NationStates Jolt Archive

Anyone who has every read beyond the US press, or maybe just "beyond
the headlines", knows that it sure as damn hell ain't "cause they hate
our freedoms".
When we watched Bush say those lines on the tele, we damn near
fell off our chairs in dumbfounded disbelief.
Can ANYONE actually believe this line of bull he himself surely doesn't?

Stepping back at how poorly our media covers world events,
'have to fit the story between 2 commercials', leaves little time
for background and historical setting to be laid out for the viewer.

And does it help when we watch such lame ass shows as "'who wants
to kill a millionare?" or "fear factor" (I mean, people will do anything for money,
revamped for the 21st century) or Starsearch, I mean 'american idle'.
"reality tv" ? Far from it. Those shows are as scripted as anything on tv.


So, why are we picked on?
It's not because of our bad taste in television.
Here's one other view.
http://members.aol.com/superogue/terintro.htm

A good book on the topic is
"Why do People hate America?" by Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies

I'm not a terrorist (despite the name, I'm actually a pacifist), but I do hate america. :) . I hate it for many reasons that it would be quite rude to point out, but the thing that distresses me the most is the claim that America fights for freedom. I don't remember people's personal rights and freedoms actually being opressed by Iraq. Face facts, Georgie, dear. America is all about world domination.

Hmmm, hatred and pacifism in the same post. Interesting.

Hatred ever kills, love never dies such is the vast difference between the two. What is obtained by love is retained for all time. What is obtained by hatred proves a burden in reality for it increases hatred.--Gandhi.

I don't remember people's personal rights and freedoms actually being opressed by Iraq.


either you're being a jokester, or you havn't paid attention either,

Iraqi gov't did use gas on their own people,
under US political ok. even then, it was all about the oil.
read the declassified documents or summaries for yourself.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Hmmm, hatred and pacifism in the same post. Interesting.

Hatred ever kills, love never dies such is the vast difference between the two. What is obtained by love is retained for all time. What is obtained by hatred proves a burden in reality for it increases hatred.--Gandhi.



what about hating hitler or bush,
and the premeditated mass murders that they are a personification of?

either you're being a jokester, or you havn't paid attention either,

Iraqi gov't did use gas on their own people,
under US political ok. even then, it was all about the oil.
read the declassified documents or summaries for yourself.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Let me applaud you for that, Shin. Good job. I would also like to point out that the freedom's of women were oppressed in Iraq before we came over and took out Hussien.

I don't remember people's personal rights and freedoms actually being opressed by Iraq. Face facts, Georgie, dear. America is all about world domination.

Yah, that's a little grossly naive. George Bush (not the United States, please try and remember there is a distinction) may be about world domination. Saddam Hussein, however, was a first class immoral bastard who is going to have quite a bit to answer for in whatever afterlife awaits him.

I don't like this war, but to think we invaded a land of milk and honey and killed Santa Clause is going way too far.

what about hating hitler or bush,
and the premeditated mass murders that they are a personification of?

Hatred of action is one thing. Hatred of being is quite another. I hate what they did, but I pity and pray for their souls.

You've all misunderstood me: I miswrote my post. I meant to say Americans instead of people. What goes on in Iraq has nothing to do with the US, and it's not George Bush's place to intervene. If anyone's place, it would be the job of the UN.

Yah, that's a little grossly naive. George Bush (not the United States, please try and remember there is a distinction) may be about world domination. Saddam Hussein, however, was a first class immoral bastard who is going to have quite a bit to answer for in whatever afterlife awaits him.

I don't like this war, but to think we invaded a land of milk and honey and killed Santa Clause is going way too far.

George Bush was elected by the people of the US.

George Bush was elected by the people of the US.

That's debatable.

For one thing terror you shouldnt be hateing americas soldiers or citizens you should be hateing its leaders, i am an american and i think our leaders should be shot for all the stupid stuff they have done, but americas people our totally different.

I don't remember people's personal rights and freedoms actually being opressed by Iraq.
You obviously live in a personal bubble which filters out any information which conflicts with your preconcieved notions. "Life" isn't a "personal right?" :rolleyes:

I am a Canadian, and proud to be one. As for the US, well, I don't like their politics and the way that they have a tendency to stick their noses into another country's business. If that is the way a certain culture lives, who is to say that they are worse off than americans? If a country has what the US wants, why should the US always have it's own way and overthrow the government of said country if the US can't take what it wants?
The Middle East is frought with incidents where the more 'civilized' countries have thrown their muscle around for over a hundred years. It's about time that they start fighting back!

