[QUOTE]
Well said. It's funny how people get their undies in a knot about this dissent but have little to say about the violent crushing of dissent in the Arab world.
[/QUOTE]
Please give me a break. i have never, once in any of my posts, expressed any sentiments of favour towards any Arab government. If anything, i have always criticized them. You are more than welcome to search any of my previous posts, initiating from the date i registered over a year ago.
Sorry for the successive posting; just found this article about Sean Penn, another opponent of the US strategy to invade Iraq, who decided to visit Baghdad to press his point. Another ‘anti-American’ American.
More about Sean Penns visit to Iraq..
Sean Penn visits Iraq](http://www.itv.com/news/Entertainment1744964.html) ITV News 14 Dec 2002
US actor and director Sean Penn has arrived in Iraq for a three-day visit.He said he wanted a better understanding of the issues behind the current crisis between Iraq and the United States.His first stop was the Mansour Children’s Hospital in Baghdad.
Penn’s visit to Iraq has been organised by the Institute for Public Accuracy. A consortium of US policy researchers, the Institute seeks to broaden public discourse by championing those whose perspectives it says are drowned out by corporate and institutional agendas.
The actor told reporters in Iraq that he had gone there "on a matter of conscience."In the past, Penn’s relations with the press have been somewhat testy. But he allowed reporters to follow him as he toured the wards at the children’s hospital.Stopping to talk to one little boy, he appeared visibly moved. He then took photos of some of the patients
It’s critical that Sean Penn weigh on in this with his razor sharp political insights and influence.
Its critical that people realise the humanitarian disaster facing the Iraqis... whether he is a celebrity or not is not the point here, its about learning about the situation in Iraq by seeing the situation for yourself instead of just relying on mainstream media, which sometimes ignores or falsifies the situation to satisfy corporate interests or the State.
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Dil he Pakistani: *
Its **critical* that people realise the humanitarian disaster facing the Iraqis... whether he is a celebrity or not is not the point here, its about learning about the situation in Iraq by seeing the situation for yourself instead of just relying on mainstream media, which sometimes ignores or falsifies the situation to satisfy corporate interests or the State.
[/QUOTE]
You say your "dil he pakistani" yet you're so concerned about Iraq, which blatantly supports India (against Pakistan) on the Kashmir issue.
The TOPIC being discussed here is whether Americans who DO NOT support another war against Iraq should be judged as anti-american, it is NOT about Iraqs support for India over the Kashmir Issue..
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Dil he Pakistani: *
The TOPIC being discussed here is whether Americans who DO NOT support another war against Iraq should be judged as anti-american, **it is NOT about Iraqs support for India over the Kashmir Issue..*
[/QUOTE]
If only the world were so clean-cut and discrete....whatever.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Kareem: *
It's critical that Sean Penn weigh on in this with his razor sharp political insights and influence.
[/QUOTE]
i am sorry, Kareem, but i am not certain what you hope to gain with your attempts at being sarcastic... If you disagree, at least engage in a semi-rational discussion; otherwise i think we are both wasting each other's time. Save the witty sarcasms for discussions of a less serious nature.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
i am sorry, Kareem, but i am not certain what you hope to gain with your attempts at being sarcastic... If you disagree, at least engage in a semi-rational discussion; otherwise i think we are both wasting each other's time. Save the witty sarcasms for discussions of a less serious nature.
[/QUOTE]
So one can only express opinions in line with what you think is worthy or not? If you don't like the sarcasm, don't read it - simple as that. I am not personally attacking anyone.
Yours truly is back and with a vengence! The title of the thread is irrelvant to the issue at hand. To take a thread started by Ohio guy where he lauded Salman Rushdie in the title that he is a brave soul to say what he says. Ironically when Azzam a know extremist and the spritual leader for OBL said the very same things against the Saudi Establishment and their families in the neighborhood, he would denounced as an idiot and violent hate mongrel.
