Does the uprising against US consulates indicate a seething tide of resentment o

1. 53

   Joe Cookposted 12 years ago

   Does the uprising against US consulates indicate a seething tide of resentment of US foreign policy?
   
   One dreadful film and an international wave of violence against US consulates and embassies. Horrific despicable murders,  burning buildings, a gigantic upsurge of anger. And all because of a backward hateful offensive film?  Really?  I put it to you that the film was only a catalyst and that the wave of uprising was in actual fact retaliation for a decade of US wars, imperialism , drone strikes, savage butchery of one million Iraq's, the occupation of Afghanistan, the plundering of oil wealth, the installation of puppet presidents and international disregard for the rule of law..?

   replyreport
2. 62

   Chuck Bluesteinposted 12 years ago

   A top military guy said that the war in Afganistan is now creating millions of enemies of the U.S. Also Iraq and Afganistan were the beginning of a list of 7 countries to attack in the next several years. So they do not know if they are going to be next.
   
   An article says that Obama is like George W. Bush on steroids. We need a president like Gary Johnson or Jill Stein that will bring all the troops home. Ron Paul said that we just marched on in, so we can just march on out. These countries are telling the U.S. to mind its own business. Meanwhile the U.S. economy is a wreck.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      NicholasAposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      The U.S. should mind it's own business. Would our Govt sit by and watch if another country came in here and tried to fix things?

      replyreport
   2. 66

      peanutroasterposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Oil and Israel - otherwise we'd just ignore the middle east like we do the problems in Africa.

      replyreport
   3. 86

      NateB11posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Exactly. Can't just traipse across the globe creating death and terror and have people love it. As you say, we're doing all that while the economy goes down the tube; formula for disaster.

      replyreport
3. 73

   SidKempposted 12 years ago

   Though your language is perhaps inflammatory, sadly, both your facts and your views are correct. And it's not new. Back in the 1980s, the 100-year history of the US intervening this way in Central and South America became clear.
   
   We say we oppose terrorism, but we engender wide-scale terror, train terrorists, and so breed enemies for generations to come. Remember, in the early days of Afghanistan, Osama Bin Laden was an ally.
   
   We sow what we reap. And we are sowing more and more deceit and destruction, decade after decade.
   
   Let's be clear. The US has also done many wonderful things, and, at times (like the founding of the United Nations, the Marshall Plan and the first Camp David Peace Accords) been a leader in peace.
   
   May we learn and live the way of peace for all peoples.

   replyreport
   1. 63

      Neil Sperlingposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Peace Profound

      replyreport
4. 60

   PAPA-BEARposted 12 years ago

   America has long seen itself as the main player in world affairs, though univited it has forced entry with a foot in the door through aid. Resentment runs high in lands where America has no sharing of detail, no understanding of history, and only an eye on a scratch your back policy. Sadly it has led itself into expensive violent trips down roads that even it's own people question.

   replyreport
5. 66

   Billrrrrposted 12 years ago

   Joe.  You paint with a heavy brush.  Might I ask you  to remember that the horrible United States was allied  with your nation during World War II.  If you were able to ask Sir Winston Churchill, his opinion of the USA, I think he might look upon us a little more favorably than you do.  I think that the millions of people who were saved from the Nazis might have a kind word for the Americans.  I think that if the Nazis had won the war you would not be able to say anything bad about the U.S. because there would be no free speech in the world.  Oh, also there would be no Jewish people, no Polish People, No Catholic people.  Most everyone would be killed off - except for the superior aryan race.   
   
   One final note....your country is still allied with mine.  Your country has willingly assisted the U.S. in every military action, so please get your paintbrush out and swab it across the UK as well.

   replyreport
   1. 53

      Joe Cookposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Gladly.  So long as you'll let me speak "horribly".

      replyreport
   2. 69

      Rod Marsdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Australia has also willingly been involved with wars that the US has kicked off. The U. N. was against the invasion of Iraq by US and US allies but that didn't seem to matter. To Australia, the USA was a big help against the Japanese in WW2.

      replyreport
6. 81

   Doc Snowposted 12 years ago

   I think there is some validity to what you say, but that you are overstating it--and understating the provocation posed by such a film.  Recall that Salman Rushdie spent years in hiding over his "Satanic Verses," that rioting and violence followed the Danish cartoons ridiculing Mohammed, and that a Dutch artist was murdered for similar reasons.  Such responses may strike you (and me) as disproportionate, grotesque, or horrible, but evidently there is a persistent feeling among some elements of the global population that is at odds with our valuation.
   
   That said, I think that resentment of dominant world powers is chronic and inevitable, and it only modulated, not created, by the behavior of said power.  As China's power increases, for example, we are seeing violent anti-Chinese riots pop up here and there:
   
   http://www.economist.com/node/14207132
   
   Without going into your catalog of US 'sins' in too much detail, I'd comment that the categorization of "savage butchery of one million Iraq's" is flat wrong.  Only one estimate of total casualties is that high, and it's almost certainly wrong:
   
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War
   
   Information on who did the killing is even sketchier than on how many actually died.  But the Iraqi Body Count project--which excludes military personnel and insurgents from casualty counts--made this attribution in their report on the first two years of the conflict:
   
   "Who did the killing?
   37%. US-led forces killed 37% of civilian victims.
   9%. Anti-occupation forces/insurgents killed 9% of civilian victims.
   36%. Post-invasion criminal violence accounted for 36% of all deaths.
   11%. Unknown agents (11%).
   Killings by anti-occupation forces, crime and unknown agents have shown a steady rise over the entire period."
   
