They're blaming the US for it's "imperialistic" foreign policy.  NOt that far away saying that we did this, 9/11, to ourselves.  Hypocritical, idiotic, stupid, GODDAMNED jackasses!  ANY of these idiots ever heard of the BRITISH EMPIRE and what it DID?!

http://www.msnbc.com/news/635163.asp?0dm=N3HIN

Ex-U.S. diplomat grilled on U.K. TV

Post-attack incident spurs debate on policy, good taste

By Kiko Itasaka
NBC NEWS

LONDON, Oct. 1 — “I have been stunned by the way Americans are so shocked at how many people detest them around the world,” said Yasmin Ali-Brown on BBC’s Sept. 13 broadcast of “Question Time.” The live audience responded with hearty applause. And so began the extremely controversial show, still the subject of heated debate all over England.

“QUESTION TIME” is a relatively obscure bit of television with a devoted but small audience. The format features a panel of experts who answer audience questions. This episode had a provocative theme: the aftermath of the terrorist attack on the United States. And the ratings nearly doubled.
      While many in the audience expressed their sympathy and shock over the tragedy, tough issues were presented to the one U.S. panelist, Philip Lader, the former U.S. ambassador to Great Britain.
      Law school student Nick Halpern asked, “Does the bombing in America represent a failure in U.S. foreign policy with millions and millions of people all around the world despising the American nation?”
      A young Arab woman in the audience followed with the question, “When President Bush talked about the terrorists and those that harbored them, did he ever consider the fact that one of the reasons the world despises America is because it sees Israel as a terrorist and America as the one who harbors Israel as a terrorist?”

After fielding a barrage of similar questions, a tearful Lader said, “I have to share with you that I find it hurtful that one could suggest that the majority of the world despises the United States.... I simply want to say it saddens me how it is possible on this night — within 48 hours — that because of the intensity of feeling on policy issues, we can frankly abstract ourselves from the senseless human victimization and suffering that has occurred before us.” He was barely able to finish his emotional response because the audience was busy shouting out anti-U.S. opinions.
      Following the show, thousands of viewers phoned in insisting that the BBC apologize. And the program is still discussed by many British, including those who didn’t even see the show.  


 
       The reason: The program raised some painful truths. It is not just Muslim extremists who dislike the United States. In Europe there is a widespread view that the United States somehow brought this terrible act upon itself through its foreign policy or its cultural imperialism. Americans are naive; Americans are arrogant; Americans throw their economic and political weight around. But the overwhelming majority of Europeans, regardless of their views of Americans, are still shell-shocked by the tragedy in America. They recognize and share in America’s pain.
      In response to the many viewer complaints over “Question Time,” the BBC’s director-general, Greg Dyke, apologized in a public statement saying, “There were times in the program when the tone was not appropriate.” He added, “I have spoken to Philip Lader, the former U.S. ambassador to the U.K., who was on the panel, and apologized for any distress the program may have caused him.”

They brought out some good points. It was our foreign policy that helped bring about this tragedy. We can't deny that we had some responsibility in this. We intervene in everybody else's affairs, we bomb women and children, we send money to dictators, etc. Is it any wonder we are hated? I know nobody wants to hear this, but it is true nonetheless.

And the events of 9/11 did what to curtail this?  

Someone doesn't like the US because we send money to country A (or kick a bully's butt for them), but not country B.

Country B feels slighted and sends terroist bombers to "get even."

We respond with force, bomb them back to the stone age (in this case keep them in the stone age).

After things settle down we spend a battleship full of money to rebuild and IMPROVE their standard of living.

Time goes by and country C feels slighted....

My fault, your fault, nobody's fault...the Taliban is dead.

Next victim.

Eddie

Helldog40, I couldn't have said it better myself!

B.S., B.S., B.S.! So you're going to let a little group of friggin West Indian Brits, Middle Eastern Brits, African Brits, and some limp-wristed native Brits tell the United States of America how it's going to run its foreign policy?

