US hegemony.

I just came back form the third World Social Forum where I saw this image on a poster. It can't be summed up better than this.

What can't be summed up - reflexive, mindless anti-Americanism?

i dont see what the problem is. the eagle and the dove with their outstretched arms (wings) are obviously about to give each other a hug.

~james

What you don't see is that the dove has a bomb hidden under its feathers...

Dove of peace?? I thought that was the Pigeon of Anthrax.

Thanks guys! I was about to lauch into some huge tirade against the rest of the world -- it was very well worded, but negative as hell.

The US is seen as savior and villian, depends on your point of view. I don't remember where I saw it, but the quote goes: "America bashing in the new opiate of the intellectual". I agree.

So here's my not so serious conspiracy theory of the week. The war mongers are giving our Hollywood idiots more face time to discredit the anti-war movement. Hollidiots will not give serious reasons for not going to war such as the probable outcome of the war, a less secure America. Many of them supported Clintons bombings, so they, like many of the Democratic politicians, lack credibility. The argument they tend to run with is based on their view of our goals. The Bush is evil its all about oil line, which may be true, isn't gonna be taken seriously. What should give us pause as we launch this thing is the question, are we going to start a major East-West conflict giving bin Laden exactly what he wanted (or wants)?

The conventional hawk wisdom is that it's exactly what bin Laden wanted - US war against arabs - and it will come out exactly like he didn't want.

A blatant one-sided US rout of one of the Arab world's strongest armies should clarify once and for all exactly how advanced the US is, and that the US does not *ever* lack the resolve to use force when threatened, etc. etc.

The conventional hawk wisdom follows that the other Arab states will then see how easily crushed the Iraqis were, and that they'll fall in line more easily. And that the presence of a "converted" pro-US nation will cause the rest of them to angle for the same thing when they see how good their fellow Arab league citizens have it.

Individual troublemakers don't represent the motivations and beliefs of an entire country (especially when they're from a different country).Most Iraqi's are very peaceful and friendly people.

Also, why is anti-Americanism mindless?

Originally posted by Undertoad
The conventional hawk wisdom is that it's exactly what bin Laden wanted - US war against arabs - and it will come out exactly like he [b]didn't want.

A blatant one-sided US rout of one of the Arab world's strongest armies should clarify once and for all exactly how advanced the US is, and that the US does not *ever* lack the resolve to use force when threatened, etc. etc.
[/B]

Conventional hawk wisdom is pretty much wrong, then. Except maybe about bin Laden's desires.

We've already had a blatant one-sided US route of one of the Arab world's strongest armies, back during the Gulf War. That one supposedly scared even the Soviets.

The idea that the US lacks resolve to use force when threatened is a long lasting myth, but as far as I know it has NEVER been born out. You'd think people would learn by now.

These factors is why terrorism is so attractive to more intelligent US enemies, of course -- if you're a known actor in a known place, the US can crush you. If the US doesn't know who you are or where you are, if you can strike from the shadows and shrink back into them, you have a better chance of surviving.

IMO, the Iraq situation has nothing to do with anti-US terrorism. That's just a plausible excuse.

I would like to see something more surgical for Iraq, a dictatorectomy, as opposed to a bludgeoning. Most Iraqis don't have an opinion about us either way when off camera; they're just trying to make their way through the day.

Most Anti-American sentiment is pretty knee-jerk, and comes from a few individual troublemakers. No one remembers that we're the first on scene when a natural disaster occurs in another country. Watch the rhetoric evaporate as countries seek loans and finanical assistance. Watch the Swiss squirm when Nazi gold is mentioned. Do you know that Belgium 'owned' the Congo in the last half of the 1800's? Do you know what Josef Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" is about?

No one is not guilty. We've been very tame by comparison.

I say the US should move in and take over. Make Iraq a US dependency, and appoint governors for various sections. These governors should be oil company executives, and the country should be run for the benefit of US oil companies. It'll be like the good old days when the United Fruit Company ran a number of banana republics.

I mean, heck, that's pretty much what the press in other countries thinks the US is aiming for, and will no matter what the US actually does. So why not go ahead and do it? If everyone's going to label you the great Satan, you might as well grow the goatee, stick on some horns and a tail and enjoy the part.

Originally posted by Uryoces
Do you know what Josef Conrad's "Heart of Darkness" is about?

You have stirred pains of a research paper long past.....:eek:

I guess I'll be the first one to speak up against a war with Iraq. So far (in this whole escapade), Iraq has exhibited no outward aggressions towards any other country. Sure, a few weapons infractions here and there, but who said that predominantly Muslim countries cannot posses nuclear weapons? My take on the war is like this:

-Daddy started it, Dubs is gonna finish it. Time to make Daddy proud.
-We need the oil. After all, with tax breaks for SUV owners, gas consumption is going to do nothing but go up.
-Politicians have let their egos get in the way. For a long time they've always counted Iraq as 'evil.' Now they're being forced to act on meaningless charges.
-The US has always waited to react before resorting to violence (Vietnam, I know, the exception). But now, we are going after someone preemptively. We're not waiting around for something to happen, we're gonna fix it before it explodes in our face.

I dunno, the whole idea of hitting someone before they hit you sounds like provocation. I do have to admit though, the more I read what others are saying, the more I buy into it.

We need to lean on Saudi Arabia to assist after the dust settles [if there is dust, but that seems like a foregone conclusion]. The main bitch from many of the extremists is that US troops are on their soil. Saudi Arabia needs to step up to the plate.

Yes, oil most definitely plays into this. Cheney especially *cough*Haliburton*cough*. He had been dealing with the Taliban before he became VP. It would be really nice if we [the US] would stop propping up dictators who are one step away from Mansonhood.

What should we do for/to Iraq? Sadam Hussein doesn't seem too interested in his people. He seems quite content to let them starve.

What should we do for the third world? It seems to be a money pit. One solution seems to be micro-loans directly to individual people wishing to start businesses. I've seen quite a few women start businesses in India and Central America to great success.

I'll make a pre-emptive strike and say that I haven't read "Heart of Darkness". I watched an A&E special some years ago detailing Belgium's occupation and exploitation of the Congo. Heck, I'm still slogging through "Nostromo" right now.

On Emil Sader:

http://www.newleftreview.net/NLR25105.shtml

From the New Left Review. Hmm. That's not going to be biased at all. ;)