Definition

[drac]

How do you guys and girls define what is anti-american or anti-usa? Just watched Charlie Rose show. He and his guest had a different definition of what it means to be anti-american. So what is your definition, understanding of it? thank you

 

[Comrade]

How do you guys and girls define what is anti-american or anti-usa? Just watched Charlie Rose show. He and his guest had a different definition of what it means to be anti-american. So what is your definition, understanding of it? thank you

It's based upon who you root for. It's anti-American to consistently blame the US and excuse our enemies.

The classic case is to say the root cause of 9-11 is based upon US policy in the Middle East, which should be revised to be more Arab friendly (ie. Jew hating.) Those who would excuse terror it in such a manner clearly do not root for the US or it's interests.

 

[drac]

It's based upon who you root for. It's anti-American to consistently blame the US and excuse our enemies.

The classic case is to say the root cause of 9-11 is based upon US policy in the Middle East, which should be revised to be more Arab friendly (ie. Jew hating.) Those who would excuse terror it in such a manner clearly do not root for the US or it's interests.

But one should be able to blame goverment/policy without being labeled anti-american.

2 definition were given at the Charlie Rose show.
1 - if you constantly blame US goverment and its policy
2 - if you constantly blame american people and their behaviour.

That lead me to think where does the line that separate two lies.

 

[insein]

I don't think blaming the US govenrment or its people for all the worlds ailes alone makes you anti-american. Its when you think that the rest of the world would be better off without the US and that there isnt ANY troubles in the world that arent caused by the US. When you root for the failure of the US, that is when i see you as anti-american.

 

[Comrade]

But one should be able to blame goverment/policy without being labeled anti-american.

Why should they?

If someone had blamed Pearl Harbour on the US policy with the Japanese, to what end does their alternative policy, that would be kowtowing to the Japanese emporer, serve American interests?

Many blame 9-11 on the US policy with Arabs, and when they do they do one of two things unAmerican.

1 - They obscure exactly what alternative policy would serve better, other than to generally describe it as 'diplomatic' or 'multilateral'.

2 - They deny such policy would only be one of appeasement to Islamic fundamentalist and totalitarian interests in the region.

 

[wade]

One is anti-american when they deny the principals upon which the USA was founded. When they seek to diminish the rights and freedoms provided for by the Constitution. When the seek to force their believes upon others, or take advantage of the minority or the weak.

Wade.

 

[wade]

It's based upon who you root for. It's anti-American to consistently blame the US and excuse our enemies.

The classic case is to say the root cause of 9-11 is based upon US policy in the Middle East, which should be revised to be more Arab friendly (ie. Jew hating.) Those who would excuse terror it in such a manner clearly do not root for the US or it's interests.

By this logic, to be non anti-american you have to be a Jew supporter, or more properly stated, a supporter of Israel. That is absurd.

The fact is that the root cause of 9-11 does lie in the USA's policy in the ME, espeically as it relatates to Israel. While this does not "excuse" Arab terror, it is a factor which it is right and proper for the American people to discuss and consider changing.

Why is it anti-american to point to the fact that had the USA not supported Israel in the 1940's and 50's, there would probably be no state of Israel today, the Arabs would never have turned to the Soviets for support, and there would be peace in the region?

Wade.

 

[dilloduck]

By this logic, to be non anti-american you have to be a Jew supporter, or more properly stated, a supporter of Israel. That is absurd.

Wade.

Not necessarily but the two conflicts are similar in many respects

 

[Comrade]

By this logic, to be non anti-american you have to be a Jew supporter, or more properly stated, a supporter of Israel. That is absurd.

Please clarify what about 1 or 2 leads to this logic.

The fact is that the root cause of 9-11 does lie in the USA's policy in the ME, espeically as it relatates to Israel.

Not even Osama Bin Laden agrees with you there, but nice try.

While this does not "excuse" Arab terror, it is a factor which it is right and proper for the American people to discuss and consider changing.

Destroy a Liberal Democracy of mostly Jews in return for eternal peace and harmony between the West and Islam? Is that the proposition made from the terrorists these days?

