Are you aware of anti-american sentiment in asia?

[Rambutan]

Bosnia Signs Agreement Exempting U.S. From International Criminal

> Court

> The Associated Press

> Published: May 16, 2003

>

>

>

> SARAJEVO, Bosnia-Herzegovina (AP) - Bosnia signed an agreement with

> the United States on Friday that exempts Americans from prosecution by

> a new international criminal court.

>

> In a ceremony attended by U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul

> Wolfowitz, Bosnia promised not to extradite U.S. troops and other

> Americans charged with genocide, crimes against humanity or war

> crimes.

>

> More than two dozen other nations have signed similar agreements,

> accepting Washington's arguments that U.S. troops could be subjected

> to politically motivated trials.

>

> "We simply don't believe the ICC (International Criminal Court) -

> which has no political supervision over it - is a fair and appropriate

> mechanism to submit American soldiers to," Wolfowitz said.

>

> The court, inaugurated on March 12, is charged with intervening only

> when a country is unable or lacks the political will to carry out a

> trial. It was signed by 78 nations and is charged with prosecuting

> crimes committed after July 1, 2002.

>

>

Any comments? ???

[mrvietnam2001]

Yeh, real simple. You go to a foreign country and pay someone to make your life a little more simple. Whatever it may be. Pay for a work permit, pay someone to keep the police away, pay someone to wipe your ass, whatever.

And that seems to be ok for a lot of people. Why? Because they can that's why.

So you think that government doesn't do this? Don't like it? Too bad, nobody cares what you like or don't like. Think it's a free world? Hey, there used to be one place that had that. It's gone now. Thanks to all those who helped in it's demise. Now we can all pay for it.

Give me a break. Get real.

Mr Vietnam

:cool:

[ThaiAdventure]

> In a ceremony attended by U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul

> Wolfowitz, Bosnia promised not to extradite U.S. troops and other

> Americans charged with genocide, crimes against humanity or war

> crimes.

Are any Yanks charged with these crimes????

[Rambutan]

[/b]Intersting, this. Why Do They Hate Us?

Warren S. Apel

American Embassy School, New Delhi, India

http://www.nesacenter.org/Services/2003winning.essay.html

Americans like to believe that the United States is a great country.

And in many respects we are correct. Compared to many countries in the

world, we are lucky to have the political freedoms, the quality

medical care, education system, and low poverty that we enjoy. We

figure that no one should hate us – they should all want to be more

like us. It's this belief that caused George W. Bush to make his

famous quote: "I'm amazed that there is such misunderstanding of what

our country is about, that people would hate us. . . like most

Americans, I just can't believe it. Because I know how good we are. .

."

Why was America a target of terrorism? For the last year, just the act

of posing this question has been tantamount to justifying the actions

of those terrorists who struck the United States. If asking the

question was excusing the terrorists, then changing our attitudes or

conduct was "giving in to their demands." Until recently, there has

been no chance of actually changing the way America conducts itself at

home or abroad. Now that we've had more than a year to calm down,

perhaps it's time to change our way of thinking, our attitudes, and

our actions.

When we ask the question "why do they hate us?" we don't want a

complicated answer. Americans don't want to hear that we've been doing

anything wrong. We want to hear "they are jealous of our freedoms." We

want to generalize that Arabs are crazed and violent, acting without

logical motivation. U.S. Congressman Brad Sherman stated in a meeting

of the Committee on International Relations that "we are resented for

our power, envied for our wealth and hated for our liberty." This kind

of placating reassurance may comfort Americans, but it is far from the

truth. Other countries have freedoms, wealth and liberty. Why weren't

Sweden, Canada, or Holland the target of any recent terrorism?

The main motivation of Osama Bin Laden is simple: the American

military presence in Saudi Arabia desecrates the holy cities of Mecca

and Medina. It makes sense that to be good world neighbors, we should

remove our military bases from Saudi Arabia. We have a huge military

presence in the Middle East, mostly to ensure America's supply of

cheap petroleum. We can stop provoking Arab terrorists without "giving

in to their demands." If we spent more money developing alternatives

to petroleum, we wouldn't need to work as hard as we do in protecting

our access to it.

