Europe steps up criticism of US

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus


Rather sick view. So you think a select group of 270 million people are more important than 6 billion others?

Of, course he does. He´s the same sort of egoistic bastard as Bush and his cronies.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
Rather sick view.

How so? That's the way that all State's should opperate thier foreign policy.

[Clear Skies]

I'm not interested in benefiting the world as a whole. I'm interested in seeing that the US benefits itself primarially. If the two goals can be done at the sametime though, so much the better.

"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious" - Oscar Wilde
"Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race" - Albert Einstein

When are people going to see that working for the sole good of just one country or just one people or just one group is never a laudable goal? Is that the American dream? Screwing everyone else around just so you can profit from it?

...oh yeah. Sorry, I forgot. You're allowed, because you're American. Which makes it all all right.

[JohnT]

I put the baby to bed and still, all I can be bothered with is:



Sorry, Saint Marcus. I'll try to do better in responding to your trolls later. Right now, with the baby asleep, Mommy and I are, uh, well, I'll see y'all later!

[Az]

Kamrat X , Mark : you can't actually blame the US government for putting it's interests before everyone else's ? that's the whole point of government . don't you all try to get the best deal for yourselves ?

It's only natural that the government of the US would try to do what's good for it's citizens . more than that : That's what their whole friggin' goal is !


The point is different , however. What's good for the US ? I don't think that this is any of one's bussiness , unless it has a direct relation to one's interests . ( or unless he's a US citizen , of course )

[mactbone]

Alright, if you feel that the interests of everyone else in the world outweigh the interests of your own country, why not, istead of paying taxes, just give it all to some poor African country? Or invite all of the poor people to come live in your country. Or stop all global conflict, no matter the cost to your own country. Or bring down the walls of nationalism and form a new super country... whoops, I guess the last one is becoming true.

You complain about the US having it's own agenda, yet each and every one of your countries has it's own agenda that does not benefit everyone in the entire world. Even the French had his own agenda in stating that. First, he does not want to be seen as America's lapdog. Second, he wants to further his agenda in the ME, possibly because his country, did or is selling arms to people in the region. Third, he's covered his bases now, he supported the US earlier, now he doesn't, so he effectively flip-flopped in a political manuever.

Next time when you want to complain about the US taking it's own peoples' interests first, remember that each country is basically a family, and family comes first.

[Clear Skies]

The trouble with the US is that it takes the interests, not of its citizens, but of the major companies, far far too seriously, often at the expense of so many other people it's scary.

[mactbone]

Yeah, so scary...

You really think that companies appreciate the war on terrorism? They have to shell out more money because of new laws, and because of new security measures. The economy had a very big chance of going to into a recession as people feared terrorism (luckily people are still buying like before). More people are joining the army, which may cause problems for companies which depend on cheaper labor formed from those more likely to join the military (i.e. people who will barely graduate High School, never go to college, and work at a factory).

Now granted, there are certainly companies that are benifiting, but you're painting an awfully lopsided picture here.

[Transcend]

My feeling is that Euros are rather pissed that they are not being consulted and may not be part of the action. It's a pretty good sign if your allies really want the participation, isn't it?

[Zoid]

Originally posted by Dalgetti
Kamrat X , Mark : you can't actually blame the US government for putting it's interests before everyone else's ? that's the whole point of government . don't you all try to get the best deal for yourselves ?

It's only natural that the government of the US would try to do what's good for it's citizens . more than that : That's what their whole friggin' goal is !

The point is different , however. What's good for the US ? I don't think that this is any of one's bussiness , unless it has a direct relation to one's interests . ( or unless he's a US citizen , of course )

Comrade Dalgetti, is that defence of the US I hear? The US is the worlds biggest economy and only remaining superpower but that doesn´t give them the right to treat the earth like their own private plaything. There´s approx. 176 countries on this planet. The US is ONE of those countries, no more, no less!

