Comments on: Is anti-Americanism a new phenomenon. Or did the WOT just bring out the haters that were always there?

By: eelliko

eelliko — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 06:52:27 +0000

In europe : not really hate, probably, but europeans have always looked down on americans, seeing them as not too informed about the world.
In middle east : always there since the end of WWII bc, of Israel.

By: jorge n

jorge n — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 06:00:57 +0000

chavez es menos anti-americano que la gente que conozco en mexico. con eso se responde todo

By: yamuna s

yamuna s — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:59:35 +0000

hi check this link its good

http://buyingandsellingshares.blogspot.com/

By: The PEN

The PEN — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 05:40:43 +0000

Anti Americanism is not related to whole wide continental of America but for USA herself.

The hatred phenomenon is arising before the 9/11, before the Cold War ( Soviet vs Nato ).

Dont forget, USA and Israel are most wicked countries in the world. Dont trust and even made them as a friend. They will conquer your country at any time.

Bush and white house is the real terrorist and used many words to allure the stupid guy like you to support him against any terrosrism. But the question is what happened in Iraq and Afghan, many reported series said that many local civiliians are more been killed by USA soldiers just to make the people of USA like you say, hey, we have killed all terrorist and we must celebrate our victory. This is a barbaric actions done by the country that proudly said is more democratic and human right freedoms.
I dont think USA will be better after this, more numbers of foe that you made now, and this numbers will be increasing if no such actions to revamp the white house administration and Bush must be sentence to death penalty in Iraq for killing hundread thousand of people in Iraq and Afghan.

By: hopflower

hopflower — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 04:43:26 +0000

Sorry, but you must take a bit of responsibility for the way Americans act. There are reasons to not like us; although terrorism has no excuse.

By: Brad V

Brad V — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 04:41:50 +0000

Of coarse the haters have always been there. We can’t even get a consensus from our closest ally, the British. I suppose we will just need to live with it.

It became a national disgrace when the Clintons took office. These two people are not healers by any stretch of the imagination. These are, not one, but two lightning rods that galvanize the American public. If anybody can drive a stake into the American phyche quicker, it would be Hillary’s alter ego, Rahm Emanuel., and she hangs on his every word.

By: Countessa

Countessa — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 04:21:22 +0000

So you basic your opinions on a article written by Fouad Ajami? Having read it. It just base on one Journalist political view.

By: mysticduder

mysticduder — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 04:21:05 +0000

The more we ram Christianity and Westernism down people’s throats under the guise of freedom, the more enemies we will amass.

By: Tim R

Tim R — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 04:15:24 +0000

Liberals have wanted to give up on American values long ago. They were sooo opposed to going against the Soviet Union because who are we to tell anyone else how to live. Why should our values be any better than others. Morons. Thank God for Reagan and intelligent Republicans (not our current ones who are idiots along with the Dems).

By: skip742

skip742 — Wed, 16 Dec 2009 03:32:22 +0000

The “haters” have always been there. If you look closely at the pictures of any of the early anti-American rallies in Europe or elsewhere, you’ll always see the posters say something like “sponsored by the Turkish Communist Party” or something like that. It’s quite funny, actually.

The difference now is that, instead of it being a small rally of communists and fellow travelers, an increasing number of normal people seem to be joining in. And typical people have a low opinion of our government these days. Do you think it’s simply because of the war on terror? I don’t really believe that. I think the mis-handling on the war on al-Queda and the twisting of it into an amorphous “war on terror” is probably part of the reason. Because, of course, terror can never be ‘defeated’, so we’ve given ourselves a license to war forever.

We sometimes have to move without the consent of the world, but there’s no reason to do so unless it is critically important. Iraq was not, and has proven to be a quagmire. I hate to say it, as a Republican, but this administration has been a grave disapointment, and not just on domestic policy. Wars should be fought with specific intent and clear purpose. Iraq has been a case of unclear intent and shifting purposes. Regardless of any other criticisms, this in itself is enough to make it a terrible thing.

Call me when you defeat “terror”. I prefer to fight real enemies, not phantoms. And I prefer to fight only when we have to.