What is the factor you want to throw out there for dicussion, exactly? See, that's the hard part.

Why is it anti-american to point to the fact that had the USA not supported Israel in the 1940's and 50's, there would probably be no state of Israel today, the Arabs would never have turned to the Soviets for support, and there would be peace in the region?

Peace? If you think the only war between Islam and the rest of the world is against the one percent of it's landmass of followers called Isreal, you've got to be kidding. Are you kidding?

I also think you're not particularly keen on the historical basis of US support and when this primary role of benefactor and protector was actually taken over from Britain and France from the early 70's.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_israel_us_support.php

After Israel became an independent country in 1948, the United States joined an embargo on weapons sales to Israel, the 1949 Tripartite Agreement on weapons. Although the US sold hundreds of millions of dollars in weaponry to Arab states during the 1950s and early 1960s, there were no sales to Israel until 1962 when the US agreed to sell to Israel its first significant American system, the HAWK anti-aircraft missile.

Now I'd agree Israel from then relied much on the US, but that's not to say without American support, they would not have sold out to the next regional or major power for protection had we abandoned the only liberal Democracy in the region. But to have done that, is not about what benefits America nor reflect our principles. For the same reasons we stand on watch for South Korean and Japanese Liberal Democracy against N.K. and China, and formerly the USSR.

So you see, the liberal Democracy of Isreal is but a pinprick on the pillars of Islam being shattered by America as a leader among the Great Western Liberal Society of the first world, which threatens to overpower the traditional cultural values and inherent power structure among it's failing society. And you'd have to be blind to not see it is failing.

Osama, nor Al-Quada or it's mutations, never regularly justify their acts on the Jewish oppression of fellow Muslims in Palestine.

In fact, well before OBL brought up the issue his accusations pre and post 9-11 were about the presence of American soldiers in the Holy Land of Saudi Arabia.

Why?

You'll notice OBL turned against the US after the Gulf War.

Apparently the logic is not to support Saddam, which you'd deny he ever would, but that without the US to stand against Saddam post Gulf-War, all hell could break loose again, but this time with no dominate player, leaving behind a perfect aftermath of shattered armies from which OBL could have made his bid to establish a caliphate under Wahhabi Islam. Even better, a state of isolation in the Kingdom from which OBL and his followers could sieze power in a similar fashion as Iran.

However, the presence of the US to establish stability, absolutely necessary to ensure the flow of oil to the worldwide economy, and vital to our national security, prevents Al-Qauda from achieving its goals. THAT is the reason OBL declared war on the USA, well before 9-11. The point was always to kick America out, not Israel.

So, by my own logic, you demonstrate what I consider an Anti-American response by my own quotes.

1 - YOU obscure exactly what alternative policy would serve better, other than to generally describe it as 'diplomatic' or 'multilateral'.

2 - You deny such policy would only be one of appeasement to Islamic fundamentalist and totalitarian interests in the region.

Don't take it too hard.

 

[theim]

By this logic, to be non anti-american you have to be a Jew supporter, or more properly stated, a supporter of Israel. That is absurd.

The fact is that the root cause of 9-11 does lie in the USA's policy in the ME, espeically as it relatates to Israel. While this does not "excuse" Arab terror, it is a factor which it is right and proper for the American people to discuss and consider changing.

Why is it anti-american to point to the fact that had the USA not supported Israel in the 1940's and 50's, there would probably be no state of Israel today, the Arabs would never have turned to the Soviets for support, and there would be peace in the region?

Wade.

You last example is like me saying "If I hadn't bought my car, then that drunk wouldn't have totaled it and I wouldn't have this mess I have now." Technically true, but still somewhat stupid.

 

[wade]

Please clarify what about 1 or 2 leads to this logic.

My reply was in response to your earlier post where you said:

It's based upon who you root for. It's anti-American to consistently blame the US and excuse our enemies.