Now the title is perfectly logical. Bush said in his doctrine either you are with us or against us. If you are against "us" you are against what the US does. Thus you are anti-american.
Following from that the title makes sense.
ProudPaki007,
"Lemme get to the bottom line, you support the attack on Iraq? Yes or no? If yes or no, explain your judgment."
Let me be very specific. I believe there is a movement afoot to remove Saddam from power. Some time ago Donald Rumsfled mentioned, "perhaps Saddam and his family will leave". This opened a door that I do not believe was opened before. I think the focus on WMD is the only issue where there was enough concensus to start to move toward removal. It had been a long standing dispute with the UN, and it provided "cover" for Saudi and other Arab support. But I think inherently having the foucus on WMD is wrong. Quite simply Saddam could hand over all of the WMD programs and still be in power.
I think Saddam should be removed, but for his acts of genocide. I think all avenues to rattle sabres should be tried before an attack, but the world cannot have a genocidal tyrant defying the UN and get away with it. It simply sets a bad road map for generations of tyrants to come. If all peaceful and diplomatic means to remove Saddam are unsuccessful and exhaused, I think he should be removed forcefully. This is actually reasonably consistant with Milosovic and his war crimes tribunal. There is every reason to beleive that Saddam could be indicted on war crimes, and I would refer you to Ken Roth's (from Human Rights Watch) statement that I have posted a number of times on other threads. The focus always should have been, and even more now needs to be, on the genocide committed by Saddam.
Someone on another thread told me that I should endeavor to know opinions of various people before rendering an opinion. Fine. I think the same shold apply right here. You have heard a number of Americans support the right of dissent and free speech. That is a very real value in America, and a time honored tradition. I went to college at Kent University, a site where 4 students were killed by the national guard during a protest against the Vietnam war. No one need lecture me on the value of dissent, or that dissent should be the right of every American. To an average American, an opposite opinion may cause a shouting match, but almost every American you ask would die defending the right of free speech.
That is why the title of this thread is a gross misunderstanding of American values. NO ONE considers the statements made by some actors to be "Anti-American". Indeed, it is the essence of America. On the other hand, actors in general are not considered to be a bastion of intellectual thought, and may draw some snickers from those who know and understand some of these folks to be a little light in the grey matter. but they are absolutely and undeniably entitled to their opinion.
Nadia writes:
“>>I would need to see a repetitive and recurring pattern of opposing and/or attacking virtually all US policies and actions before dreaming of categorizing someone like that.<<
In your personal opinion, do you think i am guilty of doing this while simultaneously not providing any rational reasons for criticizing particular US policies? Do i go on a rampage of "attacking" US policies without providing any reasons? We will manifestly disagree on the validity of those reasons, but at least i am not going around opposing these policies without providing a foundation first.”
Nadia:
My personal opinion of your posts is probably best left to private discussion. More topically, I think there are a lot of people who fall within a “Blame America First” crowd. Hollywood and the ultra Liberal Left have a long tradition in this regard. For instance, while Hollywood actors and actresses sit in their multi-million dollar homes tooting a few grams of the purest of the pure cocaine, they often blame America for creating the poverty that drives the poor to drugs. Somehow or other, they just don’t want real people to take responsibility for their actions, they want to blame the government (or more precisely the policies of a Republican or conservative government). Most people don’t think of these folks as “anti-American,” just out of step with the average American. And we tolerate all kinds of people who just seem to march to the beat of a different drummer.
The bottom line with most of the domestic Blame America Firsters is that they would never dream of leaving the country and, despite their criticisms and the flaws they identify in the system, they know and believe ours is the greatest, most free, most tolerant, most benevolent society on earth that offers the greatest hope and opportunity to the widest array of people. That, I think, is the differentiating characteristic which is missing from those I would personally label as anti-American. It is really not too difficult to identify those who harbor an inherent antipathy and hatred for America if you read their writings and/or listen to their rantings for any length of time. Some may be highly educated and fashion “rational reasons” to justify their criticisms but those reasons stem from and derive out of a “foundation” of anti-Americanism. Others, if you will, are just buffoons who will parrot whatever slogan or argument is the mantra of the day.