... it's not George Bush's place to intervene. If anyone's place, it would be the job of the UN.
Who would have continued to throw resolutions at Saddam until hell wouldn't have either of them.

For one thing terror you shouldnt be hateing americas soldiers or citizens you should be hateing its leaders, i am an american and i think our leaders should be shot for all the stupid stuff they have done, but americas people our totally different.

Did I say that I hate individual americans? Mais, non. I said I hate the nation. But, perhaps I shouldn't. To speak as Mr. Rochester, I despise it too much to hate it.

A good book on the topic is
"Why do People hate America?" by Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies
To quote a reviewer: "These are familiar arguments from the left, but it's useful to have them collected together in one place."

what about hating hitler or bush,
and the premeditated mass murders that they are a personification of?


I understand Hitler, but Bush? President Day Bush or The Bush Senior?

You've all misunderstood me: I miswrote my post. I meant to say Americans instead of people. What goes on in Iraq has nothing to do with the US, and it's not George Bush's place to intervene. If anyone's place, it would be the job of the UN.

LOL! To think the UN would actually do something!

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10547

If the UN had done there job, we wouldn't be fighting, now would we?

terror you dont have to respond to this but where do you live?

You've all misunderstood me: I miswrote my post. I meant to say Americans instead of people. What goes on in Iraq has nothing to do with the US, and it's not George Bush's place to intervene. If anyone's place, it would be the job of the UN.

And the UN would intervene with what, exactly?

terror you dont have to respond to this but where do you live?
Falluja.

becaues every one hates us ( for the most part)

And the UN would intervene with what, exactly?

By filing a resolution! LOL!

Did I say that I hate individual americans? Mais, non. I said I hate the nation. But, perhaps I shouldn't. To speak as Mr. Rochester, I despise it too much to hate it.

Hmmm, the thing is, if one "hates the nation," but swears up and down they don't "hate the individual," well, history shows us that line blurs faster than the difference between sex and oral sex to a "Virtue Keeper" on prom night.

It used to be that taking over the world was a respectable pasttime for an up-and-coming world power, but then the Romans and the Huns ruined all that because they were seen as oppressing people. At that time the answer to "Why do you want to take over the world?" was "We've got lots of bloodthirsty soldiers and nobody can stop us!"

Fast forward a bit to America in the 1800's and we come up with "manifest destiny", basically "we're going to take over the world because that's what we were born to do!" Of course, the rest of the world said that we were full of excrement for thinking such things and then we had to back off a bit.

Fast forward to modern times and now we are "liberating" countries and "spreading freedom". No matter how you slice it, the US is not any more morally correct now than the Romans and the Huns were.

America has a few problems, I think our biggest problem is sticking our noses in other peoples buissness and greed.

My cousin was a navy seal over there.

I understand Hitler, but Bush? President Day Bush or The Bush Senior?



LOL! To think the UN would actually do something!

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10547

If the UN had done there job, we wouldn't be fighting, now would we?

Whether or not the UN would have done anything, it's still not the place of the US to step in. I don't remember George Bush being appointed as dictator of the world.

A note to all: I'm unaware of why this whole thread has become about me. I admit to speaking harshly and without thorough consideration. Bad things happened because of Saddam, but that doesn't justify the actions of George Bush.
This is all just my opinion, and I am quite young and as flawed as everyone. But I do not consider myself to be living in a bubble of filtration.
I'm an idealistic, self-involved hypocryte, but I would never kill another person, even if that person was a veritable cross between Charles Manson and the BTK killer.

Let me applaud you for that, Shin. Good job. I would also like to point out that the freedom's of women were oppressed in Iraq before we came over and took out Hussien.



Not exactly.
Actually
In Iraq, under Hussein, women had the most rights of any middle eastern country - save Israel.


If you ever get an email forwarded to you by a soldier in Iraq describing
all the good things they are doing and one of the things is
"girls can now go to school for the first time", you will know it is total propaganda, or the soldier didn't know much about Iraq before going there.

Not until the sanctions did women start
to lose some of the ground they'd gained under the secular Hussein regime.

terror you dont have to respond to this but where do you live?

Canada. I believe I've made that clear in my siggy.