The classic case is to say the root cause of 9-11 is based upon US policy in the Middle East, which should be revised to be more Arab friendly (ie. Jew hating.) Those who would excuse terror it in such a manner clearly do not root for the US or it's interests.

There is no 1 and 2 here, that was your later post.

Not even Osama Bin Laden agrees with you there, but nice try.

Oh come on, be serious.

Destroy a Liberal Democracy of mostly Jews in return for eternal peace and harmony between the West and Islam? Is that the proposition made from the terrorists these days?

My point is that Israel's creation should never have been supported in the first place. Now that it is there, we cannot really withdraw support but we can insist that they curb some of their outragous activities w.r.t. the Palastinians.

What is the factor you want to throw out there for dicussion, exactly? See, that's the hard part.

Any and all topics which involve US foriegn policy are up for discussion.

Peace? If you think the only war between Islam and the rest of the world is against the one percent of it's landmass of followers called Isreal, you've got to be kidding. Are you kidding?

Not at all. It is not the size that is the issue, it is the principal of the West having installed a basically westernized state in the middle of what has been arab lands for a thousand years.

I also think you're not particularly keen on the historical basis of US support and when this primary role of benefactor and protector was actually taken over from Britain and France from the early 70's.

http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_israel_us_support.php

Did you read this page -- that is not what it says at all. The USA was the first to recognize Israel, it was a major source of financial support, and it supported Israel with UN vetos - a lot of them.

Now I'd agree Israel from then relied much on the US, but that's not to say without American support, they would not have sold out to the next regional or major power for protection had we abandoned the only liberal Democracy in the region. But to have done that, is not about what benefits America nor reflect our principles. For the same reasons we stand on watch for South Korean and Japanese Liberal Democracy against N.K. and China, and formerly the USSR.

So you see, the liberal Democracy of Isreal is but a pinprick on the pillars of Islam being shattered by America as a leader among the Great Western Liberal Society of the first world, which threatens to overpower the traditional cultural values and inherent power structure among it's failing society. And you'd have to be blind to not see it is failing.

Well, that is the whole point of contention. The position of the Arabs is that it is failing because of Western intrusion into the Islamic culture. That is what they are fighting against.

Osama, nor Al-Quada or it's mutations, never regularly justify their acts on the Jewish oppression of fellow Muslims in Palestine.

In fact, well before OBL brought up the issue his accusations pre and post 9-11 were about the presence of American soldiers in the Holy Land of Saudi Arabia.

Why?

You'll notice OBL turned against the US after the Gulf War.

Apparently the logic is not to support Saddam, which you'd deny he ever would, but that without the US to stand against Saddam post Gulf-War, all hell could break loose again, but this time with no dominate player, leaving behind a perfect aftermath of shattered armies from which OBL could have made his bid to establish a caliphate under Wahhabi Islam. Even better, a state of isolation in the Kingdom from which OBL and his followers could sieze power in a similar fashion as Iran.

On this I agree. But that does not change the fact that the biggest issue rallying the Arabs to the terrorist cause is Israel.

However, the presence of the US to establish stability, absolutely necessary to ensure the flow of oil to the worldwide economy, and vital to our national security, prevents Al-Qauda from achieving its goals. THAT is the reason OBL declared war on the USA, well before 9-11. The point was always to kick America out, not Israel.

I disagree. OBL's plan is to kick out America first, and then deal with Israel when it no longer has US support. I don't think for one minute that they do not have Israel on their list.

So, by my own logic, you demonstrate what I consider an Anti-American response by my own quotes.

Don't take it too hard.

Nothing to take hard, your argument is totally out of sync with this conversation. Your premise is flawed because you have somehow thought my reply was to a post that came after the one I was in fact replying to (and quoted). So your logic is based upon a misconception.

The problem I have with Israel is they have clearly shown they don't want a peaceful resolution to the sitatuation. When it looked like one might be in the offering what did Sharome do? He decided to visit an Arab mosque on the one of their most holey days and disrupt the seremonies - just to stick it to them. This led to violence and effectively ended the peace process. This has occured time and time again. The fact is that there is a small % of the Palastinians (and other Arabs) who do not want peace no matter what, and will act against it. However, every time it looks like there might be peace anyway, Israel takes some action to ensure it will not happen. Then another wave of violence occures in which a few Israeli's die, a large number of Palastinians die, and the Israelis take more land.