[Goingonit]

If you give money to 3rd-world countries due to terrorism, they (correctly) will assume that terrorism leads to money, and thus support more terrorism so the US will give them more foreign aid. I think the French guy was more simplistic vis-a-vis the root causes of terrorism.

Have you seen the play/movie or read the book "the mouse that roared"?

[Urban Ranger]

There are actually a few points any reasonable human being (this includes Usians) object to:

1. The US fancies itself to be World Leader, or at least Leader of the Free World, yes? It is not acting that way. I don't think people will be as annoyed if the US doesn't keeps making itself to be some sort of leader while at the same time act without considering those it's trying to lead.

2. Self-serving is all right, but do not use any kind of righteous sounding excuse to veneer over it, please. If the US doesn't like Iraq, fine, but don't throw this "Evil Axis" crap around. It smells.

3. Enlightenment doesn't seem to be a part of US foreign policy.

[Az]

Hey, only trying to be fair here ...

I am not saying that what the US is doing is good for the world , but I have a couple of comments:

1) It's natural for a government to seek the better deal for it's people ...
2) if you think that the EU is working otherwise , you're wrong.


you shouldn't be surprised by it , It's in it's nature .

That's like blaming a tiger for eating a person.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by SMAC Fanatic
When are people going to see that working for the sole good of just one country or just one people or just one group is never a laudable goal?

Why not? All I've heard is sound and fury on this point with little reasoning behind it. For the last time, enlighten me about the reasons why realism shouldn't be the guide for a State's foreign policy.

[Kyle]

Re: Europe steps up criticism of US

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
From two CNN articles:

Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine told France Inter radio on Wednesday: "We are friends of the United States, we are friends of that people and we will remain so.

Sorry, have a hard time believing that.

Vedrine said the U.S. was showing signs of acting "unilaterally, without consulting others, taking decisions based on its own view of the world and its own interests ... refusing any multilateral negotiation that could limit their decision-making, sovereignty and freedom of action."

Wow, he just summed up French foreign policy. Wasn't that why they withdrew from the NATO command structure?

Vedrine said the rhetoric coming out of Washington was confirmation that the Republican administration approached foreign policy unilaterally.

No, just that the US just suffered a major attack against it and it's allies, in general, are unwilling to assist in defeating the cause of it (terrorism).

"Europeans are unanimous in not supporting the Middle East policy of the White House," Vedrine said.

That's unfortunate, too bad the EU has no diplomatic captial in the area.

"We think it is a mistake blindly to accept the policy of pure repression conducted by Ariel Sharon ... we are saying this and we are making a number of other proposals."

No, they simply accept Arafat's policy of pure repression and genocide of the Israeli state.

Britain's Foreign Secretary Jack Straw described it as domestic electioneering.

"I thought the State of the Union speech was best understood by the fact that there are mid-term congressional elections coming up in November," Straw said.

At the annual security conference in Munich at the weekend, Ludger Volmer, a state secretary at the German foreign ministry, said: "The terror argument cannot be used to settle old scores."

Ah, good to see our German allies support the likes of Saddam Hussein.

France has strongly backed the campaign against terrorism since the September 11 attacks on New York and Washington.


"But this does not mean that we must not reflect lucidly on the lessons we have learned from September 11," Jospin said.

"We cannot reduce the problems of the world to the single dimension of the struggle against terrorism, despite its pressing importance, nor rely on the predominance of military means," he added.

Why not? We tried it the other way, and it didn't work.

Jospin also said international cooperation was needed to tackle terrorism.

Agreed, but no one is willing to do what's necessary.

"Our conception of the world aims to create a more balanced international community ... based on a multilateral approach," he said.

In other words, "we're not strong enough to do things on our own, so no one else is allowed to either."



It would be great if we could work together to get rid of terrorism, Saddam (unlikely, as he owes certain nations money), etc. Unfortunately, internal politics and anti-US sentiment are getting in the way.