Over my dead friggin body!

Those idiots have not lifted a hand in assisting Western Civilization to the heights at which it stands today.

[b]It is the 'Chorus of the Nations Left in The Dust' sung by the 'People Who Never Achieved Anything of Note' and listened to seriously by the 'Folks Without a Clue'![/b]

Do you recognize your own voice in that chorus?

It would be the equivalent of listening to the French for directives on how to properly conduct a successful war.

Or listening to the African National Congress on how to properly run a bi-racial country.

Or receiving advice from the Taliban on women's issues.

Or paying attention to Red Chinese officials discuss human rights.

Or asking Jerry Jones, the owner of the Dallas Cowboys, the secrets of successful draft-picks.

When you begin to see these foreign countries and foreign peoples making the correct decisions on everyhting else, THEN you can even think about beginning to listen to them on issues that, as of right now, they remain woefully ignorant.

And if you still believe that America is wrong - go do yourself!

And if you think that we should be listening to the shrill voices from overseas - go do yourself with Bin Laden's soon-to-be-pickled member!

Eric The(DoIMakeMySelfClear?)Hun[>]:)]

You know what gets me about all of this? The world wants the US to intervene. WW I? Until our ships were mercilessly hunted we were isolattionist. WW II? Same thing in terms of the European problem (Japan was a different story)...

After World War II, the entire world looked to the United States to keep the USSR at bay. Now that the USSR was defeated in the Cold War, the new EU has no use for us? F*ck them! I say it is time for repayment of the Marshall Plan! With interest!

I dont think I can add anything to enhance what Helldog said, but I want to say I couldnt agree more!

I say we crawl back in our own little hole, kick the UN out of our country and let the remaing 'civilized' countries keep the peace. I especially like the thought of those liberal limeys from this show actively participating in keeping that peace!

What a laugh.

This has nothing to do with forign policy.  This has to do with insane rulers wanting to rule the world.  This is not the first time (Napolean, Hitler, Mao, Ceaser)  and probably not the last.

You cannot hide.  Freedom demands you step to the front of the line and act.  Anything less and you are an Ostrich with his head in the sand. (no offense to the Ostrich.  He/she makes a decent burger)

ps: Let's not forget the it was ENGLAND who;
Divided up Palestine to create Israel
Occupied and tried to own India
Caused the trouble in the Faulklands
Tried to oppress the Colonies (US)
Caused much of the unrest in South Africa
Tried to own Canada
Made too many WWI & WWII love story movies
Took everyone's guns away in England
Maintain a ROYAL FAMILY
Tax the hell out of their successful citizens until they move to America to live

I think the US has certainly done some things that would make people want to go to war with us.

But I am not aware of anything the US has done to justify the attack on 50,000 US civilians, killing over 3,000 of them.

If people want to make war with us, that's fine. But fight like a man, not like a sissy. Which also applies to the bombing of those teenagers in the Israeli disco.

I can understand the Islamic peoples wanting us and them dead, but they REALLY need to learn the rules of war.

In that vein, we should continue sending them daisy cutters, even tactical nukes, to teach them some manners. Maybe we CAN teach an old, dirty terrorist dog a new trick. Or maybe we can just kill them trying.

Either way, suits me fine.

Of course [b]you[/b] would think so...



Noone wants to hear it because it's anti-American unrealistic horseshit.  We have acted, if anything, much more beneficently than ANY other powerful government in the history of the world.  Yes, we've done things that were less than angelic, but really we have taken advantage of our power much less than any other superpower in history.
The fact is, if you are the Big Dog in the neighborhood, the little dogs hate you, no matter what you do.
I only hope it is your youth and inexperience that makes you so unrealistic and naive.

I certainly agree that our foreign policy is to blame.  Had we made Iraq glow - or Iran when they took our embassy or any number of other ACTS OF WAR these pissant countries did, there would have been no attack on 9/11!!!  We have been too slow to crush these vermin when they attack US and now have paid the price.