It used to be that taking over the world was a respectable pasttime for an up-and-coming world power, but then the Romans and the Huns ruined all that because they were seen as oppressing people. At that time the answer to "Why do you want to take over the world?" was "We've got lots of bloodthirsty soldiers and nobody can stop us!"

Fast forward a bit to America in the 1800's and we come up with "manifest destiny", basically "we're going to take over the world because that's what we were born to do!" Of course, the rest of the world said that we were full of excrement for thinking such things and then we had to back off a bit.

Fast forward to modern times and now we are "liberating" countries and "spreading freedom". No matter how you slice it, the US is not any more morally correct now than the Romans and the Huns were.

You know, this is actually a good point and one I harp on, frequently. Many of the countries currently criticizing the US have a rich history of colonialism/imperialism. Sort of like you said, there appears to be a growth cycle for many nations that rise to the position of world power.

Gain an advantage.
Prosper.
Acquire land.
Prosper some more.
Acquire more land, usually by force.
Prosper a bit more.
Get complacent and unwieldy.
Lose most of the land you've aquired.
Use your former glory to wrangle party invites from countries back on step two.

The difference today is that the US is going through this cycle very publicly. Whereas Spain and the UK and even the Middle East all did their empire-building in ages when communication wasn't nearly as fast as it is today nor education as wide-spread, the US has to have our growing pains publicly displayed for all to comment on. It occurs to me that what we're doing may indeed be morally wrong, but it is no different than what others did before us. Just now, there are chat rooms and message boards where everyone can express their righteous indignation while largely forgetting that the history of mankind is bloody, brutish and not something you'd want to take your grandmother to see.

Of course, Canada is excepted from this, because, well, they're drunks. :)

(j/k)

This may be a little off the present topic but this is what i think happened since 9/11, when osma destroyed the twin towers it was a warning to america to keep our nose outa other peoples buissnes, and after that there wouldnt be anymore attacks for a while, but seeing how americans are we got really pissed and sent soldiers to the middle east, also most of the soldiers that were used in the first operation iraq freedom were the ones hunting osma, and we used the stupid WMD excuse to search iraq and we found nothing and invaded for the oil because bush being the texas oil man he is doesent care who dies as long as he makes his damn money.

To quote a reviewer: "These are familiar arguments from the left, but it's useful to have them collected together in one place."
Indeed.
Hardly makes them invalid though, does it?

Indeed.
Hardly makes them invalid though, does it?
[ smile ]

Geez, you make it sould like terrorists only go after the US, or like the US is the only nation that has suffered terrorism, instead of being a relatively recent target.

Terrorism is simply a tactic used by especially weak groups to push their agendas. These groups usually use terrorism because they feel that's the only or more efficient method available to them.

The terrorists that have attacked the US and interests have a very large bone to pick with the US, mostly concerning its policies in the Middle East, where the US supports Israel (nothing wrong with that, if it weren't for the Palestinian occupation), oppresive governments (which would be more reasonable, if the terrorists weren't more oppresive themselves), and is seen as a perverse influence that undermines the teachings of Islam (well, that they do, but times change and religions have to adapt).

Terrorism lives off popular support. It's often better to concentrate in taking this support from the roots of terrorism than to do things that will increase it, like attacking a country that had nothing to do with a terrorist attack but that people can use to rally around.

With Muslims it's Because we help Israel. A rogue nation that live on stolen land that have killed just about as many Muslims as the Terrorists have killed the Israel jews. Yet the US makes sure that Israel never gets in trouble for it.
I would think that's the number one reason.

"In Iraq, under Hussein, women had the most rights of any middle eastern country - save Israel"

None worth mentioning in other words.

they choose america cause of what has been dealt to them in the passed by your lovely country, they do not give a flying baholllaaaaaaaaaa about your freedoms, what they are angry about is the raw deal that you passed onto them, and america throwing its lumpy weight around the planet, if america was not the superpower it is today but was sitll identical population wise, and everything else, just no throwing weight around all over the planet then maybe you wouldn't get attacked, or even if you tell the truth bout things like Iraq or area 51... i have now had my rant arg... debate with me all you wish!

they choose america cause of what has been dealt to them in the passed by your lovely country, they do not give a flying baholllaaaaaaaaaa about your freedoms, what they are angry about is the raw deal that you passed onto them, and america throwing its lumpy weight around the planet, if america was not the superpower it is today but was sitll identical population wise, and everything else, just no throwing weight around all over the planet then maybe you wouldn't get attacked, or even if you tell the truth bout things like Iraq or area 51... i have now had my rant arg... debate with me all you wish!