   (It doesn't say what the other 9% are.)
   
   Note that by this accounting, while Coalition activity accounted for the most deaths of any single category, more casualties were victims of "Iraqi-on-Iraqi" violence.
   
   The invasion of Iraq was a horrible, bloody business--but let's not make it even worse than it was by careless exaggeration.

   replyreport
   1. 60

      tinamariemillerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Wasn't this little video made by an Egyptian?  Maybe in California, but by an Egyptian? Hello?

      replyreport
   2. 81

      Doc Snowposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      No, it was made by an American, Sam Bacile.  However, an Egyptian Christian, Morris Sadek, has some sort of connection to it, and has promoted it.  (Sadek also lives in California.)

      replyreport
7. 0

   gogogoposted 12 years ago

   Not only does it show a build up of resentment against the USA, it also shows a lack of leadership here in the USA and a lack of understanding the basic problems of the people who live in those countries.  We need to do better or more of this is going to happen.  I do not think the film had anything to do with the violence, it was just an excuse used by both sides

   replyreport
8. 66

   peanutroasterposted 12 years ago

   It represents a radical element and the ignorance of people who have been raised under tight state control who can't grasp the concept of freedom of speech.  In their countries traditionally nothing gets made or released without the state stamp of approval.
   
   Ignorance and hate has been used to control the middle east for decades.  It reminds me of the right wing conservatives here in the U.S.  You can show them facts but they won't believe them.  You could show these radicals the billions of dollars we send to support them and they wouldn't believe it.

   replyreport
   1. 72

      LauraD093posted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Wow this question has generated some great comments. I don't believe the attack on the consulate increased any animosity that wasn't already present . Chuck Bluestein  may have a point advocating Jill Stein. Although that happening is slim to none.

      replyreport
   2. 60

      tinamariemillerposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      Agreed, to a point. I am a conservative, but you don't throw gasoline on a fire. We should discontinue our aid both financially and by military.

      replyreport
9. 83

   lrc7815posted 12 years ago

   I tend to agree with peanutroaster - that the cause of this new violence is not the film, not our involvement in other countries, but more a radical wing of people bred to hate and destroy.  Personally I think that what is happening is 'opportunity'.  Weakened by newly formed governments the stage is wide open for the radical extremists to act under the guise of anti-US sentiment. I doubt it has much at all to do with resentment of the US foreign policy.  It's more personal than that, in my opinion. Let's not forget that OUR diplomats were the ones attacked and killed while serving as liaisons.

   replyreport
   1. 79

      stevesoposted 12 years agoin reply to this

      We have to realize that the people who are rioting and burning are just a small minority of violent radicals who are more intent on bringing their own governments down then they are against the US. They don't want democracy.

      replyreport
10. 0

    Lizam1posted 12 years ago

    Violence begets violence - whether they are words or physical action.  Sadly every country around the world has blood on its hands.
    
    The makers of the film had intentional hatred when they created it and innocent people died for their lack of judgement and accountability.
    
    In my opoinion charging the film creators with a hate crime inciting violence would be a good start.  The use of superlatives and inflamatory statements posed in this question does not assist us to discuss the concerns rationally and right now cool heads are required.

    replyreport
    1. 60

       larryprice5372posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       This country has over 300 million inhabitants.  If one of us misbehaves, is it even rational to kill our consolate members?  I think not, redical islam shows it's very ugly face here. Their's is a religion that is absolutist and tolerates nothing.

       replyreport
    2. 0

       Lizam1posted 12 years agoin reply to this

       you are correct that it is not rationale to kill consolate officials - or anybody.  The comment against Islam can also be directed at other fundamentalist religious groups.  Not all Muslims behave or think in this outrageous way.

       replyreport
11. 65

    qeylerposted 12 years ago

    For decades the US had funded those who hate it, dumping billions on Egypt, Pakistan, and recently Libya.  It is almost impossible to imagine anyone being worked up over a pathetic Z picture unless the hatred had been there all along.
    
    America should;
    1) Close all Embassies etc in Muslim nations
    2) Cease to give any aid at all whatsoever to Muslim nations
    3) Have absolutely no trade with Muslim nations.
    
    Eventually the hysteria will ebb, governments will come into power, and then the US can take its time to judge whether or not it is;
    a) safe to open an Embassy
    b) if granting aid makes sense and to whom for what
    c) if there is any sense trading with a particular nation.

    replyreport
    1. 0

       Old Empresarioposted 12 years agoin reply to this

       1) I mostly agree
       2) I agree 100%
       3) I disagree
       
       Stop giving them money and stop interfering in their political affairs and they will stop attacking us--I promise they will stop.

       replyreport
12. 0

    Old Empresarioposted 12 years ago

    Joe Cook, I agree with your answer you gave to your question.

    replyreport