It is time we teach them to respect us through fear.  We need to end ALL AID to any of them that are not fully committed to US.

Bin Laden would has attacked us even without our policy, hates us, we are not a fundamentalist islamic country. He is unwanted in his homeland, Saudi Arabia. Iran doesnot even want him. The rest of the world is very jealous of us for freedom and the financial position we have.
But we also have a global society. We need products from the world, and many of them inturn need and want our products. You can't let some knuckleheads here and there dictate how we see ourselves.
So the Jerry Springer of the BBC had a show, big deal, should you and I feel bad? At least we all know Jerry is entertainment. And the Ambassador, crying? Ambassadors don't cry! why was he crying, I would jhave said you are and obnoxious little person, and walked out of the show. She said we are dispised?, hey it sounds like she was dispised,
Remember sticks and stones may break my bones, but my cruise missiles will send you back tto the stone age!

GO Mickey, Go Mickey!!!!

And to "Question Time" may I offer my most hearty "Phuck You."

(Tony, just keep sending the SAS, SBS and the Royal Marines and old 5subslr5 will be content.)

Ant-Americanism is something that's probably not going to go away (at least in our lifetime), and I think it's probably more widespread than most people think (I know- I was stationed in England with the USAF. Lots of it over there).

Why does anybody care what the British think anyways? What do they have to offer the world besides Benny Hill?

Let them keep talking trash and the next time they get themselves into some deep shit and need someone to help bail themselves out we can tell em to go to hell. If it weren't for us they would all be Germans now anyhow.

I truly believe that in our lifetime we (the U.S.) have only two choices:

1)  We can continue to be hated and reviled and to be viewed as a "paper tiger" much as we were pre the Afghan or..
2)  We can choose to be hated, reviled and "respected."

Not a whole lot of demonstrations in the streets by the Muslims now.
These folks respect power and a winner and detest .......what they perceived us to be pre 9/11.

Over 3,000 of our citizens paid for another chance for us to change the world.

Our military will pay for a continuing chance.
"I pray God will walk with them all."

It was the predecessor of the UN that divided up Palestine.  Yes, Britian was part of that, but so were many other nations.  Us included.

England [i]caused [/i] the trouble in the Faulklands?  Are we rewriting history?  Argentina had never set foot in the Faulklands.  Every person there was an English sheep farmer, not Argentine.  Before that, it was a US whaling ship stopover.  Before that, unoccupied by any humans.  

When Spain left Argentina, they gave Argentina the islands off the east coast.  Argentina used that as an excuse to go hundreds of miles out into the ocean to claim the Faulklands (which they dubbed the Malvinas and that Spain had never owned) and invade.  How did England cause this trouble?

England [i]DID[/i] own Canada.

The US colonies were essentially English.  England was trying to make money by taxing them (us) not necessarily oppress us.  BTW, our taxes now are much more than England was taxing us then.  Time for another revolution?

All the others I'll agree with you.

What you guys said.

Get the anti-American protesters on film, attacking America.  When we have enough footage, hand it over to the government of that country and tell them, "Because of these protestors, we are cutting off your foreign aid.  Sucks to be a cry-baby, huh!?"

We need to retaliate by strengthening our military, and changing the name of our "Defence Department" back to "War Department."

A.  Thank you American Servicemen.
B.  Go to Hell (foreign) America Haters.

perhaps you should tell the whole story.  it wasn't the presence of taxes per se that the colonists were so upset about.  it was the (and pardon the phrase, but nothing else really fits) taxation without representation.  the mindset of the Whigs (anti-Tories around the Revolutionary time was one of republicanism: namely, self rule through representatives.  England was far from it.  Also, England was treating her colonies in America differently than she was treating her subjects on the island AND in opposition to the English Constitution.  [i]this[/i] is what irked the American colonists.  it makes little difference that the taxes are higher now than they were then anyway.  inflation alone could be the cause of that.  blanket statements without caveats or explanations are almost always going to convey only part of the picture.



