he did. Being called an anti-American does not make it so. If you are free to protest, you must acknowledge others' right to do so. When you protest, you will have to accept that some are going to call you anti-American. Its just a name. Are we in kindergarten?

I know you're responding to blatham's header. I was just hoping, instead of being riled against your own countrymen, you might see that they are just like you, with equal rights.

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

Even the phrase "cheese-eating surrender monkeys" is used [to describe the French] as often as the French say "screw the Jews." Oops, sorry, that's a different popular French expression.
(Jonah Goldberg, National Review Online, July 16, 2002)


Another phrase for cross-stitching. That is hilarious!

I don't have much time lately on this forum, but would like to name two sources of anti-Americanism from TV news shows in the past 24 hours.

In this morning's news conference Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said France and Germany were not so much anti-American or "against" a war with Iraq, but were addressing FEAR because Europe is simply closer to Iraq than is America.

Wednesday night on Hannity & Colmes a fellow representing an anti-war anti-Bush group made up of Hollywood actors and actresses was accused of being anti-American.

After 9/11 those responsible DID declare war on the U.S. A "Holy" war, wasn't it? Are we waiting for something else to happen here in America as has been threatened? Wasn't it Iraq that supplied the weapons, WILL supply more weapons? Now, that would sure beef up Iraq's economy, no? selling those nasty bombs?



Tex-Star

Maybe anti-americanism encompases still another angle? There is a sizeable group of citizens in this country who are ashamed at the behavior of their people at the top of the administration, but feel powerless to do anything about it.

Leaving aside the broad question of how and why we are regarded by the rest of the world, how we regard ourselves is important. The recent broad swath of peace marches throuht the country indicates a depth of feeling, which is obviously ignored by our fearless leaders. I think there is a subtle, but growing, loss of confidence in our rightness, and the latest manifestation is this continuing drop in public approval of the road to Iraq - "are we doing the right thing?" And when we start to doubt, we question.

Anti-Americanism is also expresses at home by non-approval of what is being accomplished by the top. Our national pride has always been based, in part, by our pride in our literacy, the growth of our economy, the sheer and superios size of so many of our services. As more and more of that diminishes, we look look for causes. And if we do not find just causes, we turn critical. We are not anti-American in the accepted sense, but we have begun to doubt, to question, and to let ourselves open to other countries criticims, and one thing feeds upon another.

And now I have to go make dinner.

I think that anti-Americanism is a result of envy that the Third World dwellers experience toward the U.S. freedoms and high living standard: they want to live like Americans without working as hard as the Americans do (when I say Americans, I mean the U.S. citizens/legal permanent residents, and not all the inhabitants of both Americas). Since this is impossible, they start hating the subject of their envy.
Anti-Americanism of some Europeans stems from their envy for American power. They cannot get in terms that the decision making center has moved from Paris to Washington D.C. Being forceless to restore their previous imperial glory they whine and criticize the USA.

Steissed, well said, simply and straight-forward. No spin, no throwing up smoke, no anger. Simple truth.

Mamajuama, why would you open yourself to the opinions of other countries when they actually ARE just jealous, envious, and afraid? Those other countries may be getting annoyed with our constant hesitation and belief in the opinions of others about ourselves? Who is going to have any faith in someone who has no faith in himself, who is afraid they will do the wrong thing?




Thoughts are things. What you think about someone else, that is what you wish for them.

I believe that the United States is unique in the manner and timing of its creation - in the midst of the Enlightenment in Europe and the political expression of the central ideas of that time. The facts of our expansion across the continent, and population by waves of immigrants, mostly escaping poverty and/or political oppression in their European (and later asian and other) homelands, all tended to renew and preserve the sense of self-conscious uniqueness that still characterizes the American state of mind. This endows us with both good and bad characteristics that are both attractive and repellant to others. Certainly the sense of what is or is not "American" one that can cut both ways, having both good & bas manifestations, and attracting some observers while repelling others.

That is pretty much it as I see Blatham's original question & topic. Unlike him, I don't believe there is something uniquely "wrong" with the United States that urgently requires the ministrations of Canadian busybodies.

As for all the furor between us and former allies and others, I believe the end of a protracted life or death struggle with the Soviet Empire certainly does remove a formerly uniting factor as Perception has stated. It also seems natural to me to find that other nations are uncomfortable with the facts of our rather dominant economic and military power, and anxious to do what they can to limit our freedom of action and influence our behavior. It is equally natural for us to resist that process and not to allow the least common international denominator to rule our actions.

History is clear enough in teaching us that dominance is an ephemeral thing - it won't last. Our competitors are already visible, and a united Europe is among them. We have not arrived at the End of History notwithstanding Fujyama's assertions that we have.