I don’t hate America. I do, however, hate Americans like Steve Sturm. If I thought all Americans were like Steve Sturm, I would seriously consider supporting terrorism against America. I suspect that many of the people who do hate America do so because they do believe this.
That said, there is some merit in his ‘worth of people’s lives’ calculus. I would adjust his metric slightly:
* a human life: 50 points
* Steve Sturm’s life: zero points
(found via this post, which confirms the belief stated in the paragraph above).
I guess I’m not getting invited over for dinner, then?
My reply: http://thoughtsonline.blogspot.com/2004/06/reply-to-those-here-and-here-and-here.html
On the contrary, you’re totally welcome for dinner – and I’ll even avoid inviting Armin Meiwes round to join us. I like your gratuitously provocative style, and I’d like to *understand* your rationale for valuing Americans as worth more than all others (I know *governments* are elected to defend their electors’ interests, but that’s not quite the same…)
"gratuitously"?
Anyway, assuming you’re sincere about wanting to know my rationale…
The closer the bond I have with someone, the more I care about that person and the more I’m willing to do to protect them. There’s a bond that ties Americans together – and it’s more than knowing that to a terrorist, all Americans are the same. I have an obligation to look out for them and sure hope they feel the same way towards me.
Not the case with the rest of the world – the bond I feel with the French right now is pretty darned attenuated and as such, I doubt that I’d risk my life to save one of theirs.
Notice how the Filipinos didn’t call for their troops to leave Iraq when it was an Italian driver being threatened – but when it was one of their own, that meant something to them (not that I agree with their decision, but that’s another matter).
Finally, you’re wrong with your last point – governments are nothing but an outgrowth of the society/people who elect them. They do (or should do) what we as individuals cannot easily do. I can’t easily wage war on terrorists, but society can and should. I can’t easily torture a suspect, the government can and should.
I just noticed your reply, sorry for the late response…
when’s dinner?
Fair enough. I really view myself as closer to the guys and girls I’m friends with or work with in New York, Sydney and India than I am to the Brits I don’t know – (just for a start, the stupid ones who mug people and rob houses).
I know the USA is much more culturally ‘we are the same and all Americans are great’ than the UK, but I still don’t really get why you’d believe you’re closer to (eg) a silly Seattle Michael Moore acolyte who hates GWB more than Osama and wishes Israel were destroyed, rather than someone like Mark Steyn who shares your cultural underpinnings closely but happens to be a Canuck…
Doesn’t "governments are nothing but an outgrowth of the society/people who elect them" equal "*governments* are elected to defend their electors’ interests"? I’m intrigued as to what I’m missing here.
And while I’m not sure where in the US you are, if you happen to be in the northeast I’m in NYC next week & dinner’s on me.
You make a good point about Moore -vs- Steyn. My putting Americans at the front of the line is based on my romantic and naive wanting to believe that all Americans share some common values; not opposition to same-sex marriage, but rather the belief that America is a really great country, that our fellow Americans are worth dying to defend, and so on. Moore proves to be the exception to the rule – I don’t believe he would lift his finger to defend America from threats. Steyn, while not American, seems to share my basic values and would certainly rank pretty high on my point scale.
On the government question, I’m trying to say that if it’s OK to expect an individual to take extreme measures to save their family and friends, it’s logical to expect the government to take those measures to protect Americans, since after all, government is, as the old line goes, "of the people".
Thanks for the offer, I’m in DC and haven’t made it up to NYC since just before 9/11 and don’t know when I will. I seem to keep coming up with reasons not to go up. Maybe I just don’t want to see the site.
The majority of the Americans I have met over the last 20 yrs working both sides of the pond are decent, liberal, live and let live types. It is just a shame that globalisation, international capitalism ( I am a centerist capitalist), and the shadow of diminishing oil supplies reflect in the international policies of your current government. Clinton was a bit sleazy, but so was Kennedy at least the democrats gave a damn about you the poeple
God, im from Texas in the U.S. and I cannot wait to leave. I have never liked it hear. If you have not lived in America you have no idea of the ignorance and greed. I see it everyday. It makes me sick to my stomach and at the same time I just feel so so sorry for everyone here. They are extremely brainwashed. I use to think people that went on about the Illuminati and New World order were out of their minds now, i just dont know how unlikely it all is.
