Why they hate America
Owen McShane
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/sc20010913.shtml
Steve Chapman (archive)
(printer-friendly version)
September 13, 2001
Why they hate us
Americans aren't yet sure who carried out the atrocities that shocked
the nation and the world this week. What we do know is that there is no
shortage of people with a motive. Plenty of our fellow human beings
around the world despise us, our system of government, our economic
order, and our way of life -- and some of them have so much hatred that
they are ready to kill and to die.
The reasons for the animosity are not so complicated. Some of the
hostility stems from geopolitical differences. But much of it comes from
a divide in our basic assumptions.
America's founding document, the Declaration of Independence, is not
just a historical relic concerned with grievances against George III.
It's a radical manifesto whose relevance has not diminished in 225
years. What makes it so important, then and now, is its exaltation of
the "unalienable rights" of every person -- including "life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness."
That reverence for the freedom of each individual is what distinguishes
our revolution from other revolutions, and what distinguishes us from
much of the rest of the world. It was a novel thing in 1776 to treat
people as ends in themselves, not as the instrument of some higher
purpose. In many places, it still is.
As a rule, Americans don't subordinate individuals to grand and noble
causes -- we let them decide whether to subordinate themselves. We don't
force them to submit to the interests of the workers, or the will of
God, or the purity of the race, or the advancement of virtue. We do
something that our enemies find incomprehensible: We let even the
humblest men and women live their lives as they see fit, not as others
command.
Our deference to the pursuit of happiness exasperates critics who see it
as frivolous and shallow. They think life is meaningless and even wicked
unless it is devoted to some cause greater than yourself. We dare to
think that there may not be a cause greater than yourself.
What drives many people crazy is that Americans don't just assert the
right to seek happiness -- we take it for granted. We assume this is how
life is meant to be. We may see ourselves as cheerful, confident and
optimistic, but others regard us as selfish and spoiled.
Even some commentators in this country share this dim view. In the
aftermath of the terrorist attacks, a columnist in The Washington Post
almost gloated that his fellow Americans have lost the "safe and coddled
life" they have enjoyed. Others noted with seeming satisfaction that we
will come to understand the ordeals of Israelis. "Do you get it now?"
demanded a New York Times columnist.
It is true that American history, particularly in recent decades, has
been comparatively devoid of tragedy. You might think that's a good
thing. But in some minds, there is nothing so healthy as suffering or so
ennobling as sacrifice. So we must be sadly lacking.
Largely untouched by war, immune to political upheaval and blessed by
fortune, Americans are guilty of untroubled affluence. Our detractors
see us losing ourselves in the quest for material gain, personal
fulfillment and mere pleasure, and they are deeply offended.
The 18th-century English writer Samuel Johnson believed "there are few
ways in which a man can be more innocently employed than in getting
money." More common, particularly outside the Western world, is the
biblical notion that the love of money is the root of all evil -- an
adage that makes America's centers of commerce, such as the World Trade
Center, look like a pit of iniquity.
It isn't the love of money, though, that has spawned the great crimes of
humanity's past and present: religious war, ethnic hatred, violent
fanaticism, mass slaughter of innocents. The worship of power poses a
much greater threat to civilized values than grubby acquisitiveness ever
did.
But our achievements, being geared to the needs and wishes of ordinary
people, often seem obnoxiously mundane. Europe's blood-soaked kings and
popes gave us palaces and cathedrals that inspire awe across the
centuries. Pharaohs built majestic pyramids with the sweat of slaves.
And what does our economic system erect? Disney World, McDonald's and
Hollywood. Those institutions exist for only one reason: the free
choices of large numbers of people.
Freedom and openness are the most conspicuous and admirable features of
our society, but they infuriate those intent on exerting control over
their fellow man. To them, nothing can be more dangerous than letting
people think for themselves.
It was bad enough when democratic freedom prevailed on our shores. But
today, it is the aspiration of billions of people around the world.
Tyrants and terrorists see our way of life as a mortal threat to
everything they hold dear. To our credit, it is.
©2001 Creators Syndicate, Inc.
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --
Love it.
Owen McShane, Rangiora Road, Northland, NZ
See "Straight Thinking On Line" (http://mcshane.orcon.net.nz)
Peter Kenyon
> pulled from
>
> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/sc20010913.shtml
>
> Steve Chapman (archive)
> (printer-friendly version)
>
> September 13, 2001
>
> Why they hate us
>
>
An American uses this tragedy to pat himself and his country on the
back and tell themselves it was all because the rest of the world is
jealous of their success and way of life. It's not.
Maybe people do see Americans as shallow and materialistic, and feel
offended by their values or lack of them. That isn't enough reason for
anyone to spend years plotting how to hijack 4 planes and
simultaneously crash them, killing themselves in the process. Even the
fact that America's political system, by existing, competes with other
political systems and values isn't a good enough reason.
Doubtless right now Americans everywhere are asking themselves "why
did this happen". This is one guy's answer. I think he needs to think
again.
Peter
Owen McShane
society. So what is your answer?
--
Jason M
wrote:
>An American uses this tragedy to pat himself and his country on the
>back and tell themselves it was all because the rest of the world is
>jealous of their success and way of life. It's not.
This jealousy theory is a common delusion of Americans (and rich New
Zealanders). Somehow we need to convince them that the rest of us do
not want to be like them. Perhaps if we tell them often enough, they
might start to understand.
>Maybe people do see Americans as shallow and materialistic, and feel
>offended by their values or lack of them.
Yep.
Jason M
Patrick Dunford
2001 11:21:51 GMT in nz.politics, Jason M <jmam...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
wrote...
> On 17 Sep 2001 03:29:55 -0700, kong...@freeze.com (Peter Kenyon)
> wrote:
>
> >An American uses this tragedy to pat himself and his country on the
> >back and tell themselves it was all because the rest of the world is
> >jealous of their success and way of life. It's not.
>
> This jealousy theory is a common delusion of Americans (and rich New
> Zealanders). Somehow we need to convince them that the rest of us do
> not want to be like them.
You can convince yourself you'd rather live in North Korea if you want
to.
--
=========================================================================
Patrick Dunford, Christchurch, NZ - http://pdunford.godzone.net.nz/
CHRISTCHURCH-US TERRORISM MEMORIAL http://www.geocities.com/pjrdunford/
Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I
will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff,
they comfort me.
-- Psalm 23:4
http://www.StudyLight.org/desk/?query=Psalm+23:4
JP
<3ba5dac2...@news.akl.ihugultra.co.nz>...[...]
> >Maybe people do see Americans as shallow and materialistic, and feel
> >offended by their values or lack of them.
>
> Yep.
>
> Jason M
IMHO, the notion that Materialism is shallow displays your lack of tolerance.
But you're certainly Free to think what you want.
If you call that thinking...
Jim
Owen McShane
people every year choose to settle in the US?
--
Jordan Carter
>
> http://www.townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/sc20010913.shtml
>
> Steve Chapman (archive)
> (printer-friendly version)
See, it would be nice to believe that that was the case. Personally, I find
the ideals underlying the United States constitution and republic noble and
inspiring. They certainly aren't why I have problems with the US.
I don't have problems with Americans, I don't have problems with their
economic system yada yada yada.
What I do have a problem with is their foreign policy. It isn't IDEOLOGICAL
to get annoyed at a country that murders people around the world on very
large scales. It isn't IDEOLOGICAL to get annoyed at a country that
overthrows regimes it doesn't like. It isn't IDEOLOGICAL to get irritated
by a country that supports a country that is illegally occupying territories
of your fellows.
All of these things are things that happen.
Nothing on earth can justify what happened in Washington and New York.
Every effort should be made to punish the people who committed the attacks.
What has to happen though is an understanding -- that in this case, the only
way forward is for the USA to reexamine what it does to other countries and
other peoples.
It seems self-evident that short of completely cutting itself off from the
rest of the world, it will be difficult for the country to ever totally
secure itself against attacks.
It also seems self-evident that when you're not dealing with a state, it's
very hard to actually attack and root out terrorists. They need to be got
rid of - no questions there - and I wouldn't be upset if the US cancelled
its executive order prohibiting the use of assassinations against KNOWN,
PROVEN terrorists, BUT - and this is the important qualifier - slaughtering
innocents in response to the slaughter of innocents which was itself a
response against the slaughter of innocents DOES NOT HELP ANYONE!
Anyone who tries to dress it up as some sort of ideological crusade by those
who hate liberalism and the West and capitalism and such is, I fear, missing
the very important point.
Jordan.
Barry Phease
<omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
>Steve Chapman (archive)
>Why they hate us
This has to be the funniest post on NZ.politics for a long time.
>America's founding document, the Declaration of Independence, is not
>just a historical relic concerned with grievances against George III.
>It's a radical manifesto whose relevance has not diminished in 225
>years. What makes it so important, then and now, is its exaltation of
>the "unalienable rights" of every person -- including "life, liberty and
>the pursuit of happiness."
Nothing wrong with the theory, only with the application.
If these were so important then the US would not be one of the leading
countries in incarcerating and executing their citizens.
Of course with the consumption of prozac and intervention of analysts
they may be doing something about pursuing happiness, but somehow that
seems to be missing the point.
>Our deference to the pursuit of happiness exasperates critics who see it
>as frivolous and shallow. They think life is meaningless and even wicked
>unless it is devoted to some cause greater than yourself. We dare to
>think that there may not be a cause greater than yourself.
No the underlying philosophy of america is that there is NO greater
cause that youself. Hedonism rules.
Actually this is not confined to america, but they do lead the world
here.
>
>What drives many people crazy is that Americans don't just assert the
>right to seek happiness -- we take it for granted. We assume this is how
>life is meant to be. We may see ourselves as cheerful, confident and
>optimistic, but others regard us as selfish and spoiled.
No! most people can't care less about this right. What they care
about is the right of palestinians, iraqis, etc to life, clean water,
food, medicines etc. Of course it is not fair to blame the USA alone
for their not having these, but as with all people, they need someone
to blame and americans are a very visible target.