And Israel's settlement policy is obscene. Almost every time the Arabs find water, the Israeli's steal that land out from under them. Then they build a settlement on it, and the Arabs, who can see the settlement on the land upon which they had found the well, can see a swimming pool full of water while they struggle to have just enough water to survive. The Israeli settlement produces good crops while the Arabs near buy cannot grow anything marketable for want of water. That's just not right. The Israeli's taunt the Arabs in many subtle and not so subtle ways.

Wade.

 

[wade]

You last example is like me saying "If I hadn't bought my car, then that drunk wouldn't have totaled it and I wouldn't have this mess I have now." Technically true, but still somewhat stupid.

No, it is more like saying "If I hadn't loaned my car to my drunkard friend, he'd never have wrecked it and killed half that poor family in the station wagon, and I'd not have this messy lawsuit against me now - from this I have learned not to lend my car to drunkards".

Wade.

 

[Comrade]

Oh come on, be serious.

*Poof*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OBL#Formation_of_Al-Qaida

By 1988, Osama bin Laden had split from the MAK and established a new guerilla group, dubbed al-Qaida, which included many of the more militant MAK members he had met in Afghanistan. The Soviet Union withdrew from Afghanistan in 1989 and bin Laden was lauded as a mujaheddin hero in Saudi Arabia. After Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, bin Laden offered to aid in the defense of Saudi Arabia but he was rebuffed by the Saudi Arabian government. Bin Laden publicly denounced Saudi Arabia's dependence on the U.S. military and demanded an end to the presence of foreign military bases in Saudi Arabia. According to reports (by the BBC and others), the 1990/91 deployment of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia in connection with the Gulf War profoundly shocked and revolted bin Laden and other Islamist militants because the Saudi Arabian government claims legitimacy based on their role as guardians of the sacred Muslim cities of Mecca and Medina. After the Gulf War, the establishment of permanent bases for non-Muslim U.S. forces in Saudi Arabia continued to undermine the Saudi Arabian rulers' legitimacy and inflamed anti-government Islamist militants, including bin Laden. Bin Laden's increasingly strident criticisms of the Saudi monarchy led the Saudi Arabian government expel him to Sudan in 1991.

You see the truth now? Isreal is a minor issue, not 'the root cause'. Wake up!

My point is that Israel's creation should never have been supported in the first place.

That's a pretty pointless point.

Now that it is there, we cannot really withdraw support but we can insist that they curb some of their outragous activities w.r.t. the Palastinians.

And my point is this is not any root cause, just look at a map of conflicts bording Islamic cultures and tell me how selling out a Democracy will placate Al-Quada and Islamic terrorist states? Ever hear of a guy named Hitler?

Any and all topics which involve US foriegn policy are up for discussion.

You're as bad as William, why don't you two start a thread on the problem with Jews for us?

Not at all. It is not the size that is the issue, it is the principal of the West having installed a basically westernized state in the middle of what has been arab lands for a thousand years.

Principles of the West support Isreal, and you don't.

Isn't that proof of you being un-American?

Did you read this page -- that is not what it says at all.
The USA was the first to recognize Israel, it was a major source of financial support, and it supported Israel with UN vetos - a lot of them.

Since the early seventies, like I said.

Well, that is the whole point of contention. The position of the Arabs is that it is failing because of Western intrusion into the Islamic culture. That is what they are fighting against.

On this I agree. But that does not change the fact that the biggest issue rallying the Arabs to the terrorist cause is Israel.

So let's be clear that this is not a 'root cause'.

And then ask ourselves how abandoning Israel will appease the Islamic conflicts breaking out in every border Muslims conflict with more liberal societies. If you want to explain that you're welcome to try.

I disagree. OBL's plan is to kick out America first, and then deal with Israel when it no longer has US support. I don't think for one minute that they do not have Israel on their list.

