Talk:Anti-Americanism/Archive 5

message: Before edit war:
"When used by Americans, these terms are perhaps mostly used by people who are labelling the views of their opponents, rather than by people who are describing their own position." (11:40, 30 May 2004 User:193.219.28.144)
After:
"While the term implies an ideological tendency and racism (cf. anti-semitism), its use is often perceived as an attempt by Americans to defame and downplay legitimate criticism, particularly of US foreign policy." (16:34, 30 May 2004 User:Get-back-world-respect)
Less wordy suggestion:
Those who disagree with the use of the term often perceive it as an attempt to dismiss criticism of the USA, and to hint at prejudice (c.f. anti-semitism). 
Andy G 17:51, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: A prefer it as it is because the use of the term increased tremendously after the criticism of Bush's Iraq war, so it is noteworthy that foreign policy is the major issue. Also, anti-semitism implies much more than prejudice, and it is important that people try to label legitimate criticism with a term that implies racism. Get-back-world-respect 17:12, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Intro

message: It is currently factually wrong to claim that it is "widely alleged" that the U.S.A. has any direct relationship with the paramilitaries in Colombia. 
The UN doesn't do it, HRW, AI, and other recognizable NGOs that have experience in dealing with the subject and which have quite a history of making harsh criticisms of the U.S. and Colombia don't do it. The legal left in Colombia (opposition leftwing parties, sindicalists, etc.), which also expresses serious opposition to the government's and to the US policies as a whole in Colombia doesn't do it either (**legal** US policies and actions in Colombia by themselves can be considered a source of their Anti-Americanism). 
Then to who or what is the author of that statement referring to? Online individuals or publications perhaps, but that doesn't really qualify as "widely alledged", at least not from a Neutral Point of View, I'd think.
What is quite "widely alleged", by **all of the above** and more, is that sectors of the Colombian military and police have been and continue to be involved in either direct collaboration with paramilitarism or passivity towards it. But that is a completely different matter, it cannot be equated with that statement.
In short, the situation cannot be considered an automatic equivalent of Nicaragua's, which is a much clearer and **widely accepted** example of "Anti-Americanism" stemming from such behavior and which would have been a better choice in the first place, as it has a substantially higher degree of evidence to back it up and is already mentioned in the article (within a slightly different context). I removed the text, because in its current condition and placement, it cannot be considered neither an accurate nor a neutral statement. Juancarlos2004 03:22, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Columbian paramilitaries

message: I think that the comment about the USA's trade dispute with Canada is too specific/short-term/small. There are tons of trade disputes that arise from the WTO agreements. It would be good to note if the USA has an unusally high number of these disputes relative to other countries.
Also, I think the US gets a lot of flack for continuing to develop domineering weapons (nukes and space based weapons  come to mind). Where should this be added? AdamRetchless 13:46, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Trade disputes and domineering weapons

message: The US did not invade Vietnam; its forces entered the country at the request of the recognized government of South Vietnam. However, it did launch raids into neighborhing countries. However, since their intent was to influence the conflict in South Vietnam (not establish control of those countries), they probably don't qualify as "invasions". AdamRetchless 02:06, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Vietnam invasion