why some of arabs hate USA?

[Kerr]

:slap:

We don´t agree often... but on this point, regarding that statement, we do, lol.

 

[Gharib]

We don´t agree often... but on this point, regarding that statement, we do, lol.

oh man, frubals to you. (i'm out at this moment but tomorrow when i log in again)

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Not yet, Its hard to compare an emerging super power with an existing one. Chinas militay interventions are fewer i admit but they are there, Korea,Vietnam,Tibet,Taiwan straights crisis, and i suggest we Keep an eye on the Indian/Chineses border,but if China was to expand its influence throughout the world it would also defend that influence as it sees fit. and the Chinese armed forces are building up steadily over the last decades.Why should China be any different than any other country that has had Global interests in the past?

That's a good point kai, however 1) that's all local to China and the extent of intervention doesn't even come close to American intervention, 2) there is the possibility for progress.

For example, if we look at history, is it really fair to say that all world superpowers have been equally unjust, power-hungry, corrupt, brutal, etc.? Was the Roman empire as terrible as the Aztec or Egyptian empires? Debatable, okay, but was the British empire as terrible? If you were going to be the subject of an empire, would you rather be a British subject or an Aztec subject?

100 years ago "empire" was considered a good and glorious thing, and you were considered quite liberal if you said "people of all races are equal". Today, you are considered extreme if you believe otherwise.

And is the American empire currently equivalent to the British empire? This has nothing to do with inherent differences between Americans and other people (obviously), but am I wrong that there has been some positive progress in the way powerful countries behave? There was no such thing as "human rights" and the declaration of human rights 100 years ago, there were no international laws about the responsibilities of occupying powers, etc. In the entire Iraq war it is estimated 100,000 civilians were killed, mostly as a result of coalition airstrikes, but this is radically different from the carpet bombing of civilian populations only 60 years earlier. 100,000 civilians were killed in a single firebombing raid on Tokyo. Today that would be totally unacceptable, the American people would not cheer that they would be outraged.

People -- Americans, British, Iraqis -- are more conscious about these issues and have more power over their governments than previously in history, and the same is happening in China. If the US was equivalent to the Roman empire we would have invaded Iran a LONG time ago, probably using carpet-bombing tactics against any city that didn't surrender. But the American people and the international community would protest and the government would be forced to listen.

 

[TashaN]

I think Arabs should look to themselves rather than invite another giant into their backyard. China will put China first just like everyone else ,and it isnt afraid to flex its muscles. Once the US has waned in its power who knows maybe China will be the next Great Satan.

I wasn't suggesting that China will be any better, but i was trying to point out that the US should save its power for something bigger than these wars.

 

[TashaN]

Great points, Tashan, thank you. It's very interesting to hear your opinion on this. However, I did want to hear your thoughts on Al Qaeda in Iraq and the sectarians (and I don't necessarily mean the resistance against US forces, I mean the sectarians who have massacred Sunnis/Shiites).... I guess I just want to see if you agree with how I feel about them. Let me explain:

It seems so obvious to me that those movements are "bad", and it seems that virtually everyone agrees they are bad, so it is useless to talk about how bad they are. We criticize the Iraqi government and the occupying forces because they COULD do a lot of good, if they use their power properly, and also because we have some power to influence them. In other words, I feel that it is a complete waste of time to criticize Al Qaeda, etc., it goes without saying that we want to defeat them (of course I do not necessarily mean "defeat them" using violence!)

Does that make sense? And do you agree?

Absolutely.

Also in response to your post, I should point out that I am not too concerned about the US. The US will be fine no matter what happens to Iraq. If US troops withdraw and Iraq has more bloody civil war or if they turn into another Iran, it won't endanger Americans. It could continue to be very bad for Iraqis, however, as well as other people in the region, so my concern is for them. As the occupying power, it should be the responsibility of the US to help establish peace and order if Iraqis want it, and establish a peaceful process for Iraqis to establish their government and resolve their differences. And if they want us to leave (and 99% of them do want that, correct?) we should leave. But it should be their decision.

The US is not even listening to what Iraqis want. They are only listening to the voices in Washington DC, and nothing else. This is a plain modern colonization.

 

[Vile Atheist]

We don´t agree often... but on this point, regarding that statement, we do, lol.

You guys don't like my George Bush comment? Awww...

But he was very articulate in explaining this phenomenon.

 

[Kerr]

You guys don't like my George Bush comment? Awww...

But he was very articulate in explaining this phenomenon.