Barry Phease
Richard Grossman
<car...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
Well said!
(Sorry about the 1-line reply and the fully-quoted post, but a
well-reasoned articulate post like that deserves commendation.)
--
__ Richard Grossman <rwg at altavista dot net>
/_/ __
/ \/\/ _ "The conventional view serves to protect us from
\_/ the painful job of thinking." (J K Galbraith)
Patrick Dunford
+1200 in nz.politics, Jordan Carter <car...@ihug.co.nz> wrote...
>
> "Owen McShane " <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote in message
> news:3BA57E...@wk.planet.gen.nz...
> > pulled from
> >
> > http://www.townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/sc20010913.shtml
> >
> > Steve Chapman (archive)
> > (printer-friendly version)
>
> See, it would be nice to believe that that was the case. Personally, I find
> the ideals underlying the United States constitution and republic noble and
> inspiring. They certainly aren't why I have problems with the US.
>
> I don't have problems with Americans, I don't have problems with their
> economic system yada yada yada.
>
> What I do have a problem with is their foreign policy. It isn't IDEOLOGICAL
> to get annoyed at a country that murders people around the world on very
> large scales.
Which country is that Jordan? Examples
snip
> What has to happen though is an understanding -- that in this case, the only
> way forward is for the USA to reexamine what it does to other countries and
> other peoples.
If we take off leftie bias then the case is not as strong as you might
believe.
>
> It seems self-evident that short of completely cutting itself off from the
> rest of the world, it will be difficult for the country to ever totally
> secure itself against attacks.
>
> It also seems self-evident that when you're not dealing with a state, it's
> very hard to actually attack and root out terrorists. They need to be got
> rid of - no questions there - and I wouldn't be upset if the US cancelled
> its executive order prohibiting the use of assassinations against KNOWN,
> PROVEN terrorists, BUT - and this is the important qualifier - slaughtering
> innocents in response to the slaughter of innocents which was itself a
> response against the slaughter of innocents DOES NOT HELP ANYONE!
Who said any such thing was planned?
Do you really believe binLaden is innocent as he claims?
Patrick Dunford
01:42:01 GMT in nz.politics, Barry Phease <bar...@es.co.nz> wrote...
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:37:39 +1300, Owen McShane
> <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
>
>
> >Steve Chapman (archive)
>
>
> >Why they hate us
>
> This has to be the funniest post on NZ.politics for a long time.
>
> >America's founding document, the Declaration of Independence, is not
> >just a historical relic concerned with grievances against George III.
> >It's a radical manifesto whose relevance has not diminished in 225
> >years. What makes it so important, then and now, is its exaltation of
> >the "unalienable rights" of every person -- including "life, liberty and
> >the pursuit of happiness."
>
> Nothing wrong with the theory, only with the application.
>
> If these were so important then the US would not be one of the leading
> countries in incarcerating and executing their citizens.
wow, irrelevant !
Brian Dooley
>pulled from
>
>http://www.townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/sc20010913.shtml
>
>Steve Chapman (archive)
>(printer-friendly version)
snip---
>Love it.
You can love it, Owen, but you will be wrong. The over-riding
reason is the unwavering support given by the US to the
dispossession of the Palestinians by Israel.
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Owen McShane
>
SNIP
> Anyone who tries to dress it up as some sort of ideological crusade by those
> who hate liberalism and the West and capitalism and such is, I fear, missing
> the very important point.
>
> Jordan.
reluctance to play out the role of world policeman. America is
instincitively isolationist and gets dragged into roles it would rather
not play. And because of this tries to avoid body bags and pulls out too
soon. The Gulf War is a fine example.
But I remember Kim Hill virtually abusing an American rep of some kind
at the time of Kosovo saying "you must do something. This cannot go on.
Get in there and do something". So eventually and reluctantly they did.
Next week Radio New Zealand was full of tales of American perfidy
because civilians had been killed etc.
They are on a hiding to nothing.
The same with the Afgans. They helped drive out the Soviets and then
packed up and went home. Maybe they should have stucm around to make
sure things went well from then on. But if they had they would have been
accused of imposing western values on eastern people.
I do wonder why they bother. The end result is where we are today.
--
Peter Kenyon
> Peter Kenyon wrote:
> >
> > Owen McShane <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote in message news:<3BA57E...@wk.planet.gen.nz>...
> > > pulled from
> > >
> > > http://www.townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/sc20010913.shtml
> > >
> > > Steve Chapman (archive)
> > > (printer-friendly version)
> > >
> > > September 13, 2001
> > >
> > > Why they hate us
> > >
> > >
> >
> > An American uses this tragedy to pat himself and his country on the
> > back and tell themselves it was all because the rest of the world is
> > jealous of their success and way of life. It's not.
> > Maybe people do see Americans as shallow and materialistic, and feel
> > offended by their values or lack of them. That isn't enough reason for
> > anyone to spend years plotting how to hijack 4 planes and
> > simultaneously crash them, killing themselves in the process. Even the
> > fact that America's political system, by existing, competes with other
> > political systems and values isn't a good enough reason.
> > Doubtless right now Americans everywhere are asking themselves "why
> > did this happen". This is one guy's answer. I think he needs to think
> > again.
> >
> > Peter
> society. So what is your answer?
I don't have a quick one I can think of off the top of my head. But
the old jealousy argument, which is simplistic and transparently
self-serving, isn't going to provide any answers.
Nor are the other people's attempts to transform the incident into a
cosmic struggle between the shining forces of heroic capitalism and
everything else that slithers, crawls, collectivises or otherwise
rejects the gospel of the free market. Those people all have an agenda
to push.
The United States does seem to have a habit of creating dislike for
itself around the world. Maybe some of that could be avoided if they
were just a little less quick to set themselves up as the world's
policeman, or if they were a little more even-handed in the way they
deal with other countries.
The CIA's business of destabilising regimes they don't like by
providing funds, training, ammunition etc to their enemies may have
also bitten them in a big way this time. It seems bin Ladin, at least
in part, is a monster of their own creation- like Saddam Hussein.
Peter
Patrick Dunford
03:17:09 GMT in nz.politics, Brian Dooley <bri...@clear.net.nz> wrote...
N o such thing. Haven't you noticed how every attack is condemned bu the
US?
>
>
> Brian Dooley
>
> Wellington New Zealand
>
--
Kerry
wrote:
Israel is a colony of the USA
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained
by stupidity."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John Cawston
That, of course, is what many countries around the world are wetting their pants
about. If the US retreated back into isolationism, as before WW2, it would
certainly improve its image and undoubtedly its security.
Whether the rest of the world could survive that is a moot point.
JC
Jason M
<omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
>Jason M wrote:
>>
>> On 17 Sep 2001 03:29:55 -0700, kong...@freeze.com (Peter Kenyon)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >An American uses this tragedy to pat himself and his country on the
>> >back and tell themselves it was all because the rest of the world is
>> >jealous of their success and way of life. It's not.
>>
>> This jealousy theory is a common delusion of Americans (and rich New
>> Zealanders). Somehow we need to convince them that the rest of us do
>> not want to be like them. Perhaps if we tell them often enough, they
>> might start to understand.
>>
>> >Maybe people do see Americans as shallow and materialistic, and feel
>> >offended by their values or lack of them.
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>> Jason M
>You are entitled to you preferences as am I. But why do one million
>people every year choose to settle in the US?
Why do I keep meeting Americans who would prefer to live in New
Zealand?
Jason M
John Cawston
Then the Palestinians have short memories. Israel is a construct
mainly of the British. Its probably fair to say that America didn't
get interested in the place until about 1967.
Of course, most of the world can share in the work that established
Israel as the majority of nations voted for it to come into existence
in the late 1940's.
However, I suppose its fair to blame the US for giving it the
wherewithal to survive over the past few decades.
JC
Robin Klitscher
John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
British interest in re-establishing a Jewish homeland first swam into
serious public view in August 1840. On August 17 that year the Times
published a leader on a plan to "plant the Jewish people in the land of
their fathers" which was now "under serious political consideration".
A week previously Lord Palmerston (Foreign Secretary) had written to
his Ambassador in Istanbul that "There exists at the present time among
the Jews dispersed over Europe a strong notion that the time is
approaching when their nation is to return to Palestine ...." Behind
this and the Times leader was the influence of the Earl of Shaftesbury
- he of the famous Factory Act and other legislation that sharply
reformed workers' conditions in England at that time.
If you want to know more, read Barbara Tuchman's "Bible and Sword",
copyrighted 1956, ISBN 0 333 48324-3 - findable at good second-hand
bookshops. Irrespective of any predispositions you may have, it's a
very good read.
Her book ends with the period between WW1 and WW2, with the Balfour
Declaration (1917) and the Palestinian Mandate (1920; ratified 1922) in
place. Britain had seen herself as the "only possible" holder of the
Mandate; or at least preferable to the other two leading candidates
France and the United States; and had been persuasive.
Tuchman's "Postscript" ends thus:
"Does Israel, then, exist today because of the British or in spite of
the British? As in the American colonies, England had laid the
foundations of a state and then resisted the logical development of
what she had begun until the original bond frayed out in bitterness and
strife. The answer to the question must be neither one thing nor the
other, but partly both - one of those unsatisfactory truths with which
history so often defeats its interpreters."
In her Introduction, she also says this:
"Historically the occupier of Palestine has always met disaster,
beginning with the Jews themselves. The country's political geography
has conquered its rulers. But now that the original occupant has
returned, perhaps the curse will run its course, and the most famous
land in history may some day find peace."
That was written circa 1956. Tuchman was twice a Pulitzer Prize
winner. She was the grand-daughter of Henry Morgenthau, Woodrow
Wilson's Ambassador to Turkey. She died in 1989. Her "most famous
land in history" has still not found peace.
--
Robin Klitscher
Wellington ("Harbour City") NZ
Redbaiter
jmam...@NOSPAMhotmail.com says...
Ashley
"Jordan Carter" <car...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3ba69ae1$1...@news.auckland.ac.nz...