so by your logic, a woman who dresses in a sexy fashion helped to bring about her own rape?  she can't deny that she held some responsibility in her being raped?

or if you don't like the tried and true analogy, why don't you try this one on for size:  person A cuts off person B on the highway.  person B follows person A home, pulls out a weapon (any weapon it doesn't matter), and then proceeds to murder person A's family, friends, and neighbors.  now are you going to tell me that person A is responsible for the deaths of all of his family and friends because he cut off person B, because that's exactly what you're saying about the U.S.

memo to you and those who share you opinions:  each person is responsible for [i][b]only[/b][/i] his actions.  not the actions of another.  the same holds true for nations.  the U.S. is no more responsible for the actions of Bin Laden and his stupid regime as we are for the complete disarmament of England's subjects, or for the famines in Africa, or for the Hitlers, Maos, and Stalins of the world.

sure our actions as a people and a nation may have pissed others off.  but retaliation by those others is not caused by our actions.  our actions are and will be just a convenient excuse for others to do what they already wanted to do.  

besides that, why in the world would we choose our foreign policy based on what others think of it or us?  not only is it just plain frickin' stupid, but it's completely anathema to the spirit of our country and our sovereignty.

Britain and Europe's contributions to human civilization ended in the late 19th century.  Let's see what European contributions to 20th century humanity were:

Two world wars.
Fascism.
Nazism.
Communism.
Marxism.
Genocide, mass murder directed at specific other people.
Fratricide, the mass murder of tens of millions of their own people.
A creeping socialism, which to paraphrase Ayn Rand, has poured concrete over the souls of men to hold them in stasis.
Disarmament of the citizenry to prepare them to be good victims.  Propagation of this concept to the rest of the world.
The ugly end of their ugly colonial empires, with the attendant nastiness and deaths of hundreds of thousands of colonial peasants.

And with this brilliant history, they have the balls to accuse us of inviting this vicious attack against our own noncombatant citizens.

I don't know why we pay any attention to them any more.  I certainly don't.  Let them yap in their little gutter.

hmmmm, The US imperialistic?! Um corect me if I'm wrong but who colonized North America? Who conquered India? Who has/had colonies all over the world? They call us imperialistic!

I agree with this post to the point had my printer not choosen to crap-out I would print it.

However, I'm gonna croutch low, hope to stay hidden and say this one little thing.
Our foreign policies did not "invite" the 9/11 attack however, in my sole opinion, our foreign policies/Federal government did leave open the gate to allow these attacks to occur.
Already with our treatment of Pakistan and our actions in the Afghan we have begun to correct our foreign policies - after years of neglect.

Only the French deny our USA parents defeated the Germans.
Benny Hill is dead. Bummer.
Lady Thatcher led the Brits admirably and the Brits dumped her. Bummer.
The British Special Forces are with us in Asia and all who have had contact with them respect them.
Kudos and Thank You to the British Special Forces from USA.
Still, Lady Thatcher led the Brits admirably and the Brits dumped her. Bummer.

Edited because ar15.com is not an academic endeavor until I discover I left "t" out of still.

Right on, ARlady.  They ought to change that show's title to "Blame the Victim Time".  

Some of the more offensive things I've heard bandied about was "The US doesn't do enough to help other countries".  Therefore we deserve to be bombed?

"The US supports dictatorial regimes".  Well, let's look for examples in the Middle East:  Morocco?  No.  Algeria? No.  Tunisia?  No.  Libya?  No (we have sanctions).  Egypt?  Yes, we provide military support in the hopes this will encourage peace with Israel.  Doesn't seem to work.  Jordan?  No.  Lebanon?  No.  Syria?  No.  Kuwait? We liberated them, but we have no influence there now.  Iraq? No. Iran?  no.  Pakistan?  No.

All of the aforementioned countries are autocratically ruled which we do not prop up.  There is one exception, Saudi Arabia.  However, the way Saudi Arabia is governed was agreed upon by the Arab chiefs and mullahs themselves, without Western interference.  