Area 51 is a secret weapons testing base. I'm sure everyone has figured that out. We kept it secret from the RUSSIANS to keep you guys safe during the cold war. Iraq is not all about the oil. If you take the time to find out we WERE (before Rita and Katrina) self sufficiant. Venezuala was our biggest supplier. If you take a look at america beyond politics it is a lovely country.

Why do terrorists keep picking on the United States?

Parris Hilton is famouse .



And because America is in the way of what they want to accomplish in this world before they die. It also helps that the United States is no angel when it comes to its actions around the globe . but imperialist ? :D Well lets just say that the left is called looney for a reason. As long as the people in the Middle East cant choose their leaders and live in bad economic conditions while the elite few of the ruling class rape their countrys resourses and as long as the United States supports these scum ..or the people think they do ..
we will be targets. as long as Israel exist as a nation we will be targets .
Now if we promote democracy in all the Arab countrys and are percieved to be fair in our handling of the Palestinians and if we are a success in Iraq and Afghanistan ..we will be less of a target. The radical Islamist will hate us because we exist and hinder their goal of a world under Islam ..but the average Joe Arab will not want to rip our nuts off .

The US is alot of things but in the sceme of things and relitive to other countrys throughout history its a great country ..PERIOD . If you want to be reasonable and fair you will recognise that. The world to this point is a better place because of it and not despite it .

It occurs to me that what we're doing may indeed be morally wrong, but it is no different than what others did before us. Just now, there are chat rooms and message boards where everyone can express their righteous indignation while largely forgetting that the history of mankind is bloody, brutish and not something you'd want to take your grandmother to see.

So... what you're saying is "you've all done it, so why shouldn't we?"

I dunno. As an argument it lacks a certain subtlety.

And perhaps, the ones filled with righteous indignation are the ones that do remember the past of their country and came to the conclusion that, perhaps, they did not exactly have the moral high ground back then.

Of course, if you like the US' current foreign policies, then we're all probably just jealous bastards who can't stand the fact that we're not a world power any more or something.

So... what you're saying is "you've all done it, so why shouldn't we?"

I dunno. As an argument it lacks a certain subtlety.

And perhaps, the ones filled with righteous indignation are the ones that do remember the past of their country and came to the conclusion that, perhaps, they did not exactly have the moral high ground back then.

Of course, if you like the US' current foreign policies, then we're all probably just jealous bastards who can't stand the fact that we're not a world power any more or something.

Never let reality get into the way of a good argument .

So... what you're saying is "you've all done it, so why shouldn't we?"

I dunno. As an argument it lacks a certain subtlety.

And perhaps, the ones filled with righteous indignation are the ones that do remember the past of their country and came to the conclusion that, perhaps, they did not exactly have the moral high ground back then.

Of course, if you like the US' current foreign policies, then we're all probably just jealous bastards who can't stand the fact that we're not a world power any more or something.

Well, you have to take in consideration who 'The Leader of the Free World' is at the moment good 'ol George W Bush, Jr. --
I mean I can not believe he first referred to the 'War on Terrorism' as a 'crusade' - oh man...

And come on! Mr Blair & gang has not done all too well either!

However, it could possibly be - if you want to get your classmates attention, you pick on the biggest bully.

Right now, the U.S. Being a world superpower - we are the biggest bully...and so if we do right or wrong - somebody somewhere will critisise it and hate us for it.

So... what you're saying is "you've all done it, so why shouldn't we?"

I dunno. As an argument it lacks a certain subtlety.

And perhaps, the ones filled with righteous indignation are the ones that do remember the past of their country and came to the conclusion that, perhaps, they did not exactly have the moral high ground back then.

Of course, if you like the US' current foreign policies, then we're all probably just jealous bastards who can't stand the fact that we're not a world power any more or something.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm suggesting is that, in a purely sociological sense, there seems to be a pattern to the development of nations. The US is currently undergoing that pattern and the difference is that modern technology allows the development of this pattern to not only be more visible, but more commented upon. That was the crux of my point, but thank you ever so much for merrily snarking your way to your conclusions that have very little to do with what I actually said.

Now, a side note to my theory was that the high level of criticism currently being leveled at the U.S. must be weighed against the fact that most of this criticism is coming from countries who have their own history of empire building. Is empire building morally right or wrong? Who knows? I didn't say one way or the other. I do find it slightly disingenuous when someone from the U.K. assumes it is and accuses the U.S. of it, though (just an example).

