Anti-Americanism Around the World
Tom Moore writes; "I agree there is a lot of anti-Americanism in Latin
America. After the Iraq war and prison scandal, there is a lot of anti-Americanism
everywhere. However, that will not necessarily result in terrorism from those
countries. Only if we impose our troops on their soil will they fight back like
the Arabs are doing because of all our troops in the Middle East and because
Randy Black says: "Regarding Mr. DeBell’s disgust with “things American,” : "Quid rides? Mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur.” (from Horace), My friends around the world have not indicated that they believe the US has become anymore hated today than it had been previously… Nor any more than they did when the previous President was sleeping on a couch in the White House because he had been banished from his wife’s bed, and was subsequently was impeached for fabrications under oath; or when the previous President bombed eastern Europe without UN approval (remember Kosovo?), or when LBJ bombed Hanoi, or when MacArthur wanted to invade China, or, or, or. Where to stop?" Bottom line: Politics is not a one-generational thing. It is an evolving, breathing, changing animal over decades, centuries. Is there an appropriate phrase for when the other countries of the world want their share of the US largess when Congress is deciding who gets how much foreign aid?"
RH: My reading of world opinion is not the same as Randy's. For as long as I can remember, Democrats have been more popular than Republicans abroad because they are more internationalist. Clinton is a seriously flawed person, but he did not arouse the hostility which meets Bush wherever he goes. This is not necessarily a criticism of Bush. Conducting the affairs of the US and indeed the world should not be a popularity contest, but it is becoming that. I agree with Randy that the clamor for US aid is not an edifying spectacle.Bill Ratliff writes: "Speaking of comments on Sr. Moore's film, here are some by Christopher Hitchens, hardly a right wing nut. I haven't seen the film and have no impression. Hitchens was banged round a bit recently by WAISers. One paragraph gives the flavor, the link to a long and detailed review follows: "To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery."
RH: I have not seen the film, but it is reported to have grossed more money
than any other documentary. I am prepared to believe that it is accurate, but
what bothers me is that there could be an equally accurate documentary defending
Bush. As it is, movie goers will hear only one side,
Ronald Hilton -