Thing about actors is that they just want some stage to show their talent. Most of these demos are precisely that. There are actors who go around supporting the conservatives as well..they are equally ego-headed idiots. People like Sean Penn or Susan Sarandon or Martin Sheen couldn’t locate Baghdad on a map even if heir lives depended on it. How come none of the Patriotic actors are being given as much coverage? oooops liberal media.
Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
**Storch, Thank you, interesting reply although i don't agree with parts of it but thank you for taking the time and thought to write it out.
*>>Being thoughtlessly anti-American at every opportunity, on every concievable issue could be anti-American or more likely just ignorant.<<
So do you think that is what i am, anti-American at every opportunity?
•*I can't really say. Though it might be fair to say that you and others may sort of "prioritize" the usual suspects when looking to find responsibility regarding an injustice involving (perhaps even tangentially) the U.S. I think we all do this actually depending on our own perception of the truth. However, for me and the majority of Americans there does not really exist a monolithic object of perpetual suspicion. *
We could discuss some of the aspects that the US should be and has been held accountable for, but i fear that would take us off-track. You mention that anti-Saddamism should "justly take root in the world", as well as anti-Pakistanism or anti Canadaism; why do you believe these have not taken root (or at least have not done so in a substantial manner)?
•I guess the misdeeds of so many of the world's leaders, countries and cultures cannot sustain the momentum that an issue with a U.S. label can. A bit simple I suppose, but it's the best I can come up with right now.
>>It's lilely that had this empire not existed af far more insidious version of empire could have.<<
But, IMHO, that doesn't justify anything, not the actions of the present empire.
•*True enough, but many of the accusations levelled at the U.S. lack real proportion in my opinion. *
>>So, no, opposing the war is not Anti-American by any means. It really depends on who's doing it and why.<<
Sorry, but what do you mean by the who part in that above sentence? As in nationality?
•*I guess I meant more the "why" or the motivation. U.S. patriots can come from any background as can those who seek only to vilify the U.S. *
>>p.s. can I assume that since Gabe Kaplan is not on the list, he is a patriot?<<
There are a thousand names not on that list, who will still be patriots. The list isn't "the" ultimate list of American patriots. i have no idea of the process involved in obtaining all these signatures; who is to determine who was asked and who was not, or who was aware of this movement and who was not? When i stated earlier that the individuals who signed it are probably true patriots in the sense that they genuinely want their country to live up to noble ideals, it was not a suggestion that EACH individual who has not signed it, is unpatriotic.
ps- Regarding the argument that those who are thoughtlessly anti-American at every opportunity - possibly, theoretically, could the same apply to those whom i perceive of as being thoughtlessly anti-Muslim in the sense that the majority of conflicts being waged currently are against individuals of Muslim countries? And that those who endorse such conflicts are anti-Muslim? It's a very simplistic argument, i realize, and i do not for a second believe in its validity - but am including it simply to illustrate how erroneous the anti-American argument is as well (in my opinion).
•** Don't worry about Gabe Kaplan-it's Arnold Horshack that I suspect would be real trouble, but I digress. I'm not aware of a prevelent or influential part of the U.S. populace that is anti-Muslim. Whom do you perceive to be thoughtlessly anti-Muslim? Which conficts are currently being waged against Muslim countries? Iraq still has a diplomatic solution if it so chooses. No war yet. And any conflict that may be ahead will have Sadaam's ouster as the goal. The so-called War on Terror is aimed primarily at Muslim extremists. Was the ouster of the Taliban and al Quaeda in Afghanistan merely an attack on Islam? Palestine/Israel? It's forever debatable as to who is waging war on whom.