To quote a reviewer: "These are familiar arguments from the left, but it's useful to have them collected together in one place."
Who was that reviewer? Bill O'Reilly? :p
I actually thought that book was a well thought out one, with a lot of interesting angles and points one would never really consider beofre.

And its not really 'left'- its just not 'right'/orthodox/revisionism.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm suggesting is that, in a purely sociological sense, there seems to be a pattern to the development of nations. The US is currently undergoing that pattern and the difference is that modern technology allows the development of this pattern to not only be more visible, but more commented upon.

Now, a side note to my theory was that the high level of criticism currently being leveled at the U.S. must be weighed against the fact that most of this criticism is coming from countries who have their own history of empire building. Is empire building morally right or wrong? Who knows?
Well, being from a country with a rich history of ruthlessly exploiting the East Indies and, of course, making pots of money with the slave trade I am almost naturally prejudiced against empire building.

You say that every nation that has a shot at being/becoming a superpower goes through a certain cycle. And then it appears you simply kind of give a mental shrug and say that, well, that's the way it is and (possibly) who are we to argue?

I, coming from a nation with aforesaid less-than-proud heritage, wonder why the heck such a cycle cannot be broken. Yes, I know, no one ever learns from history, but surely the attempt should be made once in a while?

And no, I'm not saying the US (or, if you prefer, Bush) is engaging in slave trade or forcing some weak foreign nation into selling some highly sought-after merchandise at ridiculously low prices like we did. I'm just wondering why the US would like to continue the trend towards becoming a fallen empire.

Oh for Christ's sake *why* did you have to start another America-bashing thread?!

They want our PIZZA ROLLS!!!!

:sniper:

I don't remember people's personal rights and freedoms actually being oppressed by Iraq. he he...you clever little "terrist" :D

of Course "Iraq" was not oppressing Iraq....Saddam Hussein was. :cool:

Saddam was just an excuse for the US to occupy Iraq...Saddam offered to leave town(making himself subject to prosecution) before the US invaded.

Also many other countries are living worse kinds of oppression than Iraq...actually today under US occupation the average Iraqi is living hell...

Last but not least...if the US really cared about the Iraqi people..they would have taken him out in 1991...and LEAVE IMMEDIATELLY AFTER ARRESTING HIM.

Anyone who has every read beyond the US press, or maybe just "beyond
the headlines", knows that it sure as damn hell ain't "cause they hate
our freedoms".
When we watched Bush say those lines on the tele, we damn near
fell off our chairs in dumbfounded disbelief.
Can ANYONE actually believe this line of bull he himself surely doesn't?

Stepping back at how poorly our media covers world events,
'have to fit the story between 2 commercials', leaves little time
for background and historical setting to be laid out for the viewer.

And does it help when we watch such lame ass shows as "'who wants
to kill a millionare?" or "fear factor" (I mean, people will do anything for money,
revamped for the 21st century) or Starsearch, I mean 'american idle'.
"reality tv" ? Far from it. Those shows are as scripted as anything on tv.


So, why are we picked on?
It's not because of our bad taste in television.
Here's one other view.
http://members.aol.com/superogue/terintro.htm

You have obviously never watched,rad, or listened to media from outsidethe US.
Terrorists do not "pick" on the US.
They have added us to a long line of nations that have been being attacked for decades.
You suggest that a nation under siege by Theocracy based Terrorism is somehow culpable. Perhaps we should adopt sharia law and end electing our leadrship and allow clerics to tell us who will be leader--as long as they are strong enough to hold power. Maybe then we wouldnt get "picked on".
Or maybe then would could call it "Sectarian Violence" instead of Terrorism.

Jihadists are not worried about our foreign policy, they understand that Western Culture is diametrically opposed to Radical Islamic Fundamentalism--and therefore opposed to them having power.

I am specific about "Radical" because fundamental Islam is peaceful--like most Abrahamic religions if we are speaking about their fundamentals.
Further more like most religions.

Terrorism existed before Bush, before Clinton, before most of the "half educated know-it-all fresh out of diapers snots" on these boards were born.

These people are not freedom fighters(palestinians excluded from that statement).

In summary dont think because you misunderstood a BBC report on something suddenly makes you informed on Cultural and Social issues across the globe.