My point exactly.

Nothing to take hard, your argument is totally out of sync with this conversation. Your premise is flawed because you have somehow thought my reply was to a post that came after the one I was in fact replying to (and quoted). So your logic is based upon a misconception.

Thanks for clarifying! :funnyface

The problem I have with Israel is ...

Apparently you are speaking for potential terrorists. I wonder where you think your angst over Isreal personally applies to solving the crises between the West, specifically America, and the Muslim world?

Get back to the topic, if you please.

 

[wade]

*Poof*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OBL#Formation_of_Al-Qaida

You see the truth now? Isreal is a minor issue, not 'the root cause'. Wake up!

But Israel is the reason for the instabilities in the region that cause the US to have so many troops stationed in SA in the first place.

And my point is this is not any root cause, just look at a map of conflicts bording Islamic cultures and tell me how selling out a Democracy will placate Al-Quada and Islamic terrorist states? Ever hear of a guy named Hitler?[/QUOTE]

I agree it is too late to do much about it.

Principles of the West support Isreal, and you don't.

Isn't that proof of you being un-American?

Not at all. You are again putting things out of context. My point is that the Arabs fight Isreal based upon a principal of thiers. It does not make me un-American to understand their position, nor to question ours. You simply do not understand what it means to be an American - probably because you are a foreigner and were not raised by a family that really understands. On the surface you are an American, but deep underneath you are not.

Since the early seventies, like I said.

Um, no, since 1947 or 48.

So let's be clear that this is not a 'root cause'.

And then ask ourselves how abandoning Israel will appease the Islamic conflicts breaking out in every border Muslims conflict with more liberal societies. If you want to explain that you're welcome to try.

I'm not saying we should abandon Israel, I'm saying they need to start working towards peace, and that understanding how the Arabs see things is essential to our understanding how a peace acceptable to them can be constructed.

Apparently you are speaking for potential terrorists. I wonder where you think your angst over Isreal personally applies to solving the crises between the West, specifically America, and the Muslim world?

Get back to the topic, if you please.

I think we need to solve the Israeli Palastinian issue before we will ever see peace in the ME. This is not going to happen by supporting Israel no matter what they do in their expansionist policies w.r.t. the W. Bank, and their policy of denying fair treatment to Arabs - even those who are citizens of Israel.

Wade.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I think that America has a unique significance in the world and thus there is a unique meaning to what it is to be anti-American.

I don't think that what it is to be American stems from our geographical location, our government leaders or our policies.

I think what it is to be American is based on our principles in relation to government. Along with the French, America undertook a drastic turn in history to base a government on ideals and not custom and tradition. Many states did take state law from the English system but our federal law (Constitution) was from scratch and very idealistic.

Being true to the ideals of the republic, the right to vote, freedom of and from religion, tolerance of political ideas, etc. is what it means to be American.

Thus, being Anti-American is believing contrary to these ideals (a.k.a. Bin Laden).

I don't think that dogging the country or its leaders is Anti-American. It can be a very democratic thing and thus very American.

I love and believe in what America believes in. If this country was to abandon the principles in the Constitution I would abandon my love for it. It is what we fight for that is important to me, not where we happen to be fighting it from.

 

[wade]

I think that America has a unique significance in the world and thus there is a unique meaning to what it is to be anti-American.

I don't think that what it is to be American stems from our geographical location, our government leaders or our policies.

I think what it is to be American is based on our principles in relation to government. Along with the French, America undertook a drastic turn in history to base a government on ideals and not custom and tradition. Many states did take state law from the English system but our federal law (Constitution) was from scratch and very idealistic.

Being true to the ideals of the republic, the right to vote, freedom of and from religion, tolerance of political ideas, etc. is what it means to be American.

Thus, being Anti-American is believing contrary to these ideals (a.k.a. Bin Laden).

I don't think that dogging the country or its leaders is Anti-American. It can be a very democratic thing and thus very American.