But there's no reason to assume that our presence in Saudi Arabia is

the only thing Americans are doing wrong in the eyes of the rest of

the world. We isolate ourselves from the rest of the world – reneging

on treaties and breaking promises. We decide unilaterally that our

need for nuclear missile testing, land mines, and gas-guzzling SUVs

outweighs the nearly unanimous global decisions to cut back on those

planetary disasters. Our children are sedentary and overfed to the

point of unhealthy obesity while millions of children elsewhere

starve. We look down on countries where gender equity and voter rights

aren't as strong as they are in America; however, many people in those

countries see us as barbaric and backward for our use of capital

punishment and rampant gun possession. For many people in Europe,

Americans are bumbling tourists, complaining that waiters in France

don't speak English well enough – then returning home to vote on

English-only legislation. There's a joke in Europe that you can tell

an American in a crowd: they're the one who speaks only one language

and doesn't know where Canada is.

If we are to peacefully co-exist with the rest of the world, we'll

have to start learning about them. Americans see Palestinians as

terrorists because we do not understand the politics of the Middle

East well enough. American newspapers are grossly lacking in news from

other countries. The "world" segments of network television news offer

glimpses of earthquakes and train crashes in exotic foreign locations,

without any substantive reporting on political situations, causes of

famine, or roots of conflict. Americans have become so desensitized to

human suffering that the U.S. media simply chooses not to report on

many of the world's most important news stories – for example, the

Indonesian genocide of the people in East Timor was almost never

covered in American newspapers. People in Australia and New Zealand

were aware that the American government condoned the violence, and

even supplied Indonesia with the weapons that were used – but

Americans remained blissfully ignorant of the situation.

Traveling around the world makes one realize just how ignorant

Americans are about the rest of the world. Taxi drivers in Cairo,

Egypt know the names of nearly every major politician in the world –

reading and chatting about world politics is a dear hobby to many of

them. Americans would be hard pressed just to name the leaders of the

G-8 nations. In fact, I would wager that few Americans even know the

countries that make up the G-8. The current push in American education

to "return to the three R's" is certainly not going to help this

situation. If anything, American education should be promoting world

awareness, global thinking, teamwork, and international awareness.

Perhaps in a generation or two we could have a nation of world

citizens.

But ignorance and holy desecration are far from America's worst public

image problems. Our self-declared status as the world's most important

superpower may make Americans feel safe and significant, but it causes

many others around the world to see us as a threatening, egocentric

bully. We declare our support to other nations when it is beneficial

to America – regardless of how that nation treats its citizens, elects

its officials, or behaves with its neighbors. We supported the

dictatorship of Suharto in Indonesia because that country supplies

most of the oil in the Pacific Rim. We provided support, weapons and

training to "freedom fighters" in Central America who are almost

indistinguishable from the people we label "terrorists" today. The

role of the US in the training of Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban is

conveniently overlooked in the American media. The United States has

managed for years to ignore the brutal persecution of the people of

poor countries like Tibet, Myanmar, and Cambodia, yet we rushed to the

support of Kuwait because it is an oil-rich country that we can take

advantage of.

The American people take it for granted that when we fight a war,

we're doing it to help restore democracy around the world. When we

remove one ruler, and replace him with one that America has hand

picked, it's hardly a move towards increasing the amount of global

democracy. In fact, while we talk about democratic principles, we

ought to bear in mind that, to a large number of people in the world,

George W. Bush himself is not the democratically-elected ruler of the

United States. To people from nations where nepotism and bribery are a

way of life, it makes sense that Bush's victory was determined by the

governor of Florida -- Bush's brother -- and not by the people of

America. But that hardly puts us in the position to "restore

democracy" through military action.

Those military actions are part of our public image problem. We have a

hard time making firm friendships with Arab nations because we shift

our alliances so often. We made close friends with Gamel Abdel Nasser

when we thought that an alliance with Egypt would be politically

advantageous. A few years later, we were supporting attempts to

overthrow his government. Before Iraq was declared part of the "axis

of evil," America oversaw the coup that put Saddam Hussein and the

Ba'ath Socialist Party in charge of the country. Our friendships

flip-flopped between Iraq and Iran – we were close with the Shah of

Iran, then a few years later we armed and financed Saddam Hussein and

helped him invade Iran. In hindsight, it appears that our decision to

give Iraq materials and training in the production of chemical and

biological weapons might not have been a good one. While President

Reagan was bombing Libya, we were engaging in arms deals with Iran,

one of Libya's close allies – and one of the countries that America

now considers an "instigator of international terrorism."