Well, being from a country with a rich history of ruthlessly exploiting the East Indies and, of course, making pots of money with the slave trade I am almost naturally prejudiced against empire building.

You say that every nation that has a shot at being/becoming a superpower goes through a certain cycle. And then it appears you simply kind of give a mental shrug and say that, well, that's the way it is and (possibly) who are we to argue?

No, I'm not saying that and I'm not making any sort of shoulder gesture, mental or not. I'm making a sociological observation, not a moral judgement or even a suggestion on it's inevitability.

However, should one venture into the realm of moral judgements, then one must be careful of one's own shaky ground. It is very easy to say someone is wrong, when one is currently living of the proceeds of the exact same action performed by one's ancestors. If I'm making a moral judgement, then that is where it rests.


I, coming from a nation with aforesaid less-than-proud heritage, wonder why the heck such a cycle cannot be broken. Yes, I know, no one ever learns from history, but surely the attempt should be made once in a while?

Perhaps. Who knows? Most nations that become superpowers because of a desire on the part of their leaders to aquire. It might be argued that this desire is intrinsic to becoming a world leader and to remove it would remove any possibility of superpower formation, making the whole argument pointless.


And no, I'm not saying the US (or, if you prefer, Bush) is engaging in slave trade or forcing some weak foreign nation into selling some highly sought-after merchandise at ridiculously low prices like we did. I'm just wondering why the US would like to continue the trend towards becoming a fallen empire.

Well, like I sort of suggested before, it may be inevitable. If there's anything to that cycle, then it may be a natural progress that one can only change through serious effort.

Last but not least...if the US really cared about the Iraqi people..they would have taken him out in 1991...and LEAVE IMMEDIATELLY AFTER ARRESTING HIM.

Now that's just implaussable. It would be like arresting an abusive father to only leave the child on the streets. Yes, you need to arrest the father, but you don't just abandon the victim and say, "Well, we've done our job, so see ya and try not to become a prostitute!"

Any removal of a stable governmental system (and Iraq was stable, if slimy), necessitates a certain amount of responsibility for the rebuiliding of that system. It took like 7 years after the end of WWII to have Japan up and running on it's own again. It takes time and effort and it's time and effort an invading nation has to be willing to provide should it engage in aggression.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Had the US removed Hussein in '91 and then just pulled out or even in '03, then the "hellish" conditions you describe now would be far worse for the citizenry of Iraq and there would be no hope at all that any progress would be made.

I'm not convinced that terrorists hate America all that much: there'd be a lot more terrorism within the 'States if they did. A half dozen serious attacks in the last decade is hardly a lot.

Terrorists are bombing the heck out of Iraq, but I haven't heard of much terrorist activity in the US in the past year or so.

I'm not a terrorist (despite the name, I'm actually a pacifist), but I do hate america. :) . I hate it for many reasons that it would be quite rude to point out, but the thing that distresses me the most is the claim that America fights for freedom. I don't remember people's personal rights and freedoms actually being opressed by Iraq. Face facts, Georgie, dear. America is all about world domination.

just on this comment... are you kidding me ? besides the fact over 100,000 kurds were killed by gas... that political dissients "disapeared"... that he was starving out 10's of thosaunds of children as he corrupted oil for food... Didn't his kids abuse olympians when they didn't preform ? As an Iraqi, were you free to walk around Iraq saying how poorly Saddam was running things ? What is your definition of "Personal Freedoms" anyway ?

But its clear why people hate america, and if you dont see it by now I can scarely belive it. Even the American media which is put down in this thread identifies it, and if you fail to recognize it your allowing your ignorance to get the better of you. Our foregin policy for all its merits and faults is the cause. That and the extreme nationalism and culture of the middle east coupled with the extreme instability and poverty. Our "freedom" is only the object of envy which is the base for feelings of malecontent. Our freedom coupled with our unparraelled success then mix in our international and very activist forgein policy. All of this along with some brainwashing by extreme fundamentalist make America an easy target. And all that is the simple answer.

To say its american imperalism, or america wanting to take over the world ... is nothing more then hogwash. If America wanted to take over the world.. i could think of many more effective ways then playing around with setting up "democracies" or even dictatorships.... direct administration is of course the best action. World opnion is meanlingless especially from Europe as they are antiquated in both military and economical power.