>
> Anyone who tries to dress it up as some sort of ideological crusade by
those
> who hate liberalism and the West and capitalism and such is, I fear,
missing
> the very important point.
>
Nice post, Jordan.
John Cawston
And unlikely to do so for a while yet.
Its interesting that the US tragedy has seen the emergence of this part of
the thread, repeated in a number of others. People have reached back into
the history that saw NZ participate in that great UN vote and say "yes" to
the partition of Palestine and the emergence of the Jewish State and said
that this is the cause, or at least a part of the cause that saw the WTC
bombed.
Certainly the US and much of the Western world has stood by Israel in the
last few decades, but the cracks have been showing for years.
I guess it's the protégé growing up and showing some teeth in a sea of
hatred.
Whatever, we were part of the decision to create the State and we have to
live with that.
JC
Owen McShane
>
SNIP
> > >
> > > Peter
> > Yes, just one man's answer – which is all anything can be in a free
> > society. So what is your answer?
>
> I don't have a quick one I can think of off the top of my head. But
> the old jealousy argument, which is simplistic and transparently
> self-serving, isn't going to provide any answers.
Othello.
> Nor are the other people's attempts to transform the incident into a
> cosmic struggle between the shining forces of heroic capitalism and
> everything else that slithers, crawls, collectivises or otherwise
> rejects the gospel of the free market. Those people all have an agenda
> to push.
>
> The United States does seem to have a habit of creating dislike for
> itself around the world. Maybe some of that could be avoided if they
> were just a little less quick to set themselves up as the world's
> policeman, or if they were a little more even-handed in the way they
> deal with other countries.
finally moves is subject to the slings and arrows of those who pushed
them into it.
> The CIA's business of destabilising regimes they don't like by
> providing funds, training, ammunition etc to their enemies may have
> also bitten them in a big way this time.
It seems bin Ladin, at least
> in part, is a monster of their own creation- like Saddam Hussein.
So why does he hate them? Why does the helped hate the helper?
> Peter
Owen McShane
sell up thier assets in American and become twice as asset rich
overnight by converting UG dollars into kiwi pesos.
Owen McShane
here in New Zealand and elsewhere.
Owen McShane
>
SNIP
are still a great read.
Jason M
<a47...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>In article <3ba5dac2...@news.akl.ihugultra.co.nz> on Mon, 17 Sep
>2001 11:21:51 GMT in nz.politics, Jason M <jmam...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
>wrote...
>> On 17 Sep 2001 03:29:55 -0700, kong...@freeze.com (Peter Kenyon)
>> wrote:
>>
>> >An American uses this tragedy to pat himself and his country on the
>> >back and tell themselves it was all because the rest of the world is
>> >jealous of their success and way of life. It's not.
>>
>> This jealousy theory is a common delusion of Americans (and rich New
>> Zealanders). Somehow we need to convince them that the rest of us do
>> not want to be like them.
>
>You can convince yourself you'd rather live in North Korea if you want
>to.
I am very happy living where I am thanks. I have everything that I
need right here in NZ.
Jason M
yak
Patrick Dunford wrote:
>
> In article <3bcbb3d3...@news.clear.net.nz> on Tue, 18 Sep 2001
> 03:17:09 GMT in nz.politics, Brian Dooley <bri...@clear.net.nz> wrote...
> >
> > On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:37:39 +1300, Owen McShane
> > <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
> >
> > >pulled from
> > >
> > >http://www.townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/sc20010913.shtml
> > >
> > >Steve Chapman (archive)
> > >(printer-friendly version)
> >
> > snip---
> >
> > >Love it.
> >
> > You can love it, Owen, but you will be wrong. The over-riding
> > reason is the unwavering support given by the US to the
> > dispossession of the Palestinians by Israel.
>
> N o such thing. Haven't you noticed how every attack is condemned bu the
> US?
And how that hasn't stopped Israel attacking at all? That Sharon was
told to cool it in the wake of the WTC attack and he's escalated?
Robin Klitscher
In article <3BA720A0...@ihug.co.nz>,
John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>Robin Klitscher wrote:
>>(stuff about Tuchman's history of the British and Israel, ending with
>>this:)
>> In her Introduction, she also says this:
>>
>> "Historically the occupier of Palestine has always met disaster,
>> beginning with the Jews themselves. The country's political
>> geography has conquered its rulers. But now that the original
>> occupant has returned, perhaps the curse will run its course, and
>> the most famous land in history may some day find peace."
>>
>>
>> That was written circa 1956. Tuchman was twice a Pulitzer Prize
>> winner. She was the grand-daughter of Henry Morgenthau, Woodrow
>> Wilson's Ambassador to Turkey. She died in 1989. Her "most famous
>> land in history" has still not found peace.
>
>And unlikely to do so for a while yet.
>
>Its interesting that the US tragedy has seen the emergence of this part of
>the thread, repeated in a number of others. People have reached back into
>the history that saw NZ participate in that great UN vote and say "yes" to
>the partition of Palestine and the emergence of the Jewish State and said
>that this is the cause, or at least a part of the cause that saw the WTC
>bombed.
>
>Certainly the US and much of the Western world has stood by Israel in the
>last few decades, but the cracks have been showing for years.
>
>I guess it's the protégé growing up and showing some teeth in a sea of
>hatred.
>
>Whatever, we were part of the decision to create the State and we have to
>live with that.
>
Quite so. But to draw again on Tuchman, I can imagine her saying
gently that the reason folk do return to this subject is a little
larger than New Zealand's having supported the establishment of the
Jewish State.
Rather, she might say, it has to do with her observation that Israel's
"political geography has (always) conquered its rulers." Not only
that, she might point to another passage in her book dealing with what
was "known to nineteenth-century diplomacy as the Eastern Question."
Right through the ages, she says, this Question has turned upon who
dominates the political geography at that end of the Mediterranean.
The conclusion has been, she goes on, that it doesn't matter very much
"so long as it is not the power dominating Europe."
What she seems to be saying is that the Question is not about religion
whether it be Christian, Muslim or Jewish. Neither, one might suppose,
is it necessarily about economic or social disparities in themselves;
or about fundamentalism versus moderation; or about pre-modernism
versus modernism; or about any of the other -isms.
Rather it might be, as it has always been, purely a case of power
politics. If she is right, and if I haven't extended her thesis too
far, then the pattern may be running oddly true to form, since the
power that now dominates the region is also the one that dominates
Europe notwithstanding that it is geograpically removed from both.
Well, it's a theory .........
Denver Fletcher
> Brian Dooley wrote:
> > On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:37:39 +1300, Owen McShane
> > <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
> > >pulled from
> > >http://www.townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/sc20010913.shtml
> > >Steve Chapman (archive)
> > >(printer-friendly version)
> > snip---
> > >Love it.
> > You can love it, Owen, but you will be wrong. The over-riding
> > reason is the unwavering support given by the US to the
> > dispossession of the Palestinians by Israel.
find
> here in New Zealand and elsewhere.
Oh come on! - All of you! Aren't any of you aware of how thick you're
laying it on?
Hatred of America? Here in NZ? Sure Owen, that's why my mates Kingi
and Joe were amongst the hijackers! Get fucking real, will ya?
Is there no-one here who can see that there is good and bad in every
country, every race (whatever you think "race" is), every nation,
every city, every religion, every person?
None of us are as lily white as we'd like others to believe, and nor
are any others as coal black as we'd like to portray them.
I will tell you the one reason why we have never yet been subjected to
the envy, hatred, distrust, and contempt, visited upon the Americans
daily by most other people in the world.
And that reason is this: we are simply irrelevant to most of the
world.
Were New Zealand the superpower that Britain used to be and that
America now is, we would reap the same opprobium as our daily reward
for becoming the most powerful nation on the planet.
And were we to obtain such exalted status, we would likewise fall prey
to all the same vicissitudes, venalities, stupidities, incompetences,
and sheer moronic bloody-minded fuck-ups, as have the Americans, and
thus be equally deserving of all the aforementioned abuse.
You Read It Here First.
Share & Enjoy.
DJP59
Owen McShane wrote:
>
> Robin Klitscher wrote:
> >
> SNIP
> > British interest in re-establishing a Jewish homeland first swam into
> > serious public view in August 1840. On August 17 that year the Times
> > published a leader on a plan to "plant the Jewish people in the land of
> > their fathers" which was now "under serious political consideration".
> > A week previously Lord Palmerston (Foreign Secretary) had written to
> > his Ambassador in Istanbul that "There exists at the present time among
> > the Jews dispersed over Europe a strong notion that the time is
> > approaching when their nation is to return to Palestine ...." Behind
> > this and the Times leader was the influence of the Earl of Shaftesbury
> > - he of the famous Factory Act and other legislation that sharply
> > reformed workers' conditions in England at that time.
> >
[DJP] I have read the Zimmermann telegram, which is like a spy novel,
except it is true. Every page, I asked myself: How the hell could the
German government be that stupid? I also got 1/3 through the guns of
August, and will resume it soon. She deserves all the kudos.
By the way, for those of us who have not yet worked it out, Osama bin
liner thinks the world is inhabited by two kinds of people. His
supporters, and targets. Presumably nobody on this ng supports him, thus
we are all targets. This includes those who think America "deserved it."
cheers
David
Barry Phease
wrote:
>Then the Palestinians have short memories. Israel is a construct
>mainly of the British. Its probably fair to say that America didn't
>get interested in the place until about 1967.
Hmm! My understanding is that in 1948 the Jewish state was
established with support from groups within America against the wishes
of the British government.
The Palestinians certainly have much to chide Britain against, but the
"catastrophe" could not have happened without American support.
Jordan Carter
"Patrick Dunford" <a47...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote in message
news:MPG.1611731e4...@news.clear.net.nz...
> In article <3ba69ae1$1...@news.auckland.ac.nz> on Tue, 18 Sep 2001 12:52:58
> +1200 in nz.politics, Jordan Carter <car...@ihug.co.nz> wrote...
> >
> > "Owen McShane " <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote in message
> > news:3BA57E...@wk.planet.gen.nz...
