Anti-US critics charge the US of selfishness, targeting innocent civilians, and lacking humanitarianism. On all counts, their arguments display a deeply flawed logic.

Americans have often been considered to have a limited knowledge of what goes on around the world outside their country. For instance, in some of her writings, Ms. Roy has expressed a puzzlement over the "curiously insular" nature of the citizens of the United States. While we cannot deny that average Americans do need to become more aware of the world outside their borders, it has to be remembered that as a group of citizens, they are amongst the most accepting of people from other countries, cultures, races, religions, etc. inside their own country. The latter is clearly a sign of tolerance and acceptance of views from across the world. No populace in the world is perfect in not just accommodating but also assimilating foreign views - but the United States is certainly one of the leading countries in this category.

The fact also remains that the fiercely protective nature of the United States among other things, engenders a sense of intense patriotism amongst its citizens - something that critics of U.S. citizens often also deride as "ignorance" or a reflection of their "insular" nature. On the other hand, why should the people of the United States, be any less "curiously insular" when their nation is considered to be no different than that of the Taliban's or that of Saddam Hussein's or that of Stalin or Hitler, in spite of the fact that:

* The U.S. public, considered so "curiously insular", "selfish" or "self-centered" by most critics, contributes HUNDREDS of BILLIONS of dollars in charity every year (see 1999 data - New York was #1) which went to causes both inside and outside the United States.

* The United States is one of the world's topmost providers of humanitarian, healthcare, food, developmental and environmental aid (several billions of dollars a year) to other countries in the world, including those it is accused of warring against - whether it is Afghanistan, Peru, Indonesia, Vietnam (1 2), El Salvador, Guatemala, the Congo or Kosovo, or many more which have received over a billion dollars each in such aid such as the Palestinians in West Bank/Gaza since 1993, Nicaragua since 1990, the former Yugoslavia (excluding an additional $900M to Bosnia-Herzegovina) since 1991, and Sudan since 1989.

* The U.S. has in its midst even non-Governmental agencies that fight for refugees worldwide, working with (and sometimes against) the U.S. government to save refugees from areas of conflict or human rights violations.

* Some of the very countries the United States provided support/help/aid to, turn around to attack it (either verbally or militarily) later when it is convenient to do so (the examples are way too many to list here but include many Arabic and Islamic nations, among others)·

* Some international citizens - from countries friendly to the U.S. for obvious historical reasons - forget to go through their history lessons and unleash verbal indictments on the U.S. readily, while not reflecting on how their country (or they themselves) might have turned out without U.S. support in the past.

Perhaps, to U.S. critics, the above evidence is only a drop in the pervasive ocean of selflessness and care displayed so overwhelmingly by all other nations of the world, and their citizens.

In one of those rare moments where Ms. Roy was obviously distracted from her focus, she points out how "all of us have been moved by the courage and grace shown by firefighters, rescue workers and ordinary office-goers in the days and weeks that followed the [Sep 11] attacks". However she quickly recovers her balance by hastening to add that in "say[ing] the harsh things" that nevertheless needs to be said, since Americans (obviously civilians) may choose not to say tough things to themselves, she and other like thinkers will be "disliked, ignored and perhaps eventually silenced". Disliked - perhaps; ignored - less likely; eventually silenced - never. In fact, there are at least some pockets within the U.S. where her opinions are likely to be even welcomed. Moreover, with the growth of the Internet, something that the U.S. played a fundamental role in developing and promoting, free speech can be more widely disseminated in the United States (and elsewhere in the world) than ever before.

ON CIVILIAN LIVES: Can we stop being naïve, please?

Another favourite topic of criticism against the U.S. is its disrespect for civilian lives in other countries. No one will deny the loss of innocent civilian lives is a minus, not a plus, in any struggle or war. But Americans are not so ignorant that this has to be pointed out to them as a revelation. Nor are they so cruel as a people that they do not care about innocent civilians in other countries. There are those who would equate the loss of even one life in Afghanistan to that of thousands at New York City. We beg to differ. While we do not subscribe to the killing of innocent civilians in any situation, one cannot be so naïve as to imagine that wars or conflicts are devoid of loss of "innocent" lives. We are not aware of any war or conflict in recent or past history which did not in some way or the other cost civilian lives ("innocent" or not), and to actually expect someone to fight a war or participate in a conflict after making a promise that not a single civilian life will be lost, even by mistake, is as bizarre an expectation as any. Nevertheless, we urge the U.S. Government to assist and rehabilitate the families of all (truly) innocent civilians (especially women and children) killed during their campaign in Afghanistan.

Targeting civilians intentionally is quite different than civilians being killed by accident or in the line of fire, whether or not one may spout idealistic claptrap on this subject. If only outcome is important and intent is useless in a war, this is no different than dismissing one's intent regarding the protection of the lives and health of the poor in peacetime. Scores of poor people die every day out of malnutrition and disease, with the full knowledge of every reasonably informed human being on earth. As citizens of the world we can state that our intent is to help these people, but we then use our money for other causes or interests, including for "non-essential" items or entertainment for ourselves and our families. Thus, many of the poor and the sick die everyday due to lack of money, and we who can afford to give them money and don't (for reasons of selfishness or self-protection) continue to claim that we act in the best interests of those poor people. How is that selfish act in a time of peace any different than the selfish act in wartime in terms of the outcome? In both cases, the people who commit the actions are fully aware that if they acted differently, they could perhaps save some innocent lives! Does that mean our intent is useless and each human being on this planet is responsible for the daily deaths of all the poor and ravaged? Our position is that intent is as important as the outcome but neither one is justifiable in isolation. Balance is key.

