Sunday, May 22, 2005

Weekend Anti-American Protests

WooT,that was an interesting weekend. I was planning to see this movie Star Wars, to know what it has, but cancelled it at the last minute to go out with some friends. Had a small get-together here. Went to this place called Café Mocha. Saw there were people there smoking a hookah. My friend says it doesn't have ganja or any other thing, just some flavoured tobacco.

Looks like someone named Art has left a comment here. That was a pretty convincing comment dude, I have changed my mind, I am not anti-USA anymore!!!

I don't know if you would read this, but still find my comments inline.

Wow is that an interesting view of America. Are you sure you aren't just furthering such stereotypes and prejudices? Just like you are accusing Americans of doing?

No, I am not furthering any stereotypes and/or prejudices. Interestingly, what I wrote is what your blog conveys to me too!

Among other things, one of the basic principles of American society is freedom of choice. The whole idea that you use only products made by Company X or Nation X is anathema to our culture. You may chose whichever products you want from whatever source you want. Of COURSE companies try to convince you to use their products. Don't they do that in India?

Companies convince us to do that through something called marketing, silly! What I don't like is the strategy used by these companies - some of the advertisements have been tasteless and say that people using traditional methods are cavemen. They are also responsible at many places for the reduction in the ground water leve, and pollution of the reservoirs and the water table.

If you or your compatriots chose to listen to American music or buy Coke or wear Nikes . . . how is that an indictment of my society?

Freedom of choice? And as your leader says, we hate freedom!

If you don;t like it, don't do it. Would you rather not have the option? Would you rather the gov't step in and make a law telling you that you may not use/listen to/wear/watch/eat/drive/fly in/talk to people and things from other countries? If so, I am sorry you feel that way. We will continue to accept and allow products from all countries.

And for those areas where OUR gov't has decided to restrict imports, etc., I am sorry. It does not happen too often, but when it does (e.g. Chinese textiles or foreign steel), I wish it did not. I have posted many times about free trade and how I despise trade restrictions.


Have you read about (not just American, but also European) government subsidies for the farmers? You are not competing with the developing countries but with the LDCs, the African farmers who can't even stand against your government-sponsored might.

What about you? How do you feel about trade restrictions?

I am for removal of all restrictions - trade, economical and labour. Unfortunately, there aren't many of my kind now, asking for free movement of labour.

If all Americans are against free trade agreements, why is Bush pushing hard right now for Congress to pass CAFTA (the Central Amerian Free Trade Agreement)?

Because, then your country doesn't have to deal with (is it) 12 countries simultaneously, it is just one banana bloc you have to deal with.

Do you truly think that all Americans are prejudiced? That's too bad. Yes, some are. Just as some Indians are prejudiced against Americans and others. It's a sad fact of liife but every culture has people like that.

Didn't you read my disclaimer at the top? I agree there are people like that.

Want to know my position on the "outsourcing" trope offered by the Dems and some protectionist Reps? It's a lie. Click here and here. See also,here, here, and here for more.

Nice.

For myself, not speaking for the rest of "my fellow Americans," I do think the U.N. is more trouble than it's usually worth and that Kofi Annan's son (and others) are corrupt. (See here and here for examples.) Do you not think so? Do you think that the Oil-for-Food problems are fake and that Saddam did not use his oil sales chits to curry favor with foreign gov'ts and the U.N.?

Aren't you aware that the oil eventually reached the shores of your country where they burn in cars driven by Americans?

You seem to imply that Americans think that the U.N. is the source of trouble in Iraq/Iran/N. Korea. I don't think that's true. Seems to me that foreign terrorists (Saudi, Syrian, etc.) are the trouble in Iraq and that an insane dictator is the trouble in N. Korea. As for Iran . . . well, the whole "stop trying to make nukes or we'll threaten you with considering a strongly worded statement" doesn't work. Has it ever?

Neither has the tactic of 'we will bomb you into the stone age'.

Regarding "calling the AT&T call center," are you saying that all Americans are racist?

Again, read the disclaimer. And, are you saying that it never happens? Then, why do I read about people forming some sort of groups to intimidate the poor call centre workers?

As for the "with us or against us" . . . um, how would you have us approach terrorists? Play nice with them? Yeah. That's worked so well for Italy. How do you want to treat terrorists?

If you care to look beyond your boundaries, you might notice that India has been dealing with terrorists ever since our Independence. This terrorism has been sponsored, not just in Kashmir, but also in Chechenya, Afghanistan, China and many other places, by your two biggest allies in the war against terrorism - Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. However, our approach is to not carpet bomb the innocent civilians living there with napalm.

You also seem to think that our resistance to laws which are anti-U.S. equals the denial of human rights to others. How's that again? Because we want to excercise sovereignty over our own country therefore human rights take a hit? When India promotes her right to self-rule rather than the imposition of outside rules on her, does that mean that human rights are hurt?

Of course, it was anti-US to stop the tactics used in Guantanamo Bay, prisons across Afghanistan and Iraq, the tactics used by the CIA and your green berets in Central America, in Vietnam, in Laos, in Cambodia, and many other countries. Excercising sovereignty over your own country is one thing, taking photographs of naked people in captivity, releasing photos of enemy combatants in their underpants, holding 12 year olds in Camp X-Ray indefinitely, bombing the hell out of fleeing troops along the highway of death, CIA training operatives for covert wars, proxy wars on behalf of corporates (ARAMCO, United Fruit Company, among others), is not.

I see a logo saying 'saving you, whether you like it or not,' or 'unilateral trade restrictions'. These babies would like to thank you for saving them from the evil pinko-commies (disturbing images). Too bad, such a strong issue has to be clarified by snopes for people to believe it.