> > > pulled from
> > >
> > > http://www.townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/sc20010913.shtml
> > >
> > > Steve Chapman (archive)
> > > (printer-friendly version)
> >
> > See, it would be nice to believe that that was the case. Personally, I
find
> > the ideals underlying the United States constitution and republic noble
and
> > inspiring. They certainly aren't why I have problems with the US.
> >
> > I don't have problems with Americans, I don't have problems with their
> > economic system yada yada yada.
> >
> > What I do have a problem with is their foreign policy. It isn't
IDEOLOGICAL
> > to get annoyed at a country that murders people around the world on very
> > large scales.
>
> Which country is that Jordan? Examples
The 5% of the Iraqi population that has died from the sanctions.
The thousands who died in Chile because of the CIA overthrow of Allende.
The massacres in the Latin American region (Nicaragua, Panama, others...).
The absolute carnage in Vietnam.
I'm sure you can think of other examples.
> snip
>
> > What has to happen though is an understanding -- that in this case, the
only
> > way forward is for the USA to reexamine what it does to other countries
and
> > other peoples.
>
> If we take off leftie bias then the case is not as strong as you might
> believe.
That was the point I tried to make above. It's not bias. The actions of
the United States are in the historical record. The US does things like
kill people. It supports states who do the same. It's not a case, it's not
an argument, it's a fact.
The argument, which of course is up for debate, is this: that the US needs
to change what it does, in order to make things like this murderous and evil
attack less likely in the future.
> > It seems self-evident that short of completely cutting itself off from
the
> > rest of the world, it will be difficult for the country to ever totally
> > secure itself against attacks.
> >
> > It also seems self-evident that when you're not dealing with a state,
it's
> > very hard to actually attack and root out terrorists. They need to be
got
> > rid of - no questions there - and I wouldn't be upset if the US
cancelled
> > its executive order prohibiting the use of assassinations against KNOWN,
> > PROVEN terrorists, BUT - and this is the important qualifier -
slaughtering
> > innocents in response to the slaughter of innocents which was itself a
> > response against the slaughter of innocents DOES NOT HELP ANYONE!
>
> Who said any such thing was planned?
Well, CNN has been carrying headlines about retaliation for a long time. I
think better sense will prevail, and no major deaths will occur. At least,
I hope so. But everyone's been speculating.
> Do you really believe binLaden is innocent as he claims?
I have no information to make a call. At the very end of the day, whoever
did it needs to be got. It doesn't matter who did it, it was still evil.
Jordan
Jordan Carter
> Jordan Carter wrote:
> >
> SNIP
> > Anyone who tries to dress it up as some sort of ideological crusade by
those
> > who hate liberalism and the West and capitalism and such is, I fear,
missing
> > the very important point.
> >
> > Jordan.
> The troubles is that many of the failures of US policy derive from their
> reluctance to play out the role of world policeman.
> I do wonder why they bother. The end result is where we are today.
I think in essence this is right. It is the nature of police that they
generate resentment. I do think, though, that they could play the role a
bit better.. don't you?
Jordan
Jordan Carter
"Jason M" <jmam...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3ba6e943...@news.akl.ihugultra.co.nz...
One might ask why a country with a population of 270m has an immigration
limit of 0.3% of its population each year.
Jordan
Owen McShane
>
> "Owen McShane " <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote in message
> news:3BA713...@wk.planet.gen.nz...
> > Brian Dooley wrote:
> > > On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:37:39 +1300, Owen McShane
> > > <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
> > > >pulled from
> > > >http://www.townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/sc20010913.shtml
> > > >Steve Chapman (archive)
> > > >(printer-friendly version)
> > > snip---
> > > >Love it.
> > > You can love it, Owen, but you will be wrong. The over-riding
> > > reason is the unwavering support given by the US to the
> > > dispossession of the Palestinians by Israel.
> > This explains the hatred of the Arab world, but not the hatred you
> find
> > here in New Zealand and elsewhere.
>
> Oh come on! - All of you! Aren't any of you aware of how thick you're
> laying it on?
>
> Hatred of America? Here in NZ? Sure Owen, that's why my mates Kingi
> and Joe were amongst the hijackers! Get fucking real, will ya?
If you have never met New Zealanders who hate Americans and AMerica then
you have led a sheltered political life.
I can assure you I have – but then I grew up in a communist household.
And the "here" I referred to was this and other newsgroups. Should have
been a comma after "here" – sorry about that.
> Is there no-one here who can see that there is good and bad in every
> country, every race (whatever you think "race" is), every nation,
> every city, every religion, every person?
>
> None of us are as lily white as we'd like others to believe, and nor
> are any others as coal black as we'd like to portray them.
>
> I will tell you the one reason why we have never yet been subjected to
> the envy, hatred, distrust, and contempt, visited upon the Americans
> daily by most other people in the world.
>
> And that reason is this: we are simply irrelevant to most of the
> world.
>
> Were New Zealand the superpower that Britain used to be and that
> America now is, we would reap the same opprobium as our daily reward
> for becoming the most powerful nation on the planet.
>
> And were we to obtain such exalted status, we would likewise fall prey
> to all the same vicissitudes, venalities, stupidities, incompetences,
> and sheer moronic bloody-minded fuck-ups, as have the Americans, and
> thus be equally deserving of all the aforementioned abuse.
>
> You Read It Here First.
>
> Share & Enjoy.
--
LP
Denver Fletcher <den...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
news:yWHp7.9154$ww1.8...@news02.tsnz.net...
Hatred of America, the country, her policies and actions is very different
to hating the US people as individuals.
I don't know where you have been hiding but there is actually a lot of
hatred and distrust of the USA here in NZ.
I took part in the anti-Vietnam marches - they were very anti-American.
Anti-globalisation protestors will tell you the same.
And every Kiwi who has travelled widely and spent time in countries affected
by US sanctions or US actions has seen first hand the damage they cause to
innocent civilian populations. Just the day before the attacks on US soil,
the US bombed Iraq, killing a few in the process.
The US has been the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the last century and is
still the biggest threat to world peace.
Hate America? Not specifically.
Hate US foreign policy? You bettcha.
Despise the USA for the suffering it has inflicted in many parts of the
globe? Hell, yes!
Paul
Denver Fletcher
news:nySp7.2683$4j.4...@news.xtra.co.nz...
> Denver Fletcher <den...@paradise.net.nz> wrote in message
> news:yWHp7.9154$ww1.8...@news02.tsnz.net...
> > "Owen McShane " <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote in message
> > news:3BA713...@wk.planet.gen.nz...
> > > Brian Dooley wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:37:39 +1300, Owen McShane
> > > > <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
> > Were New Zealand the superpower that Britain used to be and that
> > America now is, we would reap the same opprobium as our daily
reward
> > for becoming the most powerful nation on the planet.
> >
> > And were we to obtain such exalted status, we would likewise fall
prey
> > to all the same vicissitudes, venalities, stupidities,
incompetences,
> > and sheer moronic bloody-minded fuck-ups, as have the Americans,
and
> > thus be equally deserving of all the aforementioned abuse.
> >
>
> Hatred of America, the country, her policies and actions is very
different
> to hating the US people as individuals.
Yes. I think that was part of my point.
> I don't know where you have been hiding but there is actually a lot
of
> hatred and distrust of the USA here in NZ.
I've been here most of the time.
I have not lead a "sheltered life".
> I took part in the anti-Vietnam marches - they were very
anti-American.
Were they? Why? I thought they were anti-war?
They can only be anti-American to those who cant make the distinction
you made in your first sentence.
As far as I am concerned, people that obtuse can just fuck right off.
> Anti-globalisation protestors will tell you the same.
to which I will reply: ditto.
> And every Kiwi who has travelled widely and spent time in countries
affected
> by US sanctions or US actions has seen first hand the damage they
cause to
> innocent civilian populations. Just the day before the attacks on
US soil,
> the US bombed Iraq, killing a few in the process.
True. But again, the US government, not the US people.
> The US has been the biggest sponsor of terrorism in the last century
and is
> still the biggest threat to world peace.
Probably.
> Hate America? Not specifically.
Good.
> Hate US foreign policy? You bettcha.
"some aspects of" etc
> Despise the USA for the suffering it has inflicted in many parts of
the
> globe? Hell, yes!
Indeed. with the same distinction, as mentioned above . . . .
...Tom
<den...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>> Despise the USA for the suffering it has inflicted in many parts of
>the
>> globe? Hell, yes!
>
>
>Indeed. with the same distinction, as mentioned above . . . .
I'm no fan of chunks of US policy but it should be noted that their
annual aid expenditure is substantial. Aghanistan alone is in receipt
of $100m plus. Could you imagine the favour being returned?
...Tom
LP
...Tom <to...@ihug.blahblah.co.nz> wrote in message
news:0kvfqt8634k64pkug...@4ax.com...
Is it? I thought all US government aid to Afghanistan ceased when the
Russians were driven out.
Brian Dooley
>You are entitled to you preferences as am I. But why do one million
>people every year choose to settle in the US?
Perhaps because they are shallow and materialistic also??
Brian Dooley
<omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
snip---
>Why does the helped hate the helper?
That too is a remarkably common thread in human action.
Brian Dooley
(Jason M) wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 04:53:35 +1200, Patrick Dunford
><a47...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
snip---
>>You can convince yourself you'd rather live in North Korea if you want
>>to.
>
>I am very happy living where I am thanks. I have everything that I
>need right here in NZ.
Me too. Patrick's response is a bit trite, even for him. But of
one thing you can be sure - when the only thing left is an appeal
to North Korea then the argument is lost.
Brian Dooley
I must ask my several American neighbours about this.
Brian Dooley
>Jordan Carter wrote:
>>
>SNIP
>> Anyone who tries to dress it up as some sort of ideological crusade by those
>> who hate liberalism and the West and capitalism and such is, I fear, missing
>> the very important point.
>>
>> Jordan.