Is it any wonder that Arab nations hate us? At the very least, these

countries should be wary of making alliances with us. We have a

history of sending the CIA in to take out our "friends." The American

people's lack of interest in or knowledge of these matters helps fuel

the fire of popular opinion. We have no objection to the military

actions against the Taliban in Afghanistan because we see them as the

agents behind the attacks on America. On September 10th, the Taliban

were just considered fundamentalists who treated women poorly – not

terrorists or enemies of America. A few weeks later, more than a few

Americans openly supported the idea of destroying the entire country

with nuclear weapons. Not many Americans discussed or remembered the

American role in Afghanistan a few years earlier. In 1995, America was

supporting the Taliban financially and militarily, while allowing and

encouraging countries like Egypt and Algeria to persecute, imprison

and execute their fundamentalist Muslim populations. Why were we

propping up the hardest-core of the hardcore Muslim governments? They

were fighting our common enemy, the Russians. And in an effort to help

American kids "just say no" we assisted the Taliban in their religious

goal of eradicating opium fields. Seven years later, we were

eradicating the Taliban themselves.

And now that the Russians are no longer our enemies, we ask for their

assistance in our "war against terrorism." In yet another example of

our Nation's ability to quickly change its opinion, we made a

questionable moral tradeoff to gain Russia's support. A few years ago,

we were labeling their genocide against the people of Chechnya "ethnic

cleansing." To gain the support of Russia, George W. Bush has changed

that label – now the Russians are "fighting terrorism" when they labor

at continuing Stalin's goal of eradicating the Chechen people.

Americans have a hard time remembering our enemies. At any one time,

there may be ten or so countries on our current "axis of evil." Right

now, we know that Afghanistan is one of the "bad guys." But what about

Pakistan? We need to use their land to help if we end up invading

Iraq, so we'll likely become temporary friends with them. It's hard to

tell if we're allies with Syria, Lebanon, or Iran right now. But while

most Americans forget who our enemies are, those enemies will never

forget. America is such a large, powerful country – throwing our

military and economic power around as we like – that once we've placed

some country on our list of "bad guys" the citizens of that country

will likely hate us forever. While American citizens quickly forget

which countries American planes were bombing a few years ago, the

people of Cambodia, Libya, Sudan, and Beirut will always remember

those explosions with the same level of recall we have for the images

of those planes hitting the twin towers.

It's good for America that we're finally asking the right questions –

that we're interested in why people hate us. It would be great if we

admitted that our foreign policy favored deceit, greed, and petroleum

over human lives and freedoms. The world would be a better place if we

decided to re-evaluate how our policy affects the people of the Middle

East and South Asia. If we re-thought our economic sanctions, we could

reduce some of the world's poverty – the proven breeding ground of

terrorists.

But beyond those lofty goals, if we have the foresight, we can also

predict what people will hate us for next. It shouldn't be hard.

Indeed, one hundred Nobel Laureates have agreed that the most pressing

danger to world peace is not the isolated acts of terrorist

individuals or governments, but the legitimate demands of the world's

economically disadvantaged people. America has the power to join the

world and ratify the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Convention on

Climate Change, the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaties, and the

Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. If we continue to insist that every

American's personal wealth and lifestyle are more important than the

lives of the other people on our planet, we will have a whole lot more

people hating us than we currently do.

Most of the world's poor live in equatorial climates in large cities

near water. Global warming, caused by the dependence on fossil fuels

by the wealthy few, has already begun to threaten the lives of the

world's poorest people. Recent flooding in Prague, China, and

Bangladesh have killed hundreds and displaced thousands. America's

fascination with the sport utility vehicle has indirectly caused

forest fires in Australia, glacial landslides in Russia and typhoons

in Singapore. Worldwide drought and famine will be increasing over the

next decade, but America refuses to even consider reducing its levels

of fossil fuel consumption. President Bush declares such actions to be

"not in the United States' economic best interest;" however, the World

Council of Churches has declared this global slap in the face to be a

"betrayal of (America's) responsibilities as global citizens."

We have to realize that increasing our short-term economic best

interest might not be the best plan of action. It's time to start

thinking of the future, and not just the short-term gains of our

actions. America's addiction to fossil fuels and red meat is wreaking

havoc with global weather patterns. We control a huge percentage of

the world's money, food, and fuel. We have the power to change. We can

rethink our military and economic presence in South Asia and the

Middle East. We can work harder at developing clean fuels and

renewable energy sources. If we can finally see the value in

compromise, we can apologize to the world and sign the treaties George

W. Bush pulled us out of. We can work in the economic best interest of

the whole world. Perhaps once we start doing that, fewer and fewer

people will hate us.