Do you also know that USA is the only country that has used the atomic bomb and is still using 'nucular' weapons, in the form of depleted uranium shells? I am not really against the people of USA, I hate the government and its foreign policy. I wouldn't care any less about what happens in your country, but once it starts affecting me, I have to take a stance, don't you think so?

:

Blogger TAotB said...

What an opinion.

You don't like some advertising. Therefor the U.S., and not some individual company, is bad. I see.

"They are also responsible at many places for the reduction in the ground water leve, and pollution of the reservoirs and the water table." No link. Just a claim.

"And as your leader says, we hate freedom!" No quote. Just a sarcastic claim.

I admit that trade restrictions have happened and decry them. Your response? Change the subject. Then condemn them.

I suggest that CAFTA is an example of our free trade policies. Your response? "It's only so you can trade with one group." (1) that's not true (cf. NAFTA) (2) that doesn't respond to my comment that CAFTA is an example of the U.S. participating in free trade.

So in your world if the U.S. DOES make free trade agreements, it is not really free trade. If it does NOT, then the U.S. is against free trade. Is that right?

You bring up the U.N and I agree with your parody that they suck. I point to the Oil-for-Food scandal as proof that Kofi Annan's son IS corrupt. Your reply? Change the subject: "Aren't you aware that the oil eventually reached the shores of your country where they burn in cars driven by Americans?" Interesting non sequitur. Why not just admit that I was right and Kofi's son et al. are corrupt?

Following that, I mention that an insane dictator is already in charge of a nuclear arsenal and that fundamentalist Muslims are in charge of a country trying desperately to get them. Your response? "Neither has the tactic of 'we will bomb you into the stone age'." That's EXACTLY what we are trying to prevent. You really don't think that either country would send a nuke tot he U.S. if they could? Really?

"Then, why do I read about people forming some sort of groups to intimidate the poor call centre workers?" Cites? Sources? Proof? Or just anecdotes?

In noting that India has been dealing with terrorists for a long time, you say, "However, our approach is to not carpet bomb the innocent civilians living there with napalm." Cites? Sources? Evidence of a SINGLE CASE of CARPET BOMBING or the use of napalm?

Did some bombs miss? Sadly, yes. Did the U.S. level entire provinces from 5000 meters? No.

"taking photographs of naked people in captivity, releasing photos of enemy combatants in their underpants, holding 12 year olds in Camp X-Ray indefinitely, bombing the hell out of fleeing troops along the highway of death, CIA training operatives for covert wars, proxy wars on behalf of corporates (ARAMCO, United Fruit Company, among others), is not."

First, I am not particularly upset by someone being pictured in their underwear or even naked. Big f*cking deal. Would you rather be held clothes-less by the U.S. in Guantanamo or head-less by Zarqawi in Iraq? I know which I would choose.

To my knowledge, there are no 12 year olds in X-Ray. Got a reliable source on that one or just another wild claim to inflame your reader?

As for bombing enemy soldiers as they ran . . . you think it smart to watch enemy troops fade away into the scenery rather than try to kill them? When you see an enemy soldier, either they surrender or they get killed. You don't watch them run and hope they are nice enough not to try and kill you tomorrow.

As for covert ops, they are are done by everyone, Manoj. Even India. The horror. The horror.

Proxy wars for United Fruit Co? WTF?

The Vietnamese babies? That is sad. But did you note the FIRST SENTENCE of the Snopes article?

"Although we can't say for sure that Xuan Minh . . . suffers from an abnormal physicality due to the effects of Agent Orange (rather than some other cause), we don't see any reason to suspect, as some have suggested, that the image has been digitally manipulated."

Woops.

"Do you also know that USA is the only country that has used the atomic bomb and is still using 'nucular' weapons, in the form of depleted uranium shells?"

Yes and yes. But you did note the use of the word "depleted" there, right? As in "no longer radioactive"? As in "really hard metal that makes a fantastic projectile but no longer gives off radiation"?

"I am not really against the people of USA, I hate the government and its foreign policy."

That is good to know. It is too bad that your knowledge of American foreign policy is based on anti-American propaganda rather than the facts. Is America perfect? By no means. But is not how you portray it.

"I wouldn't care any less about what happens in your country, but once it starts affecting me, I have to take a stance, don't you think so?"

Certainly. you should. So you stance against the U.S. in Iraq is because the U.S. has also secretly invaded and taken over India? And you are now writing from Camp X-Ray?

Or is it simply that you don't like some advertisements?

May 22, 2005 9:35 PM  
Blogger SeizeTheNite said...

Just remember we didn't all vote for Bush, and we don't ALL agree with his actions and opinions.
We aren't all so bad...just the Texans.
:)

May 23, 2005 12:10 PM  
Blogger Lumbergh-in-training said...

No carpet bombing? No napalm against civilians? Don't know about United Fruit Co?

Maybe you should read 'CIA Diary: Inside the Company by Philip Agee', written by one of your finest.

No 12 year olds in Guantanamo Bay? Because they have become 16/17 year olds now.

Also, congrats to your scientists for finding a way to completely neutralise the radio-activity of uranium.

Art, I wanted to say one thing, but I just came to know that ostriches do not bury their head in sand anymore. You and your friends seem to have taken up that.

May 23, 2005 9:48 PM  
Blogger sarah the great and wise said...

You two seem to be having a very involved discussion on America and its policies. More power to ya.

To seize the nite— What the heck? When is the last time you were in the great state of Texas? Do you know for sure that every single one of us Texans supports that man and his administration? No, you don’t...because not all of us do.

Stereotypes suck.

May 26, 2005 1:44 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home