Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Archbishop's assault on US foreign policy


questionmark

Recommended Posts

Archbishop's assault on US foreign policy

By Auslan Cramb

Last Updated: 2:14pm GMT 25/11/2007

The Archbishop of Canterbury has launched a stinging attack on the United States, comparing it unfavourably with the British Empire at its peak.

Dr Rowan Williams criticised America for intervening overseas with a "quick burst of violent action" and claimed its foreign policy had created the "worst of all worlds".

The wide-ranging interview with a British Muslim lifestyle magazine included the Anglican leader's most outspoken criticisms to date of the US and the war in Iraq.

He also said that the modern Western definition of humanity was not working, and that there was something about Western modernity that "really does eat away at the soul".

Dr Williams said the crisis in Iraq was caused by America's misguided sense of its mission in the world and ridiculed the "chosen nation" myth in America and the idea that what happened there was God's purpose.

He claimed the US had lost the moral high ground since the September 11 attacks, and urged it to launch a "generous and intelligent programme of aid directed to the societies that have been ravaged; a check on the economic exploitation of defeated territories; a demilitarisation of their presence".

He added: "We have only one global hegemonic power. It is not accumulating territory: it is trying to accumulate influence and control. That's not working.

"It is one thing to take over a territory and then pour energy and resources in to administering it and normalising it. Rightly or wrongly, that's what the British Empire did in India, for example.

"It is another thing to go in on the assumption that a quick burst of violent action will somehow clear the decks and that you can move on and other people will put it back together - Iraq, for example."

Full story, Source: The Telegraph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 
  • Replies 12
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mars

    3

  • henrychalder

    2

  • Fluffybunny

    1

  • questionmark

    1

Top Posters In This Topic

Well no, its silly to say a Republic nation in 2007 can be compared negatively to the British Empire.

Its true the British Empire was more merciful and way more moral than the previous empires like Rome and Greece. But to say America is worse than it is a little crazy. We live in 2007 not the 1700s, so things are different.

Future>Past

Edited by Mars
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was the British public's outcry that ended the Boer war, the press had been suppressed as to the cruelties the Boers suffered until the British people found out.

It was also the British people anger at the cruelties made by the Black and Tans that led to their disbandment due to their cruelties made by them in Ireland.

We shouldn't dismiss what the archbishop has to say.

Edited by henrychalder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was the British public's outcry that ended the Boer war, the press had been suppressed as to the cruelties the Boers suffered until the British people found out.

It was also the British people anger at the cruelties made by the Black and Tans that was to their disbandment due to their cruelties in Ireland.

We shouldn't dismiss what the archbishop has to say.

I wasn't saying that the British Imperialist Empire wasn't less moral than other empires. But they were still an empire and did dirty things that needed to be done.

Edited by Mars
Link to comment
Share on other sites

True that America has screwed up on things since 9/11, and that upsets me; we have made mistakes...so I can kind of understand where he is coming from, but when I thought about it I came to the conclusion that this guy is part of a church that is far more screwed up than the US is as a country, so I really take his words with a grain of salt. Big grain of salt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

he's not really mad but he can be the butt of jokes

The Archbishop isn't really mad, but has a voice the many would have listened to in Victorian times.

I earlier commented on a highly decorated British SAS service man who refused doing another tour of duty in Iraq claiming the Americans were behaving like Nazi's in the 2nd world war. The soldier was not court Martialled but allowed to leave the service with full military honours.

Visit My Website

Edited by henrychalder
Link to comment
Share on other sites

he's not really mad but he can be the butt of jokes

The Archbishop isn't really mad, but has a voice the many would have listened to in Victorian times.

I earlier commented on a highly decorated British SAS service man who refused doing another tour of duty in Iraq claiming the Americans were behaving like Nazi's in the 2nd world war. The soldier was not court Martialled but allowed to leave the service with full military honours.

Visit My Website

He didn't know what the nazis were like in ww2. THey weren't as bad as many think, when they invaded other nations they didn't go around randomly killing anyone.

Edited by Mars
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He claimed the US had lost the moral high ground since the September 11 attacks...

No, we lost it waaay before that...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didn't know what the nazis were like in ww2. THey weren't as bad as many think, when they invaded other nations they didn't go around randomly killing anyone.

Steer poddy!

My mother witnessed a man get his head shot off on the streets of Brussels for nothing more than calling a German soldier a "stika boche!" (dirty German in Flemish.