"Why do they hate us?" If we are ready to ask the question, we must be

ready to change. We should not listen to Nationalist zealots like Rep

Sherman, who warn that America "cannot and dare not change our foreign

policy, because to placate Mr. Bin Laden and his gang is impossible. .

. . To placate them is dishonorable." Changing our foreign policy must

not be seen as placating Osama Bin Laden, nor as dishonorable. What we

must do is understand why other people in other countries hate us,

accept that we will be always hated by a few, but work to improve

ourselves and our image – even if that doesn't seem like it's in our

"economic best interest."

[Serge]

Frank,

I hope you have taken the time to fully digest "Why Do They Hate Us? by Warren S. Apel, American Embassy School, New Delhi, India" a 2003 winning essay which Rambutan has posted.  Food for thought, is it not?

I suggest you consider another trip around the world one more time only; this time listen, respect and fully understand other people's opinions and feelings. If you undertake another trip around the world and listen, you will hear; "why do people hate the USA"

Have a good trip! ???

[mowlem]

Getting back to the original question of anti american sentiment in SE Asia, I find very little on a day to day basis.

Disagreeing with a policy of a government is very different to having a problem with it's citizens.

As a generalization, most people know the difference.

[aitch]

It appears that the only ones who have anything to gain from all this is the press. Since when was it there intent to unite anyway ?

[mrentoul]

I am a member of the press. I can't recall ever being told that one of my functions was to ''unite'' people. I thought it was to sell newspapers.

If you don't like it, become a newspaper owner!

[francois]

hi'

I wanted to write a long post, but ... well

her is a copy of an official letter sent to bush.jr before the war began ...

I let you appreciate

regards

francois

Letter sent to the President George W. Bush

by the Cardinal Archbishop of Boston Bernard Law

Mr. President,

It is necessary to say the truth to the people, Mr. President, about terrorism.

If the illusions about terrorism are not destroyed, then the threat will continue until our complete destruction. The truth is that none of our many nuclear weapons can protect us from these threats. None system "Star Wars" (it does not matter the advanced technique, nor how much billion dollars will be wasted in these projects) will not be able to protect us from a nuclear weapon transported on a boat, an aircraft or a rented car. No weapon, neither of your arsenal, nor one centime of the 270 million wasted dollars each year in called "the system of defense" can avoid a terrorist bomb.

It is a military fact. As lieutenant-colonel with the retirement and in frequent conferences about national safety, I always quoted Psalm 33: "a king is not saved by his powerful army, as a warrior is not saved by his strength". The obvious reaction is: "Whereas can we make?"

Does there exist nothing, which we can do to guarantee the safety of our people?

If! But to hear that, it is necessary to know the truth about the threat.

Mr. President, you did not say the truth on "why" we are the target of terrorism when you explained why we would bombard Afghanistan and Sudan.

You said that we were the target of terrorism because we defend the democracy, freedom the human rights in the world. It is absurdity, Mr. President. We are the target of the terrorists because, in the greatest part of the world, our government defended the dictatorship, slavery and the human exploitation. We are the target of the terrorists, because we are hated, and we are hated, because we made odious things.

In how much country of the agents of our government they drove out leaders for their people, by replacing them by military dictators, puppets eager to sell their own people with multinational American groups?

We did that in Iran, when the Navy and the CIA deposited Mossadegh because it intended to nationalize oil industry.

We replaced it by the Shah Reza Pahlevi and we armed, involved his hated national guard, the SAVAK, which reduced to slavery, maltreated the Iranian people, to protect the financial interests from our oil companies. Since is that, difficult to imagine that there exists, in Iran, of the people who hate us?

We did it in Chile, we did it in Viêt-Nam. More recently we tried to do it in Iraq. It is clear! How much time did we do it in Nicaragua and in other republics in Latin America?

Once after the other, we relieved of the popular leaders, who wanted to distribute the richnesses of their ground so that the people manage them. We replaced them by tyrants assassins, who sold their own people so that - with the help of the payment of enormous sums to fatten their private bank account - the richness of their own ground can be monopolized by companies such as domino Sugar, United Fruit Company, Folgers and the other similar ones.

Country in country our government blocked the democracy, choked freedom and trampled the human rights. It is for that that we are hated in the world and it is for that that we are the target of the terrorists.

The people of Canada enjoy freedom and the human rights, as well as the people of Norway and Sweden. Did you intend to say that Canadian, Norwegian or Swedish Embassies were bombarded?