>The troubles is that many of the failures of US policy derive from their
>reluctance to play out the role of world policeman. America is
>instincitively isolationist and gets dragged into roles it would rather
>not play. And because of this tries to avoid body bags and pulls out too
>soon. The Gulf War is a fine example.
>
>But I remember Kim Hill virtually abusing an American rep of some kind
>at the time of Kosovo saying "you must do something. This cannot go on.
>Get in there and do something". So eventually and reluctantly they did.
>Next week Radio New Zealand was full of tales of American perfidy
>because civilians had been killed etc.
>They are on a hiding to nothing.
>The same with the Afgans. They helped drive out the Soviets and then
>packed up and went home. Maybe they should have stucm around to make
>sure things went well from then on. But if they had they would have been
>accused of imposing western values on eastern people.
>I do wonder why they bother. The end result is where we are today.
A possible answer is that it is no longer possible to be
isolationist - especially if you want to sell to the world.
Who would have imagined 50 years ago that the Chinese would be
bottling Coca-cola?
Brian Dooley
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 16:59:19 +1200, Patrick Dunford
<a47...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>In article <3bcbb3d3...@news.clear.net.nz> on Tue, 18 Sep 2001
>03:17:09 GMT in nz.politics, Brian Dooley <bri...@clear.net.nz> wrote...
>>
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:37:39 +1300, Owen McShane
>> <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
>>
>> >pulled from
>> >
>> >http://www.townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/sc20010913.shtml
>> >
>> >Steve Chapman (archive)
>> >(printer-friendly version)
>>
>> snip---
>>
>> >Love it.
>>
>> You can love it, Owen, but you will be wrong. The over-riding
>> reason is the unwavering support given by the US to the
>> dispossession of the Palestinians by Israel.
>
>N o such thing. Haven't you noticed how every attack is condemned bu the
>US?
Do you seriously believe that Israel could have survived without
US support?
Brian Dooley
>Brian Dooley wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:37:39 +1300, Owen McShane
>> <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
>>
>> >pulled from
>> >
>> >http://www.townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/sc20010913.shtml
>> >
>> >Steve Chapman (archive)
>> >(printer-friendly version)
>>
>> snip---
>>
>> >Love it.
>>
>> You can love it, Owen, but you will be wrong. The over-riding
>> reason is the unwavering support given by the US to the
>> dispossession of the Palestinians by Israel.
>
>Then the Palestinians have short memories.
The ones who count can't have anything else. They are those who
have spent their whole lives, and that of their parents,
dispossessed of land that they *believe* is theirs.
Brian Dooley
<omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
snip---
>> You can love it, Owen, but you will be wrong. The over-riding
>> reason is the unwavering support given by the US to the
>> dispossession of the Palestinians by Israel.
>>
>> Brian Dooley
>>
>> Wellington New Zealand
>This explains the hatred of the Arab world,
Which is what I thought we were talking about.
>but not the hatred you find
>here in New Zealand...
Frankly I don't think that your representative NZer has the
background, upbringing or temperament to hate anything much.
They've not been called a passionless people for nothing.*
>...and elsewhere.
Where's elsewhere, Owen?
*Pretty dull, really.
With the possible exception of John Clarke, and maybe Murray
Ball, and perhaps one or two others.
Brian Dooley
<den...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
snip---
>You Read It Here First.
No I didn't, Denver. Not by a hell of a long chalk.
But you are correct - if a bit trite.
Which doesn't mean that it shouldn't be reiterated from time to
time.
...Tom
wrote:
>
>Who would have imagined 50 years ago that the Chinese would be
>bottling Coca-cola?
Could it be that someone realised that it's just a drink.
...Tom
...Tom
wrote:
>
>>but not the hatred you find
>>here in New Zealand...
>
>Frankly I don't think that your representative NZer has the
>background, upbringing or temperament to hate anything much.
>
>They've not been called a passionless people for nothing.*
Hmm Not sure I can go with this Brian.
I don't hate anyone much. I figure life's too short to waste it hating
people, but I can get pretty damn passionate :)
I think on the whole we're undemonstrative, but I don't think
passionless.
...Tom
Peter Kenyon
> Peter Kenyon wrote:
> >
> SNIP
> > > >
> > > > Peter
> > > Yes, just one man's answer – which is all anything can be in a free
> > > society. So what is your answer?
> >
> > I don't have a quick one I can think of off the top of my head. But
> > the old jealousy argument, which is simplistic and transparently
> > self-serving, isn't going to provide any answers.
> Why not? Jealousy is a remarkably common thread in human action. See
> Othello.
Jealousy occurs. So does greed, bigotry, anger, desperation,
indifference and arrogance. Human nature has many flaws. Why do some
people put so much emphasis on jealousy, as if it was the root of all
evil?
Is there any evidence to suggest that jealousy could have been the
motive in this case? I haven't seen any.
> > Nor are the other people's attempts to transform the incident into a
> > cosmic struggle between the shining forces of heroic capitalism and
> > everything else that slithers, crawls, collectivises or otherwise
> > rejects the gospel of the free market. Those people all have an agenda
> > to push.
> >
> > The United States does seem to have a habit of creating dislike for
> > itself around the world. Maybe some of that could be avoided if they
> > were just a little less quick to set themselves up as the world's
> > policeman, or if they were a little more even-handed in the way they
> > deal with other countries.
> Less Quick? They US is usually a reluctant policeman and then when it
> finally moves is subject to the slings and arrows of those who pushed
> them into it.
> > The CIA's business of destabilising regimes they don't like by
> > providing funds, training, ammunition etc to their enemies may have
> > also bitten them in a big way this time.
>
> It seems bin Ladin, at least
> > in part, is a monster of their own creation- like Saddam Hussein.
> So why does he hate them? Why does the helped hate the helper?
Plenty of people are willing to make temporary alliances with one
enemy in order to defeat another.
Peter
Peter Kenyon
> >
> > On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 09:53:31 +1300, Owen McShane
> > <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
> >
> > >Jason M wrote:
> > >>
> > >> On 17 Sep 2001 03:29:55 -0700, kong...@freeze.com (Peter Kenyon)
> > >> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> >An American uses this tragedy to pat himself and his country on the
> > >> >back and tell themselves it was all because the rest of the world is
> > >> >jealous of their success and way of life. It's not.
> > >>
> > >> This jealousy theory is a common delusion of Americans (and rich New
> > >> Zealanders). Somehow we need to convince them that the rest of us do
> > >> not want to be like them. Perhaps if we tell them often enough, they
> > >> might start to understand.
> > >>
> > >> >Maybe people do see Americans as shallow and materialistic, and feel
> > >> >offended by their values or lack of them.
> > >>
> > >> Yep.
> > >>
> > >> Jason M
> > >You are entitled to you preferences as am I. But why do one million
> > >people every year choose to settle in the US?
> >
> > Why do I keep meeting Americans who would prefer to live in New
> > Zealand?
> >
> > Jason M
> sell up thier assets in American and become twice as asset rich
> overnight by converting UG dollars into kiwi pesos.
Why don't they sell up and convert their assets into real pesos and
move to Mexico instead? They'd be even more asset-rich then. Or
perhaps New Zealand has some other advantages, apart from a low
exchange rate.
Peter
Barry Phease
<omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
>This explains the hatred of the Arab world,
:)
>but not the hatred you find
>here in New Zealand and elsewhere.
It is strange how you can compare the two. The "hatred" of the arab
world leads people to give up their own lives (as well as taking many
others) to pursue their ideals.
I can't see any NZers doing that.
There is certainly an element of dislike for America and what it
stands for. Many things that are decried as americanisation are not
in fact America's fault but still America gets the blame because they
arose there first.
You perhaps may like the trends that seem to emanate out of America,
MacDonalds etc, total reliance on the private car, excessive
consumerism, mallification of cities/death of the central city, mirror
glass towers housing mirror glass people. I could go on.
America is not responsible for the proliferation of these in NZ, NZers
are. America perhaps gets the blame.
America's foreign policy is remarkably self-centred, but is ours
really any better? Ours of course has less effect, for good or for
evil.
American tourists may be famous for wearing loud clothes and using
loud voices, but some NZ tourists can make themsleves pretty obnoxious
too. Again there are somewhat fewer NZ tourists to make less of an
impression.
So really Americans are hated more than other people because they are
more successful and so are noticed more.
Jason M
wrote:
>On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 11:22:49 GMT, jmam...@NOSPAMhotmail.com
>(Jason M) wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 04:53:35 +1200, Patrick Dunford
>><a47...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>>>You can convince yourself you'd rather live in North Korea if you want
>>>to.
>>
>>I am very happy living where I am thanks. I have everything that I
>>need right here in NZ.
>
>Me too. Patrick's response is a bit trite, even for him. But of
>one thing you can be sure - when the only thing left is an appeal
>to North Korea then the argument is lost.
Ah, shall we call this Dooley's Law from now on?
Jason M
Peter Kenyon
> Jordan Carter wrote:
> >
> SNIP
> > Anyone who tries to dress it up as some sort of ideological crusade by those
> > who hate liberalism and the West and capitalism and such is, I fear, missing
> > the very important point.
> >
> > Jordan.
> The troubles is that many of the failures of US policy derive from their
> reluctance to play out the role of world policeman. America is
> instincitively isolationist and gets dragged into roles it would rather
> not play. And because of this tries to avoid body bags and pulls out too
> soon. The Gulf War is a fine example.
>
They don't want to have another Vietnam. And good on them.
> But I remember Kim Hill virtually abusing an American rep of some kind
> at the time of Kosovo saying "you must do something. This cannot go on.
> Get in there and do something". So eventually and reluctantly they did.
> Next week Radio New Zealand was full of tales of American perfidy
> because civilians had been killed etc.
> They are on a hiding to nothing.
> The same with the Afgans. They helped drive out the Soviets and then
> packed up and went home. Maybe they should have stucm around to make
> sure things went well from then on. But if they had they would have been
> accused of imposing western values on eastern people.
> I do wonder why they bother. The end result is where we are today.