I love and believe in what America believes in. If this country was to abandon the principles in the Constitution I would abandon my love for it. It is what we fight for that is important to me, not where we happen to be fighting it from.

Exactly, it is about the principals upon which this nation was founded, not about who you support or if you agree with this or that policy.

Wade.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Exactly, it is about the principals upon which this nation was founded, not about who you support or if you agree with this or that policy.

Wade.

Yep, and the socialist crap you support are not the priniciples that made us great.

 

[MJDuncan1982]

I seem to be stuck tonight on the idea of taking ideas to their extremes but I have another question:

What are the limits of democracy?

Obviously we don't want to let the electorate have the power to vote to nuke the planet into oblivion. This hints that there are logical limits to democracy and I was looking for some thoughts as to what they are.

 

[Comrade]

But Israel is the reason for the instabilities in the region that cause the US to have so many troops stationed in SA in the first place.

Your blaming Jews for the reason Saddam attacked Kuwait! :

And aren't you leaving out oil as a better reason?

Principles of the West support Isreal, and you don't.

Not at all. You are again putting things out of context. My point is that the Arabs fight Isreal based upon a principal of thiers. It does not make me un-American to understand their position, nor to question ours. You simply do not understand what it means to be an American - probably because you are a foreigner and were not raised by a family that really understands. On the surface you are an American, but deep underneath you are not.

Of course it doesn't, I do the same. But you don't question our position, you argue against it. You make it very clear here with your posts you go beyond questioning into outright blame for America from the cold war to Vietnam and up through today in Iraq.

And calling me 'UnAmerican', becuase I would support much of what we've done in the world, is just ridiculous!

Um, no, since 1947 or 48.

Wrong, America supported Israel with UN vetos only since the early seventies.

I'm not saying we should abandon Israel, I'm saying they need to start working towards peace, and that understanding how the Arabs see things is essential to our understanding how a peace acceptable to them can be constructed.

I think we need to solve the Israeli Palastinian issue before we will ever see peace in the ME. This is not going to happen by supporting Israel no matter what they do in their expansionist policies w.r.t. the W. Bank, and their policy of denying fair treatment to Arabs - even those who are citizens of Israel.

Well maybe I misunderstand how you intend to go about forcing peace on Isreal. That concept is faulty in the first place, the burden of peace being one of Israeli responsibility. The real problem is you'd rather argue this conflict as the core of Arab Muslim hostility with the rest of the world around it. Like I said, did you not look at a map of conflict in the region?

Have you not noticed that you might as well be speaking as a diplomat from any of the Arab dictators (secular and fundamental), and nobody can tell the difference anymore? Why do the left share the Arab tyrant party line on blaming Isreal for their own defunct society?

 

[wade]

Your blaming Jews for the reason Saddam attacked Kuwait! :

And aren't you leaving out oil as a better reason?

It is because of Israel and the US support of Israel that many Arab nations turned to the Soviets for support. It is because of the Soviet support for these Arab states that the USA chose to support other states in the region in the "balance of power" game. Without the Israeli issue, the Shaw would never have lost power in Iran, Iraq would never have become so built up militarily, and Saddam would probably never have attacked Kuwait.

Wrong, America supported Israel with UN vetos only since the early seventies.

The USA was the first country to recognize Israel. It has been the largest funder of Isreal since its inception.

Well maybe I misunderstand how you intend to go about forcing peace on Isreal. That concept is faulty in the first place, the burden of peace being one of Israeli responsibility. The real problem is you'd rather argue this conflict as the core of Arab Muslim hostility with the rest of the world around it. Like I said, did you not look at a map of conflict in the region?

Have you not noticed that you might as well be speaking as a diplomat from any of the Arab dictators (secular and fundamental), and nobody can tell the difference anymore? Why do the left share the Arab tyrant party line on blaming Isreal for their own defunct society?

Do you not see that as long as we do not push Isreal to seek a fair and just peace with the Palastinians that the conflict will go on forever, or until one or both sides are eliminated? As long as Israel continues to play this land grabbing game, there is no hope for peace.

Wade.