We are not hated because we practise the human democracy, freedom and rights. We are hated because our government refuses these things with the people of the Third World, whose resources are coveted by our multinational groups.

This hatred that we sowed turns over against us of frightening us by terrorism, and, in the future, by nuclear terrorism.

Once that the truth was known as on the reasons of this threat and once that it was heard, the solution becomes obvious. We must change our practices. Us to release from our weapons nuclear (even unilaterally if it is needed), our safety will improve. To change our foreign policy drastiquement, will consolidate it.

Instead of sending our sons and our daughters all over the world, to kill out of the Arabs, in order to take possession of the oil which exists under their sand, us should send them to rebuild their infrastructures, to provide drinking water and to nourish the famished children. With place to continue to kill out of the thousands of Iraqi children tous.les.jours by our economic sanctions, should help us the Iraqis to rebuild their power stations, their stations of water treatment, their hospitals, all that we destroyed and what we prevent from rebuilding with our economic sanctions... Instead of involving terrorists and death squads, should close the School of Americas to us. Instead of supporting the revolt, the destabilization, the assassination and terror in the world, should abolish the CIA to us and give the money spent for it to the humane organizations. In short, should be good instead of being bad for us.

Who then would try to stop us? Who would hate us? Who would like to bombard us?

It is that, Mr. President. It is that which the American people have need to hear.

Bernard LAW, Cardinal - Archbishop of Boston

Note: This is a computer translation of the original webpage. It is provided for general information only and should not be regarded as complete nor accurate.

[mrvietnam2001]

Uhhh excuse me, depends on which "press" you're part of doesn't it?

I mean if you want to "sell newspapers" the national enquirer" is pretty good.

On the other hand, if you want to be a journalist, perhaps you should consider something else as with an attitude like that, you're a long way from being thought of as one.

Mr Vietnam

[laduladiva]

You are just  so dumb, it just had to be said  :laugh:

[mrvietnam2001]

Coming from someone who lives in london, that's pretty funny actually.

Mr Vietnam

[laduladiva]

just keep embarrassing you're self .... grow up. ::

[mrentoul]

Mr Vietnam, I've said this before - you're as thick as a brick shithouse. What would you know about journalism, pal?

If newspapers didn't sell there'd be no journos, and you wouldn't get your daily fix of tit 'n bum or whatever else you're into.

All journalists are aware of our public service obligations (you wouldn't know what those are, either), but if we can't make news sell there'd be no newspaper, no journal of record, and no public service element at all. Think about it!

If you think newspapers are here merely to act as soapbox for your jaundiced views, you're wrong. We'd have no readers left.

I have subbed so many letters written in your panting, semi-literate and confused style that I'm surprised I'm still sane. And the funny thing is, the letters my english-language newspaper gets from Thai readers are better written than the crap I get from ignorant phalung like you.

But all power to you mate - you serve as a shining example of all the things any sensible Thai should dislike in western visitors.

[mrvietnam2001]

mrentoul, thank you for your continued example of intellectual depth. Thankfully we call all swim thru your pool and not get the tops of our feet wet.

And since you insist on reading my "jaundiced posts" ( your own admission), I suppose I could delight in the fact that such a giant of journalism who thinks of himself so astute can find no way to hold himself back from reading my inarticulate writing and then critiquing based on his wisdom, but frankly I find you laughable.

Thank you again. You are on permanent ignore.

Mr Vietnam

[mrentoul]

And since you insist on reading my "jaundiced posts" ( your own admission), I suppose I could delight in the fact that such a giant of journalism who thinks of himself so astute can find no way to hold himself back from reading my inarticulate writing and then critiquing based on his wisdom, but frankly I find you laughable.

Subbing this alone would be an unenviable task.

I say again, you seem to know nothing about journalism. Leave that to the experts pal, and I'll leave you to flogging off your rare coins. I am sure you post the link to your coin website every tacky chance you get.

[laduladiva]

oh dear, you just keep on doing it Mr Vietnam

[aitch]

Me, A newspaper owner ? Thank you mrentoul. I needed a good laugh today. I enjoy the paper as much as the next guy, beleive me. Then again I live and work where me, the white guy, clearly sticks out. If I took what I read to heart I would never leave my apartment. But people keeping proving me wrong......

[ando]

Personal arguements should be carried on off-line if they have nothing to do with the subject. IMHO.

[george]

Gentlemen, we are way off topic here. Please open a new thread, this one is now closed.