Actually if one country has to play the role of world policeman I
would prefer it to be America than any of the alternatives. However,
much of the world may not see it that way. Many of the people America
steps in and "helps" haven't asked for their help.
There is also an element of self-righteousness in that they assume the
rest of the world wants to be the same as them.
Peter
Brandon Hutchison
>
> Is it? I thought all US government aid to Afghanistan ceased when the
> Russians were driven out.
>
They have recently given or offered them a few million if they'll
suppress the opium industry....
Peter Metcalfe
> The thousands who died in Chile because of the CIA overthrow of Allende.
The CIA didn't overthrow Allende. They attempted to shortly after
he was elected and failed. So they left well alone and Pinochet
did the job himself a couple of years later.
--Peter Metcalfe
Owen McShane
from weak currency economies to strong currency economies can daunt the
wealthy more than the poor.
LP
Brandon Hutchison <hu...@civil.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.91.101091...@civilaa.civil...
Yet, on TV the other night, a Brit reporter was saying that the opium fields
have gone, along with all the income they generated, and no compensation has
been received. The US State Dept says that just over US$11 million in food
aid had been budgeted for this year to help the Afghans, who are facing
starvation and now have no income. Might be just as well so many have left
Afghanistan - reports say there's only 20 million people left in the
country. So, US aid will give about 55c US per person per year. Whoopie!
Worth destroying the opium crop for?
Offering compensation and giving it seem to be two different things...
LP
Peter Kenyon <kong...@freeze.com> wrote in message
news:69a63f15.0109...@posting.google.com...
> Owen McShane <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote in message
news:<3BA712...@wk.planet.gen.nz>...
> > Peter Kenyon wrote:
> > >
> > SNIP
> > > > >
> > > > > Peter
> > > > Yes, just one man's answer – which is all anything can be in a
free
> > > > society. So what is your answer?
> > >
> > > I don't have a quick one I can think of off the top of my head. But
> > > the old jealousy argument, which is simplistic and transparently
> > > self-serving, isn't going to provide any answers.
> > Why not? Jealousy is a remarkably common thread in human action. See
> > Othello.
>
> Jealousy occurs. So does greed, bigotry, anger, desperation,
> indifference and arrogance. Human nature has many flaws. Why do some
> people put so much emphasis on jealousy, as if it was the root of all
> evil?
>
> Is there any evidence to suggest that jealousy could have been the
> motive in this case? I haven't seen any.
>
> > > The CIA's business of destabilising regimes they don't like by
> > > providing funds, training, ammunition etc to their enemies may have
> > > also bitten them in a big way this time.
> >
> > It seems bin Ladin, at least
> > > in part, is a monster of their own creation- like Saddam Hussein.
>
> > So why does he hate them? Why does the helped hate the helper?
>
> Plenty of people are willing to make temporary alliances with one
> enemy in order to defeat another.
>
The CIA used the mujaheddin for a covert operation to oust Russia from
Afghanistan.
The US poured money and weapons into Afghanistan because it suited their
purposes.
No US servicemen fought or died, only Afghans and other Muslims who went to
their aid (like Bin Laden).
Just who was the helper and who the "helped"?
John Cawston
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 19:17:18 +1200, John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> >Then the Palestinians have short memories. Israel is a construct
> >mainly of the British. Its probably fair to say that America didn't
> >get interested in the place until about 1967.
>
> Hmm! My understanding is that in 1948 the Jewish state was
> established with support from groups within America against the wishes
> of the British government.
Both sides actually sought to have the ballot delayed, i.e., Palestinians
and Jews, to allow more time for lobbying. The Brits were by that time
somewhat irrelevant as they had handed the problem over to the UN.
Incidentally, UK abstained.
>
>
> The Palestinians certainly have much to chide Britain against, but the
> "catastrophe" could not have happened without American support.
The vote was 33 to 13. Those deathless friends of the US, China and
Russia, voted with the US for Partition.
JC
John Cawston
> "Owen McShane " <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote in message
> news:3BA6BE...@wk.planet.gen.nz...
> > Jordan Carter wrote:
> > >
> > SNIP
> > > Anyone who tries to dress it up as some sort of ideological crusade by
> those
> > > who hate liberalism and the West and capitalism and such is, I fear,
> missing
> > > the very important point.
> > >
> > > Jordan.
> > The troubles is that many of the failures of US policy derive from their
> > reluctance to play out the role of world policeman.
> ...
> > I do wonder why they bother. The end result is where we are today.
>
> I think in essence this is right. It is the nature of police that they
> generate resentment. I do think, though, that they could play the role a
> bit better.. don't you?
Take the Balkans. There was unbearable pressure brought to bear on Europe and
America to get in there and play policeman. It turned to shit with the various
policemen being largely ignored and the slaughter went on.
Same in Kosovo, only this time, the US sort of achieved the objectives
demanded by public opinion.
In both examples, the screaming for the West and esp the US to get in and stop
the slaughter became unbearable and action was taken. However, once the action
started and continued, the policemen became hated and will be vilified on
Usenet forevermore.
The Gulf can be considered similarly.
One of the reasons why the US is hated after these actions is they do their
thing in a way that minimizes their own losses while maximizing damage on the
enemy.
This is considered quite unsatisfactory to TV watchers who want to see blood,
heroes and charges on horseback.
JC
John Cawston
No. They were still supporting the country even the past financial year.
IIRC, America remains Afghanistan's largest source of aid.
JC
yak
Barry Phease wrote:
>
> On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 22:26:30 +1300, Owen McShane
> <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
>
> >This explains the hatred of the Arab world,
>
> :)
>
> >but not the hatred you find
> >here in New Zealand and elsewhere.
>
> It is strange how you can compare the two. The "hatred" of the arab
> world leads people to give up their own lives (as well as taking many
> others) to pursue their ideals.
>
> I can't see any NZers doing that.
>
> There is certainly an element of dislike for America and what it
> stands for. Many things that are decried as americanisation are not
> in fact America's fault but still America gets the blame because they
> arose there first.
>
> You perhaps may like the trends that seem to emanate out of America,
> MacDonalds etc, total reliance on the private car, excessive
> consumerism, mallification of cities/death of the central city, mirror
> glass towers housing mirror glass people. I could go on.
>
> America is not responsible for the proliferation of these in NZ, NZers
> are. America perhaps gets the blame.
>
> America's foreign policy is remarkably self-centred, but is ours
> really any better? Ours of course has less effect, for good or for
> evil.
Yes it is. Our foreign policies are concerned with:
Getting access to markets to sell our goods.
Assisting small Pacific nations.
Stopping nukes and saving whales.
Adding our two cents to UN and other international bodies.
We don't fund/support insurgencies.
We don't sponsor terrorists.
We don't give unconditional support to occupying powers.
We don't toggle between financial assistance and complete isolation
depending on what's politically expedient.
We compromise on International Treaties and agreements and don't spit
the dummy and leave if it doesn't go all our own way.
> American tourists may be famous for wearing loud clothes and using
> loud voices, but some NZ tourists can make themsleves pretty obnoxious
> too. Again there are somewhat fewer NZ tourists to make less of an
> impression.
>
> So really Americans are hated more than other people because they are
> more successful and so are noticed more.
No no. More successful? Richer as a nation certainly but their standard
of living is no better than many other nations and there are many people
in the US who have a much worse standard of living.
I guess they can't help being noticed more as they produce far more
content than any other nation and they've made an art form of marketing.
And they're not too shy to blow their own horn tremendously loud at
times.
What about the other big rich western countries? Why aren't the EU
members recipient of more hatred? Is it perhaps because they try to make
their policies even-handed and fair? Is it because they continuously
engage many different countries diplomatically? They certainly aren't
immune to terrorism but there is no where near the ill-feeling towards
the US.
Regards
yak
--
"Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end."
-Richard Dawkins
Peter Metcalfe
> > The Palestinians certainly have much to chide Britain against, but the
> > "catastrophe" could not have happened without American support.
> The vote was 33 to 13. Those deathless friends of the US, China and
> Russia, voted with the US for Partition.
China at the time was Nationalist China led by Chiang Chai-Shek, not
the People's Republic.
--Peter Metcalfe
Owen McShane
And I presume you were not born during the second world war when most
New Zealanders had less than love and affection for the Germans while
being quite appreciative of the Americans.
The Jews will tell you a great deal about the fairness of the Germans.
>
> Regards
> yak
> --
> "Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end."
> -Richard Dawkins
--
John Cawston
> Brandon Hutchison <hu...@civil.canterbury.ac.nz> wrote in message
> news:Pine.OSF.3.91.101091...@civilaa.civil...
> > On Wed, 19 Sep 2001, LP wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Is it? I thought all US government aid to Afghanistan ceased when the
> > > Russians were driven out.
> > >
> >
> > They have recently given or offered them a few million if they'll
> > suppress the opium industry....
>
> Yet, on TV the other night, a Brit reporter was saying that the opium fields
> have gone, along with all the income they generated, and no compensation has
> been received.
Nope.
http://www.afgha.com/sections.php?op=viewarticle&artid=89
> The US State Dept says that just over US$11 million in food
> aid had been budgeted for this year to help the Afghans, who are facing
> starvation and now have no income. Might be just as well so many have left
> Afghanistan - reports say there's only 20 million people left in the
> country. So, US aid will give about 55c US per person per year. Whoopie!
> Worth destroying the opium crop for?
> Offering compensation and giving it seem to be two different things...
The US gave $100 million last year. $70 million in 1997 and is the largest
source of aid money to Afghanistan.
JC
John Cawston
Clearly the US and Afghanistan, by your own description.
JC
Peter Metcalfe
> Yes it is. Our foreign policies are concerned with:
> Getting access to markets to sell our goods.
> Assisting small Pacific nations.
Infering in Fiji's internal affairs (even unto setting up
a court case), shooting Samoans in a peaceful demostration,
oppression of own natives (to the extent of taking most
of their land)...
> Stopping nukes and saving whales.
Interference with aboriginal customs for hunting whales.
> Adding our two cents to UN and other international bodies.