It is easy to say America puts its nose where it does not belong.. but in the same breath many would expect America to intervene in situations such as Rwanda, and Sudan... You simply cannot have your cake and eat it too... Critics want the US to intervene only when they see fit. America has self interests, and SHOULD act to protect those interests, or it would not be the America that it is today. America is not the slave to "so-called humanitarians" and like all nations must look out for itself before anyone else. Given our power and money, it is not as though any other will do it for us.

Terrorists are bombing the heck out of Iraq, but I haven't heard of much terrorist activity in the US in the past year or so.
My point, really.

Invidentias:
They honestly don't give a fuck about your freedoms, they just resent an ongoing attempt to impose said way of life upon them, and then being expected to be grateful for it. To be fair, America is hardly the only offender in this respect (the UK assembled Iraq from three countries that weren't on the best of terms before the second world war) but seems to be doing a lot more of this in the middle east than any other western power at the moment. Exhibit A for this (and another reason the towelheads all hate your country with a passion) is Israel.
As far as Iraq's lousy civil rights record goes, two points spring to mind: one, it wasn't actually any better during the '80s when America was bankrolling Hussein and providing him with WMDs to use in his war with Iran, and two, Syria, Saudi Arabia and various other oil rich middle eastern nations don't show a much liberal attitude towards women or unbelievers.

My point, really.

Invidentias:
They honestly don't give a fuck about your freedoms, they just resent an ongoing attempt to impose said way of life upon them, and then being expected to be grateful for it. To be fair, America is hardly the only offender in this respect (the UK assembled Iraq from three countries that weren't on the best of terms before the second world war) but seems to be doing a lot more of this in the middle east than any other western power at the moment. Exhibit A for this (and another reason the towelheads all hate your country with a passion) is Israel.
As far as Iraq's lousy civil rights record goes, two points spring to mind: one, it wasn't actually any better during the '80s when America was bankrolling Hussein and providing him with WMDs to use in his war with Iran, and two, Syria, Saudi Arabia and various other oil rich middle eastern nations don't show a much liberal attitude towards women or unbelievers.

You are over simplifying a complex issue, and your not doing it justice. You simply cannot discount resenment and envy toward a nation which has so much while they live with nothing in oppression.. this is the setting stage which allows most would be "suicide bomers" to so willingly sacrifice themseves after some effective brainwashing. Israel is of course the heart of our foregin policy.. but then does the average arab on a farm really care about Israel ? He/she is looking more to survive the next day... and when told how good everyone else has it (ex. America), and how they interfer with Israel, and how they are "TOLD" they should be greatful, etc... this all serves to build that base. Resentment and envy play a large part. If they were content with their lives, things like Israel would be nothing more then a political firing point.. not something they are ready to die for.

And when considering Iraq's political freedom record.. i take into account everything (btw.... France did much more then US in supply Iraq with WMD)

You are over simplifying a complex issue, and your not doing it justice. You simply cannot discount resenment and envy toward a nation which has so much while they live with nothing in oppression.. this is the setting stage which allows most would be "suicide bomers" to so willingly sacrifice themseves after some effective brainwashing. Israel is of course the heart of our foregin policy.. but then does the average arab on a farm really care about Israel? He/she is looking more to survive the next day... and when told how good everyone else has it (ex. America), and how they interfer with Israel, and how they are "TOLD" they should be greatful, etc... this all serves to build that base. Resentment and envy play a large part. If they were content with their lives, things like Israel would be nothing more then a political firing point.. not something they are ready to die for.

And when considering Iraq's political freedom record.. i take into account everything (btw.... France did much more then US in supply Iraq with WMD)
I'm not the one oversimplifying here. Envy has never been an issue in terrorist attacks. Attempting to impose an alien way of life on somebody who wants nothing to do with it often is. I have a suspicion that this nonsense about poor ignorant arab savages envying the superior American way of life started after that footage of (obviously ecstatically happy) Palestinians grinning at the camera and dancing around waving their ak47s was shown in the wake of the twin towers getting knocked over. Jihadim don't envy material comforts proscribed by the sharia: if they did, they wouldn't be entrenched enough in a fundamentalist muslim mindset to do any of this stuff in the first place.
As for the average arab on a farm not caring about Israel, how happy would you feel if (and I admit this is a fairly crude analogy) Canada was receiving huge subsidies and supplies of material from France to carry out a campaign of genocide against the 'States, while any retaliation from Americans was dismissed as terrorism by the UN? I'm not sure that "envy" would quite cover your emotional and intellectual resaponse to a situation like that.