Whether one chooses to believe it or not American leaders from the top to the bottom have unequivocally stated that there is no war on Islam. Now I don't think the legitimate animosity most Americans feel for Islamic terrorists and their apologists who have murdered innocent Americans and have since stated they wish to inflict more harm, should be construed as a blanket anti-Muslim movement. The concern over catasrophic terrorism in the U.S. does not I believe translate to a thoughtless condemnation of those few wrapped in Islamic Faith who plainly have violence as a goal.
Dissent with or criticism of the U.S. is not alone enough to qualify a person as being anti-American. It's the quality of and the eventual goal of the dissent that may be the most important thing to consider, I think.**
Man, I have no idea how to properly format the text. I better study up.
Re: "Anti-American" Americans
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Nadia_H: *
...Martin Sheen, Susan Sarandon, Matt Damon, David Duchovny, Gillian Anderson, Samuel L. Jackson, Jessica Lange, Danny Glover, Helen Hunt, Ethan Hawke, Kim Basinger..... Just like myself, and anyone else who is opposed to a war against Iraq, they - included as a handful of approximately one hundred American artists and Hollywood celebrities - must be anti-American and manifestly must loathe freedom and justice.
We are patriotic Americans who share the belief that Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction. We support rigorous UN weapons inspections to assure Iraq's effective disarmament.
[/quote]
Nadia dear, after writing your own comments (in which you adressed them as anti-americans) perhaps you should read the article too as it says...
*
We are patriotic Americans who share the belief that Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction
*
My Voice, Thank you for your reply.
Granted it is off-topic perhaps: the reason that i inquired regarding what you thought of my posts in this Forum, is because i was/am trying to relate what i perceive of as occurring in this particular Forum, with the actions of these one hundred or so American citizens. OK that's an ineffective way of phrasing it; let me put it this way - what i am trying to get at is that, i feel (justifiably or not) that i am branded as 'anti-American' by some, and so, my purpose in putting up this thread is to show that there are (well-known) genuine American citizens some of whom propound the same beliefs i do - and does this make them, as well, 'anti-American'? It's interesting that some replies have discussed the apparent left-leaning tendencies of this Hollywood crowd but, atleast to myself, that does not seem truly relevant. But who knows, i could be wrong. Dismissing the claims of some, merely because apparently they are lefties, brings us right back to square one - the purpose of my thread, judgementally placing labels on others.
>>The bottom line with most of the domestic Blame America Firsters is that they would never dream of leaving the country and, despite their criticisms and the flaws they identify in the system, they know and believe ours is the greatest, most free, most tolerant, most benevolent society on earth that offers the greatest hope and opportunity to the widest array of people. That, I think, is the differentiating characteristic which is missing from those I would personally label as anti-American.<<
Alright sorry, so you are stating that each of the "domestic Blame America Firsters" believe that the US is the most benevolent country on earth, while each of the non-domestic group believes it is not?
>>Some may be highly educated and fashion "rational reasons" to justify their criticisms but those reasons stem from and **derive out of a "foundation" of anti-Americanism.<<
That is unfortunate. This is precisely what i mean - throwing labels. Not certain how appropriately this fits, but here's an analogy - it's like me stating that those who endorse the Bush administration's policies vis-a-vis the Caucasus region and the Middle East are anti-Muslim; they may provide all manners of "rational reasons" for the US's policies but at its core their support for these policies springs from a groundswell of anti-Americanism.
i am certain to yourself that doesn't sound accurate; in his reply above Storch discussed this aspect. But it's the same thing - not all of us non-domestic Blame parties are anti-American or draw upon our criticims from a foundation of anti-Americanism. IMHO it's a very simplistic reduction. Can it be possible that all anti-Americans are critics of the US govt., but all critics of the US govt. are not anti-American?