Adding our two cents to a body that is only a forum for
expressing hatred and which never does any good. Tacit
acceptance of Indonesia's conquest of East Papua and West
Timor. Recognized the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate
government of Cambodia for _several_ years _after_ the
Vietnamese had overthrown them. Interference in Papua
New Guinea's domestic affairs. Butt-kissing to the
Butchers of Tianamen Square (the Dalai Lama and the Falang
Gong will not be impressed). Maintanence of sporting
ties with a racist country. Brutal oppression of genuine
revoluntionaries in Malaysia.
> We don't fund/support insurgencies.
We supported with military force the uprising of a corrupt
Japanese quisling in South Korea against the free and peace
loving government of North Korea. We've done the same with
respect to the artificial creation of a statelet in Vietnam
for little reason other than a debunked political theory.
> We don't sponsor terrorists.
Wrong. We've demanded that a government speak to a convicted
traitor against his own country whose crimes were such that
Amnesty International refused to recognize him as a political
prisoner.
> We don't give unconditional support to occupying powers.
We gave complete and unconditional support to the powers
that occupied Western Samoa, Egypt, Syria, Western Germany,
Italian Somaliland, Vietnam and Japan.
> We don't toggle between financial assistance and complete isolation
> depending on what's politically expedient.
Neither did the States.
> We compromise on International Treaties and agreements and don't spit
> the dummy and leave if it doesn't go all our own way.
We have broken numerous treaties and agreements. The Treaty of
Waitangi was broken because we didn't like it. We tore up
Anzus because we didn't like it. We took a pilot to court
on evidence that an international convention said that we
should not use. Our government is an illegal government because
it did not hold a referendum to establish its own authority when
it took its place on the League of Nations.
Truely we are an evil country worthy only of our complete extermination.
--Peter Metcalfe
Denver Fletcher
news:0kvfqt8634k64pkug...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 13:59:02 +1200, "Denver Fletcher"
> <den...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> >> Despise the USA for the suffering it has inflicted in many parts
of
> >the
> >> globe? Hell, yes!
> >Indeed. with the same distinction, as mentioned above . . . .
>
> I'm no fan of chunks of US policy but it should be noted that their
> annual aid expenditure is substantial. Aghanistan alone is in
receipt
> of $100m plus. Could you imagine the favour being returned?
Never.
But I don't hate America, I simply have a healthy sense of scepticism
when it comes to their official version of foreign policy.
I certainly don't hate Americans, most all of the ones I've met have
been thoroughly likable people.
But then that's also true for every other nationality I could name.
Barry Phease
<metc...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>Tacit
>acceptance of Indonesia's conquest of East Papua and West
>Timor.
~~~~ ~~~~
You are holding the map the right way up Peter, but you forgot to
reorient the compass. :)
yak
Of course they will. The holocaust is the yardstick we use to measure
how bad things can get. But the most common criticisms of modern
Democratic Germany seem to be they hog the deck chairs at spanish
resorts.
What exactly post rainbow warrior are you referring to and how is it
relevant to my arguments?
regds
Matt Ledgerwood
OK, change that to the thousands who died because of the CIAs
involvement in the overthrowing of Allende and the support
and advice they gave to Pinochet.
This article covers it pretty well.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Pinochet_on_trial/Story/0,2763,448749,00.html
Brian Dooley
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 20:00:40 +1200, ro...@xtra.co.nz (Robin
Klitscher) wrote:
>In article <3BA6F4FE...@ihug.co.nz>,
>John Cawston <rewa...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>Brian Dooley wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:37:39 +1300, Owen McShane
>>> <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
>>>
>>> >pulled from
>>> >
>>> >http://www.townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/sc20010913.shtml
>>> >
>>> >Steve Chapman (archive)
>>> >(printer-friendly version)
>>>
>>> snip---
>>>
>>> >Love it.
>>>
>>> You can love it, Owen, but you will be wrong. The over-riding
>>> reason is the unwavering support given by the US to the
>>> dispossession of the Palestinians by Israel.
>>
>>Then the Palestinians have short memories. Israel is a construct
>>mainly of the British. Its probably fair to say that America didn't
>>get interested in the place until about 1967.
>>
>>Of course, most of the world can share in the work that established
>>Israel as the majority of nations voted for it to come into existence
>>in the late 1940's.
>>
>>However, I suppose its fair to blame the US for giving it the
>>wherewithal to survive over the past few decades.
>>
>
>
>British interest in re-establishing a Jewish homeland first swam into
>serious public view in August 1840. On August 17 that year the Times
>published a leader on a plan to "plant the Jewish people in the land of
>their fathers" which was now "under serious political consideration".
>A week previously Lord Palmerston (Foreign Secretary) had written to
>his Ambassador in Istanbul that "There exists at the present time among
>the Jews dispersed over Europe a strong notion that the time is
>approaching when their nation is to return to Palestine ...." Behind
>this and the Times leader was the influence of the Earl of Shaftesbury
>- he of the famous Factory Act and other legislation that sharply
>reformed workers' conditions in England at that time.
>
>If you want to know more, read Barbara Tuchman's "Bible and Sword",
>copyrighted 1956, ISBN 0 333 48324-3 - findable at good second-hand
>bookshops. Irrespective of any predispositions you may have, it's a
>very good read.
I reckon I have a reasonably good grasp of the background, Robin,
but my point is that it is irrelevant prior to the time that
Palestinians became refugees. We now have a third generation who
know nothing but camp life while practically within line of sight
they can see land which perhaps belonged to their grandfather.
It seems unreasonable to me that we should expect no
repercussions.
Brian Dooley
Wellington New Zealand
Brian Dooley
On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 23:58:15 +1200, ro...@xtra.co.nz (Robin
Klitscher) wrote:
snip---
>Rather it might be, as it has always been, purely a case of power
>politics. If she is right, and if I haven't extended her thesis too
>far, then the pattern may be running oddly true to form, since the
>power that now dominates the region is also the one that dominates
>Europe notwithstanding that it is geograpically removed from both.
>
>Well, it's a theory .........
But until the recent past Palestine really was always a 'hinge'
at the junction of several major competing powers. Egypt could go
nowhere except through Palestine, Persia couldn't get to the sea
except through Palestine, the Hittites couldn't get at Egypt
except through Palestine, and Europe couldn't trade to the East
except through Palestine.
Geography has certainly dictated history there (although perhaps
that's a truism.
But is that the case now?
Brian Dooley
On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 12:13:20 +1300, Owen McShane
<omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
>Denver Fletcher wrote:
>>
>> "Owen McShane " <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote in message
>> news:3BA713...@wk.planet.gen.nz...
>> > Brian Dooley wrote:
>> > > On Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:37:39 +1300, Owen McShane
>> > > <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
>> > > >pulled from
>> > > >http://www.townhall.com/columnists/stevechapman/sc20010913.shtml
>> > > >Steve Chapman (archive)
>> > > >(printer-friendly version)
>> > > snip---
>> > > >Love it.
>> > > You can love it, Owen, but you will be wrong. The over-riding
>> > > reason is the unwavering support given by the US to the
>> > > dispossession of the Palestinians by Israel.
>> > This explains the hatred of the Arab world, but not the hatred you
>> find
>> > here in New Zealand and elsewhere.
>>
>> Oh come on! - All of you! Aren't any of you aware of how thick you're
>> laying it on?
>>
>> Hatred of America? Here in NZ? Sure Owen, that's why my mates Kingi
>> and Joe were amongst the hijackers! Get fucking real, will ya?
>
>If you have never met New Zealanders who hate Americans and AMerica then
>you have led a sheltered political life.
>I can assure you I have - but then I grew up in a communist household.
>And the "here" I referred to was this and other newsgroups. Should have
>been a comma after "here" - sorry about that.
Could it be that your own background leads you to exaggerate the
incidence of anti-americanism - something like one has to be
sensitized before developing an allergy?
And you must surely recognise that the newsgroups attract those
with a legitimate axe to grind.
And of course plenty of kooks as well.
Owen McShane
>
> Owen McShane wrote:
> >
SNIP
>
> > Were you not around after the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior?
> > And I presume you were not born during the second world war when most
> > New Zealanders had less than love and affection for the Germans while
> > being quite appreciative of the Americans.
> > The Jews will tell you a great deal about the fairness of the Germans.
>
> Of course they will. The holocaust is the yardstick we use to measure
> how bad things can get. But the most common criticisms of modern
> Democratic Germany seem to be they hog the deck chairs at spanish
> resorts.
> What exactly post rainbow warrior are you referring to and how is it
> relevant to my arguments?
The bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in the Port of Auckland was an act of
Terrorism comitted by the French State against New Zealand. A crew
member was killed.
We tried to bring the terrorists to trial but we did a trade deal and
they spent one year on a tropical island and then went home as heros.
And ask a few Algerians about the French as colonists.
> regds
> yak
> --
> "Religion teaches the dangerous nonsense that death is not the end."
> -Richard Dawkins
--
Redbaiter
says...
Guardian.. haw haw... how fucking typical...
yak
Owen McShane wrote:
>
> yak wrote:
> >
> > Owen McShane wrote:
> > >
> SNIP
> >
> > > Were you not around after the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior?
> > > And I presume you were not born during the second world war when most
> > > New Zealanders had less than love and affection for the Germans while
> > > being quite appreciative of the Americans.
> > > The Jews will tell you a great deal about the fairness of the Germans.
> >
> > Of course they will. The holocaust is the yardstick we use to measure
> > how bad things can get. But the most common criticisms of modern
> > Democratic Germany seem to be they hog the deck chairs at spanish
> > resorts.
> > What exactly post rainbow warrior are you referring to and how is it
> > relevant to my arguments?
>
> The bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in the Port of Auckland was an act of
> Terrorism comitted by the French State against New Zealand. A crew
> member was killed.
> We tried to bring the terrorists to trial but we did a trade deal and
> they spent one year on a tropical island and then went home as heros.
> And ask a few Algerians about the French as colonists.