I don´t like Bush, especially not when he makes such a simplified and inaccurate statement .

 

[Vile Atheist]

I don´t like Bush, especially not when he makes such a simplified and inaccurate statement .

You must hate freedom, too.

 

[Kerr]

You must hate freedom, too.

Which is why the original statement has no credibility, it is just redicolous . And you just proved that by assuming that I hate freedom because I don´t like Bush.

That or I have misunderstood what you meant, which considering how easy I misunderstand things would not surprise me.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Which is why the original statement has no credibility, it is just redicolous . And you just proved that by assuming that I hate freedom because I don´t like Bush.

That or I have misunderstood what you meant, which considering how easy I misunderstand things would not surprise me.

I think I misunderestimated just how much you hate freedom.

 

[Kerr]

I think I misunderestimated just how much you hate freedom.

Yeah, I hate freedom, all I want is for myself and everyone to be slaves under some dude with a long beard and horns on his head . Makes soooo much sense... because it is a basic psycological mechanism... to hate freedom... because everyone wants to be slaves... yep, that is soooo true...

 

[Vile Atheist]

Yeah, I hate freedom, all I want is for myself and everyone to be slaves under some dude with a long beard and horns on his head . Makes soooo much sense... because it is a basic psycological mechanism... to hate freedom... because everyone wants to be slaves... yep, that is soooo true...

It does. You're jealous of America's freedom and it's willingness to defend it. Which is why the inhabitants of Iraqistan hate America, also.

 

[kai]

That's a good point kai, however 1) that's all local to China and the extent of intervention doesn't even come close to American intervention, 2) there is the possibility for progress.
Its local to China for now but China is and will gradually project its influence further afield.
For example, if we look at history, is it really fair to say that all world superpowers have been equally unjust, power-hungry, corrupt, brutal, etc.? Was the Roman empire as terrible as the Aztec or Egyptian empires? Debatable, okay, but was the British empire as terrible? If you were going to be the subject of an empire, would you rather be a British subject or an Aztec subject? Its all relative I would rather be a British Subject but an Aztec would rather he wasnt a Spanish subject.

100 years ago "empire" was considered a good and glorious thing, and you were considered quite liberal if you said "people of all races are equal". Today, you are considered extreme if you believe otherwise.
Yes OK?
And is the American empire currently equivalent to the British empire? This has nothing to do with inherent differences between Americans and other people (obviously), but am I wrong that there has been some positive progress in the way powerful countries behave? There was no such thing as "human rights" and the declaration of human rights 100 years ago, there were no international laws about the responsibilities of occupying powers, etc. In the entire Iraq war it is estimated 100,000 civilians were killed, mostly as a result of coalition airstrikes, but this is radically different from the carpet bombing of civilian populations only 60 years earlier. 100,000 civilians were killed in a single firebombing raid on Tokyo. Today that would be totally unacceptable, the American people would not cheer that they would be outraged.
OKI agree with what you say but Not sure what your point is though Spinkles? and i for one dont consider there to be an American Empire
People -- Americans, British, Iraqis -- are more conscious about these issues and have more power over their governments than previously in history, and the same is happening in China. If the US was equivalent to the Roman empire we would have invaded Iran a LONG time ago, probably using carpet-bombing tactics against any city that didn't surrender. But the American people and the international community would protest and the government would be forced to listen.

Still not sure what your point is ,The US is not equivalent to any "Empire" I think China will use Economic, and military ,strategies for the good of China just like every body else does and has, It may be on a different scale than say The Romans or the Japanese or the Americans or British but nonetheless China will put China first.and it doesn't have to be an Empire, Large countries like China need to secure their resources and economies and they will do so in the best interests of China.

 

[kai]

I wasn't suggesting that China will be any better, but i was trying to point out that the US should save its power for something bigger than these wars.

Maybe it doesnt see anything better? maybe the spread of Democracy is a priority with the US. That doesnt seem to be a priority in China.


Really they could have invaded Iraq trounced the Baath party out of office and left. they could have bombed Iraq into the stone age by remote control and never set foot there.Saddam was a blight to them a disease, the Taliban and Alqueda are the same ,they are everything the the US hates. they are against everything the uS stands for and its only due to the US being a democracy and having a conscience and not being the great Satan that Iraq and Afghanistan havnt been totally destroyed.