The soldeir pulled out a pistol and shot him dead on the street, then walked away.

There are thousands and thousands of similar accounts of German atrocities in World War II.

Both my parents witnessed these atrocities, my mother as a Belgian citizen and member of the Belgian Resistance. My father as an American G.I., who talked to civilians after the Germans were chased out of their towns.

Comparing American troops to Nazis is incorrect, unjust and infuriating.

Yes, there have been instances where American troops committed atrocities there. British troops have as well. While I feel the punishment has been far too lax for those who commit these crimes, at least they were prosecuted. In the German Army of World War II, it was shrugged off or you got a medal for a job well done!

I work with a man who was a U.S. soldier in Iraq just a year ago. He was there for 10 months. I also occasionally work alongside active-duty soldiers who have been in the Middle East. Every one of them says the media is only interested in portraying U.S. and allied troops in the worst possible light, it ignores successes, and that most of the Iraquis welcome the presence of U.S. and allied troops. The average Iraqui knows that once the allies leave, his world will erupt in even greater madness.

But you won't hear this from the media, especially the international media.

The contrast in what I see on the media, and what I hear from troops who have been there, is amazingly disparant. As a former reporter (12 years as a newspaperman) I find this lack of objectivity disgusting, unprofessional and infuriating.

It's easy to bash America.

I don't agree with all that America does, and I don't think we are doing the best we can over there, but we're trying.

That's more than what the UN did --- allowing a madman to laugh at its endless paper protests for 12 years while he built up forces, to include chemical and biological weapons.

And where are the weapons?

Well, Saddam had plenty of time to get rid of them. Frankly, I believe many of them went to Syria, or were shipped out worldwide to sympathetic countries for storage, via conexes. Among the sympathetic countries would almost certainly be Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea.

I have no doubt that chemical and biological weapons are out there, and will be used within the next 10 years to attack Americans. This is solely my opinion, based on educated guesses.

If anything, the Iraquis need to step up and take more responsibility for their country. So do the Afghans.

And the UN needs to grow some teeth and stop being such a paper tiger. Blame the UN for this mess.

To compare American and allied troops to Nazis? That's just ludicrous and insulting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well no, its silly to say a Republic nation in 2007 can be compared negatively to the British Empire.

Its true the British Empire was more merciful and way more moral than the previous empires like Rome and Greece. But to say America is worse than it is a little crazy. We live in 2007 not the 1700s, so things are different.

Future>Past

Aside from being technologically ahead and socially ahead things haven't changed all that much. America is the empire of this era and like the others before it will eventually fall because no empire has yet to perfect the formula to create a perpetual empire that could theoretically go on until humanity no longer exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's more than what the UN did --- allowing a madman to laugh at its endless paper protests for 12 years while he built up forces, to include chemical and biological weapons.

And where are the weapons?

Well, Saddam had plenty of time to get rid of them. Frankly, I believe many of them went to Syria, or were shipped out worldwide to sympathetic countries for storage, via conexes. Among the sympathetic countries would almost certainly be Cuba, Venezuela and North Korea.

I have no doubt that chemical and biological weapons are out there, and will be used within the next 10 years to attack Americans. This is solely my opinion, based on educated guesses.

oops, i just spat my soup over the monitor. Please, tell me before you start a comedy routine next time. haven't you missed China off the list there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's more than what the UN did --- allowing a madman to laugh at its endless paper protests for 12 years while he built up forces, to include chemical and biological weapons.

Actually, I would say they were successfully carrying out a containment strategy. They had sanctions and they had weapons inspectors. In fact, the U.N had weapons inspectors in Iraq right up to the moment they had to be pulled out for Bush's war.

There were a few incidents with U.N weapons inspectors being kicked out but that was due to accusations that the U.S government had planted American spies amongst the weapons inspectors. Anyway, that was history by the time Bush decided to go to war.

It's true that the sanctions were inhumane in some respects but you can't possibly say the U.N was doing nothing but "paper" protests".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

why is it that countries , like children when confronted with criticism of their actions , go on to balk " well , they did it " or " but look at their past" ?

Gee , with that kind of thinking , some other country could set off nukes on a couple of US cities and just say " well , they did it too."

or capture Americans , most being innocent , water board them and say " well look what their country did " and hold them without charges or a hearing or legal council or contact.

How fast would we be belly aching ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.