Is it our fault these countries cannot get their act together sufficiently to establish a free society and market economy which is the true basis of America's success?

NO.

[:D][}:D]Right ON!!!

You know; this brings up an interesting question. If the US is perceived as imperialistic and deserving of blame, then how come the UN is never targeted for attack?

i know the UN is a forum for third world countries, but they interfere with other countries. they are not neutral in my opinion. they let Hungary fall to the communist when they asked for help and they helped the communist again in Africa to quell anti-marxist factions. helping marxism must not be imperialistic, but conducting buisness and keeping up relations with allied countries is?

We never went in to Afghanistan like the Russians did, but WE are targeted for death. were there any Al queada attacks against Moscow? i never heard of any, maybe there are but i dont know of it.

so what if we side with Isreal. Isreal terrorist? they dont send there kids into schools with bombs strapped to their chests. Isreal has offered peace and only gets burned when their pants are down.


lib

Libertoon,
The Muslims in Chechnya drove a car bomb into a Moscow apt building and collapsed it, a couple of years ago. It is believed in some circles that Bin Laden supported them with money and training.
We shouldn`t apologize for our policies. The reason most of these third world miscreants even have the opportunity to speak out is a result of our policies. From the removal of Baby Doc Duvalier, Ferdinand Marcos and the liberation of eastern europe, to the reunification of Germany, have all resulted from US policy and statesmanship up until Jan 20,1993.

The foreign policy of any nation that becomes top dog always gets criticized like this. Like it or not, it comes with the territory. It's like that Monty Python's sketch: "What have the Romans ever done for us?"

It doesn't really matter what you do, there will always be malcontents (be they justified or not) ready to spout scorn and hatred – only nowadays, TV gives them a bigger soapbox than they could ever have imagined.

Garandman mentioned that terrorists do not fight fair – of course not, they're terrorists! Fortunately, the terrorists of yesteryear were capable of only limited and usually localised damage. However, today's technology, ease of travel, communications and, even education, have enabled fanatics to commit acts of monumental violence – witness 9/11 – for which there is simply no justification.

The problem is: No matter how many vengefull daiseycutters, or even nukes, we pound down on them in righteous retaliation, there will always be terrorists and we cannot put all the technology available to them back in the box.

I have no smart-assed answer to all this, I don't know what else can be done apart from what we are doing. But I do know this: unless we come up with something better, something that addresses the cause of the desease and not just treats the syptoms, it's not going to stop any time soon!

Thank you for Cuomo's perspective: "there isn't enough FBI in the world to prevent these attacks"...

BULLSH*T.

Identify the enemy. Attack the enemy where they live. Attack the enemy where they breed. Win the war. Do not allow the enemy to ever threaten USA again, in any manner or form.

This seems like the Second World War to me. This seems like the Bush doctrine to me.

In 1982 I lived and worked in England for six months. I looked advertisement in the Britsh TV, newspapers, posters on the roads. I was surprised to see that the most used word in their dictionary was "envy".

I think they really envy USA because USA is the only real superpower left in the world. They envy USA because if they were attacked in a manner like the Sept. 11, they could return the attack... only asking the help of USA!!!

They are influenced because the huge number of muslim immigrates that got Brtitish citizenship, people that come from Iran, Pakistan, the worst enemies of the western world (but they take profit of our standard of living and freedom of speech, while in their contries people like Musharraf is completely aside from the public opinion... that is AGAINST the Western World!).

If USA are hated, because they killed, they are imperialistic, because they impose their will and policy to somebody else, how much should the UK be hated for CENTURIES of imperialistic domination and negation of non-British people's rights?

The USA are hated by some part of the world population because:
1)by the islamic people because in the USA there is freedom of speech, girls can walk in bikini, and because they are infidels (the fact that in the USA also Muslim can live indisturbed is irrilevant to them...)
2)by all the people that received old fashion communist education that affirm that USA are the enemy and whatever the US govt. is doing is evil, and whatever any govt. that is against the US one is doing is right.

