Europe steps up criticism of US

[Zoid]

Re: Hey, only trying to be fair here ...

Originally posted by Dalgetti
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.

I´m not surprised and I´m not saying that the EU is behaving any better than the US, but the US has responsibilites against the rest of the world as well as it´s own citizens.

And there is some differences between the US and a tiger...

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by faded glory
(..)
Oh so its ok to commit genocide, as long as its not a threat to the EU? And you, who claims to hold the moral highground?

Milosevic... Genocide? Uh, darn. Back to my history books.



Theres one american attitude what pisses me off:
They think that strength is that you kill maximum amount people who they called bad guys.

Geez.

[DinoDoc]

BAM strikes again!

Originally posted by Kamrat X
[T]he US has responsibilites against the rest of the world as well as it´s own citizens.

Why? I still haven't recieved an answer to this question.

Natan: I thought that the entire point of this thread was that countries should not have self-serving policies?

Stop confusing him with reason! It only clouds his ability to rant effectively.

[Zoid]

Re: BAM strikes again!

Originally posted by DinoDoc


Why? I still haven't recieved an answer to this question

Have you read my other posts in this thread?

[DinoDoc]

Re: Re: BAM strikes again!

Originally posted by Kamrat X
Have you read my other posts in this thread?

Yes, and I don't believe that you or anyone else has answered the question that I've asked twice so far. If I have by some mistake missed a post in this thread that you believe actually does answer this question then by all means point it out to me.

[lightblue]

Originally posted by faded glory
overwhelming? Allies had 3,000,000 men. And like 1000 more tanks. It was just German strategy.

Bah, learn your history, before you make dumb posts. The Dutch were neutral to start with, but were attacked nonetheless, because the German army thought it would make a good base of operations against England. The Dutch hardly had a military to speak of, no tanks, few airplanes and a conscript army. Most of their navy/army was probably based in Indonesia

They put up a good fight until the Germans decided that needed to speed things, and thus firebombed Rotterdam, killing thousands. They then gave Holland an ultimatum before they were going to move onto the next city, Amsterdam.

The leadership were shipped away to London, and the Germans took control. Dutch pilots joined the RAF foreign squadrons.
There was a very active resistance, which often resulted in German reprisals (such as when they killed all the men in Putten). They provided invaluable intelligence to the allied bombers and rescued numerous downed pilots.

Now the French, that's something different all together... Vichy France and all that.

[Comrade Tribune]

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

Yes, and types like Bush and you make me think Europe´s best foreign policy would be to ally with Russia and China against the US.

[lightblue]

Back to the topic:

I don't care, and don't mind if the Americans want to attack other countries. Doing it in the name of fighting terrorism (how many NK suicide bombers have you seen?) is something different.

The French always moan. They are still not over the fact that they're no longer a power to be reckoned with.

The Jack Straw comment was just in response to the criticism that the State of the Union address was overly jingoistic. Still the UK will probably back any reasonable military action that the US wants to take. Relations between the UK and Iran are cooling fast, after Iran rejecting the new UK ambassador to Iran, because he apparently was a spying Jew.

[gopher]

Well he is correct on at least one point. The French did withdraw from the NATO command structure becuase they found that the constraints it put on thier decision-making, sovereignty and freedom of (in)action to be unacceptable.

That was many, many years ago. Countries and governements change over time, and France is a prime example of this.

Is that why France will rejoin the NATO command if and only if an European (read French) is made command of the Med naval forces? Not self-serving indeed.

Chris Matthews to Belgian ambassador: Isnt the Reason you dont want to fight is because your really a bunch of yellow bellied cowards? Isnt it? After all you guys didnt have the cajones to stand up to hitler, Stalin, or Milosevic. This is no different.

Europe didn't stand up to Hitler? Holland fought, as did France, Belgium, Britain, etc. All against Hitler. And Stalin? Did the US ever fight against Stalin? Nope, cause they were afraid of him as well. And Milosevic wasn't a threath to the EU, let alone Belgium.

Brush up on your history please.

I think, although it is a harsh generalization, that Europe has a history of letting dictators get in power and not do anything until it was too late, and military action is required. Then again, we are looking at hindsight, since who knew (at the time) that Mussolini and Hitler would be that bad back in 34' or so. Heck, the French even had a couple of military ties to Facist Italy before the Axis of Steel pact.

[gopher]

Originally posted by SMAC Fanatic
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.

Am I the only one reading this thread that laughs at this sheer hypocracy of this statement?

[Clear Skies]

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Why? I still haven't recieved an answer to this question.

So doesn't simply morality count? The fact that you can't simply screw over everyone else in the world for your own purposes? Don't you have any morals whatsoever?

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Why? I still haven't recieved an answer to this question.

Because either
a) The USA is the defender of the free world etc. etc. and b!tches constantly about it, or
b) The USA shouldn't have to be the defender of the free world etc. etc., can persue all the isolationist, FTW-ist policies it likes, and quit whining when it has to participate in international politics.

[Clear Skies]

Originally posted by gopher

Am I the only one reading this thread that laughs at this sheer hypocracy of this statement?

Where's the hypocrisy? I never said that the UK or anywhere else doesn't do it too, I'm just saying it's fundamentally wrong, and that IMNO the US does it more than anyone else.

[Comrade Tribune]

I think DinoDoc, repulsive as the guy is, has a point: Europe needs a self-serving foreign policy. Which would be a foreign policy of keeping the US in check, instead of sucking up to them. Vedrine is OK, but the same was recently said much more bluntly by the Iranian religious leader: 'All the world hates American arrogance and hypocrisy.'

More and more, I think this is a statement to fully agree with.

[Faeelin]

the EU has announced that they support a Palestinian state. Yet another example of European unilateralism. It's the leadersof the EU who make Americans think their best foreign policy idea is to ally with Russian and the UK. I'm curious what the Europeans find wrong with AMerican mideast policy, considering that:


1) The USA gives more money to Egypt than to Israel.

2) The US encouraged Israel to give Arafat everything he wanted except for all of Jerusalem. Which, naturally, led to a continuation of the attacks.

3) The US wants a period of peace between the two nations before going back to peace talks. A week was too long a time period of peace. Either Arafat's incapable of controlling the terrorists, in which case, promises with him are null and void, or Arafat's supporting them.

http://europe.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/02/09/europe.mideast/index.html

I love this quote: " But Spanish Foreign Minister Josep Pique, who chaired the meetings that began Friday, said political solutions must become a priority, since there has been no success in stopping the violence. "

But if there's no peace, then it's pointless to negotiate.