My point is ,do some Arabs even know what America is? or what America is about? or do they Hate "the Great Satan" version of America that is propagated throu out the middle east? do they hate America because they are supposed to? or because its the "the thing to do" as an Arab/Muslim?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Still not sure what your point is ,The US is not equivalent to any "Empire" I think China will use Economic, and military ,strategies for the good of China just like every body else does and has, It may be on a different scale than say The Romans or the Japanese or the Americans or British but nonetheless China will put China first.and it doesn't have to be an Empire, Large countries like China need to secure their resources and economies and they will do so in the best interests of China.

Here's my point: you asked, Why should China be any different than any other country that has had Global interests in the past? One possible answer to your question: China will not be exactly like any other country in the past, because there is such a thing as progress, there is such a thing as the people of the world becoming civilized and not tolerating it when the powerful governments bully or take advantage of weak, poor countries -- even when that powerful government is their own government.

Secondly, your choice of language is interesting. You say "Large countries like China need to secure their resources ..." This is a very interesting choice of words, because "their resources", like the rivers and farmland that exist within the borders of any large country, are already secure. There is no need to secure their resources. What you obviously mean to say is that large countries need to secure imports, cheap labor, and markets for their exports -- in other words, large countries need to secure other peoples' resources. It is also interesting that you call them "large countries". It is true that countries with large populations need resources. But clearly we are not talking about large countries, we are talking about powerful countries with the means to secure their interests, and it is not only about what they "need" but also what they "want". Bangladesh is a "large country" which "needs resources", but we are not talking about countries like Bangladesh are we?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It's silly for me to argue about what Arabs think. Some people on RF are Arab, they can tell us what they think and what their neighbors think. Sajdah said she wants the US to leave other countries alone. This sounds reasonable to me. I would like to hear more from Tashan, not just his own view but what people in Saudi Arabia think as well.

How about moegypt, can we hear more from him?

 

[kai]

Here's my point: you asked, Why should China be any different than any other country that has had Global interests in the past? One possible answer to your question: China will not be exactly like any other country in the past, because there is such a thing as progress, there is such a thing as the people of the world becoming civilized and not tolerating it when the powerful governments bully or take advantage of weak, poor countries -- even when that powerful government is their own government. Ah dream on Spinkles, That time hant even come close yet! China will not be like any other country i agree , but it it will be like China. see how china acts in its own house and backyard and that may give an indication of how it deals with folk.

Secondly, your choice of language is interesting. You say "Large countries like China need to secure their resources ..." This is a very interesting choice of words, because "their resources", like the rivers and farmland that exist within the borders of any large country, are already secure. There is no need to secure their resources. What you obviously mean to say is that large countries need to secure imports, cheap labor, and markets for their exports -- in other words, large countries need to secure other peoples' resources. It is also interesting that you call them "large countries". It is true that countries with large populations need resources. But clearly we are not talking about large countries, we are talking about powerful countries with the means to secure their interests, and it is not only about what they "need" but also what they "want". Bangladesh is a "large country" which "needs resources", but we are not talking about countries like Bangladesh are we?

No we are talking about powerful countries with huge modernising populations who need to look outside their own boundaries for resources. Countries that will need to influence and manipulate others to gain for themselves.

 

[kai]

It's silly for me to argue about what Arabs think. Some people on RF are Arab, they can tell us what they think and what their neighbors think. Sajdah said she wants the US to leave other countries alone. This sounds reasonable to me. I would like to hear more from Tashan, not just his own view but what people in Saudi Arabia think as well.

How about moegypt, can we hear more from him?

I agree more Arab input to the discussion please!

 

[moegypt]

It's silly for me to argue about what Arabs think. Some people on RF are Arab, they can tell us what they think and what their neighbors think. Sajdah said she wants the US to leave other countries alone. This sounds reasonable to me. I would like to hear more from Tashan, not just his own view but what people in Saudi Arabia think as well.

How about moegypt, can we hear more from him?

Sure, As I said before about the reasons of why some Egyptians dont like USA because of its double ways in the same subject i.e.. US has nuclear weapons and at same time wants to prevent muslim countries of having it.why? because of peace!!! Ok why not US start by itself and destroy its nuclear weapons?

 

[moegypt]

My point is ,do some Arabs even know what America is? or what America is about? or do they Hate "the Great Satan" version of America that is propagated throu out the middle east? do they hate America because they are supposed to? or because its the "the thing to do" as an Arab/Muslim?

Most of Arabs like American people and hate American government... that is the point.

We look to America as the land of science and freedom but about the politics and how America deal with the world, the matter is different. Why America sent hundreds of thousands of soldiers to Iraq? Why America support Israel blindly?.. I mean, we like America in some points and hate America in others