Storch, Many thanks for your reply. With a few more posts you will be an expert at formatting, don't worry. To emphasize something in bold, just wrap that particular text with these symbols (MINUS each of the spaces within the square brackets): b ]..... / b ] The same applies for text you wish to italicize: i ]..... / i ] If you want to bold AND italicize a segment of someone's reply: b ] i ]..... / b ] / i ] (MINUS the blank spaces)
This statement of yours, i think, might be among one of the most helpful in this thread (IMO): >>Dissent with or criticism of the U.S. is not alone enough to qualify a person as being anti-American. It's the **quality of* and the eventual goal of the dissent that may be the most important thing to consider, I think.<<* Since it won't be right if i use anyone else as an example, let me use myself - do you believe that, on this Forum, whenever i write my 'typical' posts and threads, that my goal exclusively consists of ultimately criticizing the US, 'prioritizing' as you put it the usual suspects, and perceiving of the US as a monolithic negative object? Plz don't worry about offending anyone, i really just want to know why individuals perceive of me as being 'anti-American'; this label takes away from what otherwise might be beneficial discussions, in my opinion, hence my curiosity.
>>Whom do you perceive to be thoughtlessly anti-Muslim? Which conficts are currently being waged against Muslim countries?<<
If i answer these questions in specific detail, then i fear we will get sidetracked into another discussion, but the reason that i brought up the anti-Muslim aspect is as an analogy...........Just as you perceive that the "legitimate animosity most Americans feel for Islamic terrorists" should not be misinterpreted as a "blanket anti-Muslim movement", and therefore that 'anti-Muslim' is an erroneous label against Americans, why can't the same apply for those who criticize particular govt'l policies? If Americans' legitimate animosity towards Muslim terrorists should not be perceived of as blanket anti-Muslim movements, then what permits the legitimate criticisms i harbor towards the US govt., from being perceived of as being anti-American ?
Someone just posted a Miami Herald article regarding the US "war on terror" being perceived of (in Egypt) as a war on Islam; you would argue that those Egyptians shouldn't view the US or Americans as anti-Muslim. Why can't the same apply for people like me on this Forum; why does any criticism of the US have to entail the individual being called anti-American? As you stated, "It's forever debatable as to who is waging war on whom"; from my point of view, bearing in mind i am Muslim, the disastrous roles of the US government in numerous conflicts around the world are manifest. Should that make me believe the US govt. is anti-Muslim ? If not, why should criticisms of the US govt. automatically make someone anti-American? All anti-Americans are critics of the US govt., but not every critic of the US govt. is necessarily anti-American.
Re: Re: "Anti-American" Americans
[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Spock: *
Nadia dear, after writing your own comments (in which you adressed them as anti-americans) perhaps you should read the article too as it says... *We are patriotic Americans* who share the belief that Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction*
[/QUOTE]
:~)
Spock, that's actually kinda my point.... the title of this thread is not meant to be taken literally. i don't for a second believe they are anti-Americans. In fact i think they ARE patriotic Americans.
The gist of my msg is that those who criticize particular US policies, are not necessarily anti-American (just as those who endorse Bush's policies vis-a-vis the Middle East) are all not necessarily anti-Muslim.
Nadia,
Much like the other Americans, I find it hard to describe Anti-Americanism, but I know it when I see it. Let me see if I can breakdown some of the core arguements, many of which you will recognize. I really don't want to reargue any of these topic, i am kind of tired of them, but I want to look at the underlying logic.
1) The presumption that it must be the Americans fault. Our classic DU arguements are a prime example of this. The only way to really get to the core of what is happening with these allegations is some excellent science. IF the numbers of people are what they appear to be, then a cause must be found. From there there is an automatic leap to the only cause which can make the US look bad, the DU left on the battlefield. In a huge number of posts, there has never been a single debater saying,"there could be a number of causes", and procede with good science. Ergo we can automatically assign evil to Americans.