You seem to have misread me. I didn't say that nobody resents us or the
Europeans. Every country has incidences that they are at least resented
for if not hated. But no country in modern times seems to provoke even
remotely the same level of antagonism as the United States of America.
Regds
Brian Dooley
On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 05:10:54 GMT, jmam...@NOSPAMhotmail.com
(Jason M) wrote:
>On Wed, 19 Sep 2001 03:37:26 GMT, bri...@clear.net.nz (Brian Dooley)
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 11:22:49 GMT, jmam...@NOSPAMhotmail.com
>>(Jason M) wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 04:53:35 +1200, Patrick Dunford
>>><a47...@yahoo.co.nz> wrote:
>
>>>>You can convince yourself you'd rather live in North Korea if you want
>>>>to.
>>>
>>>I am very happy living where I am thanks. I have everything that I
>>>need right here in NZ.
>>
>>Me too. Patrick's response is a bit trite, even for him. But of
>>one thing you can be sure - when the only thing left is an appeal
>>to North Korea then the argument is lost.
>
>Ah, shall we call this Dooley's Law from now on?
Can I have that in writing?
Jason M
wrote:
In case you think of other laws, this one will be called
Dooley's North Korea Law:
"When the only thing left is an appeal to North Korea then the
argument is lost".
Jason M
Denver Fletcher
Fuck that, ask a few Asians. The whole of French Indo-China was a huge
mess by the time the French got kicked out.
Although Kennedy's mindless adventurism made a bad situation worse,
the French were (still are) notorious for being execrable colonists. A
story circulates of a Foreign Legion contingent staffed by ex-Nazi
officers, and this from the arseholes who now claim they were "all" in
the resistance, when more than half their friggin country was
collaborating with the Germans.
The French tendency to insular self-absorption and completely
unwarranted arrogance is exceeded only by the Australians, imo.
Robin Klitscher
In article <3BA934...@wk.planet.gen.nz>,
Owen McShane <omcs...@wk.planet.gen.nz> wrote:
<snip>
>
>The bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in the Port of Auckland was an act of
>Terrorism comitted by the French State against New Zealand. A crew
>member was killed.
The bombing of the Rainbow Warrior in the Port of Auckland was an act
of terrorism - or of sabotage, but let's not split hairs over that -
committed by the French State against Greenpeace. Because it happened
in the Port of Auckland it insulted our sovereignty; it exposed a
number of vulnerabilities; and it offended us mightily. And for good
reason. But it was not directed at, nor did it terrorize, New Zealand.
>We tried to bring the terrorists to trial but we did a trade deal and
>they spent one year on a tropical island and then went home as heros.
>And ask a few Algerians about the French as colonists.
>
We did bring the two we caught to trial. We convicted them, and sent
them to jail. Only later did we hand them back to the French. They
were sent to Hao in French custody and, later again, were repatriated
to France.
--
Robin Klitscher
Wellington ("Harbour City") NZ
Denver Fletcher
news:3bb6170c...@news.clear.net.nz...
I would think so.
America certainly seems to perceive its interests lie in supporting
the Israeli's, no matter how offensive their behaviour, and they don't
seem to exercise much in the way of a civilising influence.
Not saying that the Israelis are *un*civilised per se (else things
would be much worse) but they do appear to forget what its like to be
on the other end of some of their tactics.
To the US, Israel seems to be a convenient foil against Russia, a
potentially stronger and more troublesome Arab League, various OPEC
members, and the Saudi's (who, although considered friendly, are
simply not accorded the same trust as the Israelis in US foreign
policy dealings) who remain on possession of strategically important
oil reserves.
And most of this is, as you say, determined by the geography and the
local political history, or so it seems to me.
Denver Fletcher
news:3ba9c000...@news.akl.ihugultra.co.nz...
Actually, I think it should be "Dooley's North Korean Variation on
Godwin's Law"
- which preserves the earlier attribution.
Robin Klitscher
In article <3bb6170c...@news.clear.net.nz>,
bri...@clear.net.nz (Brian Dooley) wrote:
>
>On Tue, 18 Sep 2001 23:58:15 +1200, ro...@xtra.co.nz (Robin
>Klitscher) wrote:
>
>snip---
>
>>Rather it might be, as it has always been, purely a case of power
>>politics. If she is right, and if I haven't extended her thesis too
>>far, then the pattern may be running oddly true to form, since the
>>power that now dominates the region is also the one that dominates
>>Europe notwithstanding that it is geograpically removed from both.
>>
>>Well, it's a theory .........
>
>But until the recent past Palestine really was always a 'hinge'
>at the junction of several major competing powers. Egypt could go
>nowhere except through Palestine, Persia couldn't get to the sea
>except through Palestine, the Hittites couldn't get at Egypt
>except through Palestine, and Europe couldn't trade to the East
>except through Palestine.
>
Tuchman wasn't talking of the Persians, the Egyptians or the Hittites.
Nor of Europe as an entity, for that matter. Rather she was making the
point that Europe was/is _not_ an entity; and that, precisely because
it wasn't, no European Power including Russia was willing to allow any
other European Power to dominate the region.
>Geography has certainly dictated history there (although perhaps
>that's a truism.
>
>But is that the case now?
>
Probably. Then, as you say, the issue was trade through the region to
beyond it. Metaphorically the lubricant was the slipperiness of silk.
The issue now is trade to and from the region as well as through it;
and the lubricant is oil.
Lats
<den...@paradise.net.nz> smoked a huge phatty and rambled:
>The French tendency to insular self-absorption and completely
>unwarranted arrogance is exceeded only by the Australians, imo.
>
I think I'd put the US up there as well though. They seem to have an
overwhelming patriotism verging on fanatacism. In some ways I wish New
Zealanders were more like that, although without the arrogance and
obnoxiousness. But I guess you can't have one without the other, so
maybe I'll keep us just the way we are.
--
Lats :)
--
*
.*
**.
.**** .'
*****. **
'. '*****. .***
**.. '****** .****
.***. '******' ******
.****. ****** *******
.****. '******' .*******.
.***** ******' .*******.
******. .*****' .*******.
******. .*****' .******.
.****** *****. .****** ..'
*****. '**** .******. .****.
.. .***** ***' .****. ..******'
'***... '****. '** **** ..*******''
'*******.. **** ** ***. ..*******''
'*********. *** '* .** ..*******'
'********.. ** * *' .*****''
''*******. *** ***'
''******..
.***' ****.
Just Smoke It!
Redbaiter
lats@can_of_spam.inet.net.nz says...
> In some ways I wish New
> Zealanders were more like that, although without the arrogance and
> obnoxiousness.
So the whole 270 million people in the USA are arrogant and
obnoxious...???
What braindead trendy shit...
Get a fucking life loser..
traveler
fanaticism here in the USA. Patriotism should not mean
"proud to be ignorant and prejudiced" as many of the people
i know are. It's not the whole country--mainly the ones who
get on the news.
T
--
"When you sow the seeds of hate, when you harbor terror,
house, clothe, school, and arm evil, don't be surprised
when it comes knocking, hungry, angry, and beyond your
control."
Brian Dooley
snip---
>The French tendency to insular self-absorption and completely
>unwarranted arrogance is exceeded only by the Australians, imo.
A bit hard on the French, isn't it?
Newsman
wrote:
>On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 00:13:37 +1200, "Denver Fletcher"
><den...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
>snip---
>
>>The French tendency to insular self-absorption and completely
>>unwarranted arrogance is exceeded only by the Australians, imo.
>
>A bit hard on the French, isn't it?
>
Nope. Snailbaiter is undoubtedly French.
Newsman
Denver Fletcher
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2001 00:13:37 +1200, "Denver Fletcher"
> <den...@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>
> snip---
> >The French tendency to insular self-absorption and completely
> >unwarranted arrogance is exceeded only by the Australians, imo.
>
> A bit hard on the French, isn't it?
I call it as I see it.
;-)
Scott Overmyer
> >years. What makes it so important, then and now, is its exaltation of
> >the "unalienable rights" of every person -- including "life, liberty and
> >the pursuit of happiness."
>
> Nothing wrong with the theory, only with the application.
Nothing wrong with the application, either. With a population of nearly 400
million, I think that America does pretty well in maintaining this philosophy
for the vast majority of its citizens. At least American politicians have
some level of competence, with a 4-year university degree or better, and many
with long histories of experience and involvement in politics from the local
level up to the national level. Sorry that we can't say the same for
Kiwiland. I believe that its safe to say that most Kiwi politicians have
been "less than successful" in everything else they've tried, and have been
elected by a small segment of the population on a fluke.
> If these were so important then the US would not be one of the leading
> countries in incarcerating and executing their citizens.
In a free society, one is given enough rope to hang oneself. Most criminals
in America have hung themselves, not the other way around.
> No the underlying philosophy of america is that there is NO greater
> cause that youself. Hedonism rules.
Compare the level of charitable financial contributions in the U.S. (per
capita) with those in New Zealand, then tell me who the hedonists are! Get
informed, mate. You wouldn't be a Green would you?
> Actually this is not confined to america, but they do lead the world
> here.
It must be humiliating having to make such a consession!
> No! most people can't care less about this right. What they care
> about is the right of palestinians, iraqis, etc to life, clean water,
> food, medicines etc. Of course it is not fair to blame the USA alone
> for their not having these, but as with all people, they need someone
> to blame and americans are a very visible target.
Palestinians, Iraqis, etcetera (as you say, not having adequate exemplars),
have the right to self-determination. Let's compare: Israel was seeded
(financially) and is supported largely by wealthy Jews in the U.S. and around
the world. There are also wealthy Arabs around the world (especially in the
Middle East). So how do they apply their wealth? Certainly not to relieve
the suffering in their own back yard! Do you have any notion of how much
money the U.S. sends both directly and through relief agencies into the
Middle East? Obviously not.
Scott Overmyer
tran...@ruralestate.com
Brian Dooley
<tran...@ruralspace.com> wrote:
snip---
>With a population of nearly 400
>million, I think that America does pretty well
250 million is more like it.
Is that an ac. address I see?
Dearie me.