Moreover, critics of the U.S. typically give zero credit to a government that HAS gone out of its way to try to avoid killing civilians in Afghanistan (to the extent possible) in response to thousands of its own civilians being killed. Patronizing language casting aspersions on the intentions of the U.S. seems to be the best such critics can manage. At the same time, some (not all) critics may even have us believe that the slaughterers and tyrants who use their own civilians as personal shields (by forced conscription, population of their military regions with civilians or vice versa, by holding civilians hostage) or as suicide bombs, are displaying the MOST reasonable form of "care" for their own people. That is evidently as good (or bad) a way of showing concern as, say, flying out and trying to airlift one's own civilians out of a military zone. Trying to avoid firing at civilians directly, and instead targeting military installations or weapons plants (which may have civilian shields), is apparently insufficient evidence of respect for civilian lives.

Additional criticism (read "blame") has been heaped on the U.S. government for the deaths of scores of children and civilians in Iraq due to years of sanctions. Again, it is not the Iraqi supremo Mr. Hussein who is held culpable for the fate and lives of the Iraqi people, for he simply seems to have become, along with his beleaguered people, a sad victim of circumstance. In fact, he is evidently such a compelling and visionary leader that he is surely to be praised for his foresight in "leading" his country into a most desirable war and its repercussions. How could he possibly be the real cause of the civilian deaths, considering his care for them is so "spiritual" that 'only death may do them part'? We have seen news reports of how some Iraqis (and some people from other nations) are apparently very happy to see Mr. Hussein continue to threaten and fight the U.S. - as thousands continue to die within Iraq. As days pass, his support perhaps will grow even more (in direct proportion to the number of internal deaths), since it was so *obviously* the U.S. that has brought Iraq to the state it is in and Mr. Hussein is Iraq's holy savior. It would seem in the eyes of all these people (and like-thinking U.S. critics) that the U.S. Government first delivered Mr. Hussein as a baby and then cultivated and trained him through childhood to magically daze hapless and "innocent" Iraqi citizens into supporting his rise to power. Subsequently, the U.S. presumably set up a regular supply of chemical weapons to Mr. Hussein for the express purpose of encouraging him to gas everyone he didn't quite take a liking to. Following that, the U.S. evidently forced him into a war with Kuwait and themselves just so that they could make their military oriented businesses more profitable and simultaneously claim credit for saving Kuwait. Finally, they engineered the intentional mass civilian casualties through sanctions, in order that they could invite tirades and terrorist attacks from very sharp critics who would reveal the truth behind it all to U.S. citizens, in spite of a non-free press in the U.S.

In the midst of this, Ms. Roy somehow seems to have faltered by actually complimenting American citizens stating how "universally welcomed" they are, as opposed to their Government, for their extraordinary talents in literature, arts and sports. She clarifies that Americans must understand they are not the ones that are hated, but rather it is the acts of their government that are reviled. Not that the evidence for Americans being "universally welcomed" across the world is in any way compelling, but her well-intentioned remarks unfortunately miss the point. Evidently it is fully understandable (i.e., logical) that other Governments or groups might intentionally slaughter "innocent" and "universally welcomed" U.S. civilians to attack the U.S. Government. (This is also evident from some messages circulating on the net hinting that Americans must be dumb to ask "Why us?") However, the U.S. Government is worse than slime since it militarily responds to slaughters of its own civilians or to provocations, and may unintentionally kill civilians in "enemy" states in the process (or like some people, may argue - "intentionally").

The truth is, in the "Algebra of Infinite Justice", no amount of blood-letting will replace the lost lives of Sep 11 or any other innocent lives. How many dead Iraqis before Mr. Hussein realizes he is the one who actually swore to safeguard the lives of his dear citizens (then again, his answer might be, "I swore nothing")? Who has the real responsibility for the lives of innocent Iraqi citizens - the American Government or the Iraqi Government? How many dead Afghans (or others) before the Taliban and Mr. bin Laden decide that heaven has a serious shortage of virgins and that their followers have sufficiently proved their worth to *their* God? Who has the real responsibility for the lives of innocent Afghan citizens - the American Government or the Afghan Government? Being poor and ravaged has never been a good reason for people to be treated well anywhere in this world, and coming from India, Ms. Roy should know that as well as anyone else, before singling out the U.S. for blame on this issue. Then again, per Universal Law #2, the United States stands apart as a country without a heart and which shows no charity. As we said earlier, we will try to assimilate this hypothesis and juxtapose it against how all other countries and their generous people are voluntarily filling the coffers of their poor with all their "extra" disposable income to industriously bridge the widespread income and living gaps, while also granting them superb freedom and rights. Never mind that even prior to September 11, Afghanistan was the largest recipient of U.S. humanitarian assistance,and that the United States was the largest contributor of food aid to Afghanistan, and to the U.N. World Food Program in general.

Read More
» The US connection: Of dictators, ethnic cleansers and hatred