2) Failure to assign relative levels of culpability. The debate we had about Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam is a great example. (Never mind how many times Arafat has embraced an Israeli) By my research, the US had some limited contact with Saddam, yet he is often cast as "our man". Probably 90% of his military hardware was Soviet supplied, and certainly most commerce, yet one diplomatic handshake and the US rockets to the top of the list as accomplices to Saddam.
3) The failure to realize that government is a dynamic and moving entity. I looked back over the Human Rights reports that are published by the State Department over the past 8 years. They are frank and open documents. To me this represents a legitiment change in behavior, and there seems to be a much bigger focus than in the past. Yet when we turn on Saddam, obviously having at first thought him a typical middle east strongman, but concluded that he was far more megalomaniacal than he first appeared, there is no understanding that a government has the right to change it's mind and reverse course.
4) Unrealistic expectations. The case of the Scud missles is a good example. Here Yeman imports a missle that on it's best day is a collateral damage machine, yet no outrage. Yet the US must accurately attack each and every target with precision beyond human and mechanical limits, or be scorned as uncaring or calloused.
5) The myth of omnipotence. For some reason, there is this assignment to the US a responsibility for all actions, everywhere at everytime. If someone who is ostensibly an "aquaintence" commits some act, rather than focus on the act and the perpetrator, the immediate response is to presume on the US telepathic powers that should have fortold the event.
6) The great Satan effect. Somewhere in here, people are trying to rally like minded individuals to a cause. One of the easiest ways to do this is to create a demon and to whip the crowd into a frenzy. The US has become the demon of choice in this manipulation.
7) Denial of first party responsibility. Much like a child whose toys are constantly being broken by a ghostly friend, all wrongdoing in the world is ascribed to the US. If North Korea is starving due to bad leadership, the downtrodden electorate does not hold their leaders responsible for the calamity, they utilize the great Satan effect above to justify their failures.
8) Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Only now we are seeing people say, "Why did you not get rid of Saddam when you had the chance?". "Why did you not help the ethnic minorities rise up against Iraq?". Both these questions fail to remember that there was no UN mandate to go to Baghdad to oust Saddam. THEN when we interpret the UN resolutions so at least No-Fly zones can be set up to protect those minorities, we are accused of being unilateral, violating the intent of the UN, and acting hostilely to Iraq. THEN there are those who acknowledge that the No-Fly zones have probably saved the lives of thousands of ethnic minorities, but they believe that American pilots can be shot at at will. THEN they bring out a casualty list, and blame the deaths on Americans, presuming that Americans have no right to self defense.
The point is not the policy, the point is that no matter which way the US shapes it's actions and policies, there is a pinball effect of critique. We did not do enough, we did too little, we should have intervened, we should keep our noses out, we were too late, we were preemptive, we were unilateral, we did what the coalition wanted. In the end, there will always be critics, and the US must make decisions as wisely as it can.
9)Civilian casualties inflated as propaganda. Every once in a while I wince at the numbers that are thrown about blaming the US for injuring innocent lives. The more I research them, the more I find that by inflating the figures and by carelessly throwing around big numbers, the US can be made to appear as uncaring and blood thirsty. This is propaganda of the first order, yet it "resonates".
10) America's past. In closing it is easy to detect an Anti-American. Anyone bringing up the fights with Native Americans, prior wars, slavery, civil rights, as examples of how evil America is can easily be tagged Anti-American. Todays America is different that yesterday's. One generation has a unique view, and passes that legacy on to the next generation who may continue or discard the polcies of the past. The strength of a country is not the issues of the past, but it's abilty to effectively change and move on. (Shall I repeatedly bring up Pakistan in 1971, and condemn all future generations?).
In all, America is a very open society. We are in the print, on the internet, and on the airwaves in massive quantities. Anyone who wants to can pick out something they disagree with can easily do so. Failure to take America as a whole, and recognize that while not perfect, the US believes itself to be more right than wrong in the world community, is a grave failure indeed.