I dont know and dont want to, I do know i want the hell out. If you really want to know what is going on do not belive everything the media feeds you, even the liberal media. Read in between the lines and do some research.
Americans are not allowed their own thoughts. They are Sheep!!!
Why Bush wants the Philippines as an ally?
The label America’s “little brown brothers” given to Filipinos was never a term of endearment or fondness. It has always been, and always will be, a condescending remark.
Teodoro Benigno thinks so too. He wrote :
Things changed when in 1990-91 the Philippine Senate booted out America’s largest overseas bases stationed in Clark Field and Subic Bay. In the geo-political or strategic chessboard of Washington, the Philippines fell, better still crashed to 45th or 16th position, when formerly it was – because of the two bases – positioned among the top seven. Afer all, Subic and Clark constituted the devastating one-two military punch of America’s military establishment in Asia, radiating US power to all points of the continent during the Cold War, particularly to Vietnam and China.
Again, things changed.
When on Sept. 11, 2001, a handful of international terrorists shattered the centuries-old “invulnerability” of America by converting the Twin Towers of New York and the Pentagon in Washington to smoking rubble, the Philippines in an instant slid back to “pride of place” in America’s war against international terror. Afer the US had pulverized great portions of Afghanistan to the Stone Age in retaliation for 9/11, Washington designated the Philippines as its “second front” in the anti-terror war. This means, when the so-called “forward planning” of America unravelled, the Philippines would wolf in thousands if not tens of thousands of American combat troops. Here, they would be repositioned. From here, they would strike at terrorist targets in East and Southeast Asia, if not seek to interdict a China grown bold to eventually challenge US hegemony in the Pacific. And trump a North Korea now bristling with the beginnings of a nuclear arsenal.
It is in this light that we Filipinos must view the approaching visit of George W. Bush.
Make no mistake about it. The US wants the Philippines to remain secure as an ally under America’s new strategic doctrine of “preemptive war”. And, corollarily, the US – without saying so – wants Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo to remain in power beyond 2004. So watch it. Watch George W. Bush closely. Every word, every utterance, every gesture will subliminally communicate this desire. Whatever Lola wants, Lola gets, so goes the ditty. In the same manner, whatever the US wants, the US gets, even if this means the coronation of GMA as Queen Nefertiti of America’s strategic operations in this part of the world.
I could be wrong, of course.
No, Mr. Benigno, you are not wrong. However, you are not completely accurate either.
If we are to look back at 1990-1991, despite the Senate’s refusal to ratify the bases agreement, it was really the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo that sent the Yanks packing. After the ashes of Pinatubo had settled, the Visiting Forces Agreement was born. And that was before 9/11. It was 9/11, however, that led to the signing of Military Logistics Support Agreement (MLSA) giving the US limited rights to base equipment in the Philippines.
Now, as to the American interests in the Philippines…
We shouldn’t view the hegemony issue as an abstract. Power is not acquired for the sake of power itself. Power is a means. And the interests of the U.S. in maintaining its power in Asia goes beyond mere dominance in military presence. As the driving force behind its colonial intentions over a hundred years, money–or economic supremacy–is still the same driving force behind this insistence to lord it over in Asia. Asia’s resources is necessary so that every American can continue living the American Dream. And where diplomatic relations fail, America will fight for this economic supremacy with its military force.
Hence, we should view Bush’s visit from two perspectives: 1) his intention to use, or continue to use, the Philippines as a strategic military ally to retain hegemony in Asia and 2) his intention to continue exploiting the economic resources of the Philippines. Right now, he has his eyes on Mindanao. Make no mistake about that. If Mindanao were one vast track of barren land, do you honestly think, Mr. Benigno, that Bush or any other American president would give a hoot as to whether the Muslims win the war in Mindanao or not? The probability is that Washington would advise Manila to agree to a cessation. Give the Muslims their Mindanao and let us all live in peace. But then, Mr. Benigno, Mindanao is not a vast track of barren land.
So, yes, let us listen to every word that Bush says during his 8-hour visit. But let us not forget to perceive what he does not say