Got the point?

Before we get PO'ed at "Britian", maybe we might consider that they, like us, could have a liberal media.

We also have Sarah Brady, and Rosie O'donnell, they have opinions, but they don't represent the opinions of most US citizens.

Perhaps we have just read some of the U.K.'s equivalent...........

This is probably true.  I half-regret my little rant about Europe, especially considering that we have some very decent European members.  No offense meant personally [:)]

Still, reading stuff like this p***es me off...

I don't think there exists a better response to this than ARlady's.



Please, kind sir, reach back into the annals of history and show me any country, who in a position of power similar to the US today, did any differently? Please show me this mythical (and most likely socialist.....first you take a utopia..) nation which never did any of the above. Fact is, all major nations do this. Care to explain why it is that they seem to get a hall pass from the world stage? That alone seems to say that hatred of the US is not solely rooted in it's foreign policy. Just because you're comfortable with the results of step one of foreign affairs doesn't exuse you for lack of knowledge of steps 6-12.



I love apologist-bashers....they're so cheeky. First rule is this...they will NEVER be satisfied. Because, whether you want to hear this or not, they have NOTHING to do with truth, or fairness, or right whatsoever. They complain that the US should stop getting involved in foreign affairs that don't concern it...when you explain that that would include things like food and medical aid, and monetary assistance, they protest that 'that's not what we mean!'. It comes down to this....these people want the US to be the world's great uncle...there to give money, and not caring if they get abused and pushed around for it. Sorry. I'm not buying into their shit.

Oh, and the US is bombing innocent women and children. Well, haven't seen a conclusive report that the US intentionally targeted civilians.....but I will say this.

Imagine what it would be like if the US fought according to THEIR rules...

Goad,

If it was simple as you seem to believe, your solution would have worked for the Israelis decades ago.

Are you seriously suggesting that we blast our way to peace? Are you proposing that we wipe-out nations because within their societies there may be fanatics like the McVeigh or the Anthrax wacko who, independently of their government or people, direct their hatred toward the U.S?

"Identify the enemy"? It took 20 years or so to identify the Unibomber – and that was pure luck. A terrorist doesn't need a carrier fleet or an army, he needs only blind hatred and a match to set things in motion.

Unless you want the next generation to view the world through gunsights, we have to come up with something more realistic than your simplistic "solution".

PaoloAR15,

I agree, it is envy. And the Brits (for all the reasons you gave) were hated for the same reasons. But, they got to write all the history books and control the education of their colonies and there was no CNN or Fox around in those days.

Thanks for your comments PaoloAR15.  It is always interesting to hear intelligent foreign commentary.

When are you going to post a thread giving your opinions on all the different bolt-action rifles Italy used in WWII? [:)]

Cheers.

Monty Python, Pink Floyd, and hilarious political debates.  That's about it.

PaoloAR15 said it before I had a chance to:

[b][green][size=6]The other countries are green with ENVY!![/size=6][/green][/b]

I have been to the Europe and the Middle East, I see it in their faces and how they act around you. We are the big dog on the block.

Are we any better than all of the other countries out there?  I [u]humbly[/u] submit that at this place and time...YES.  But we too are susceptible to the changes that befall other great nations of the past, like Pharonic Egypt, Rome, France/Spain/Britain.  Someday we too may look with envy at another world power.

In the meantime,  we have every right to possess "Foreign Policy" if it looks out for our best interests.  There is nothing wrong with that, and I would venture to say that it would be highly unethical on our part to do otherwise.

GS

p.s.  What the hell is "Cultural Imperialism?"  LOL.  Puh-leeze, like we force people to buy our way of life.

I wouldn't worry too much about the English. They are still pissed over that little spat we called the "Revolutionary War."
I trained with some English chaps while in the 82nd Airborne and I'm here to tell you, while they won't outright come out and say it.... they're pissed that we won our independence.
Tough doody
;-)