Europe steps up criticism of US

[Clear Skies]

Originally posted by 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.

*applauds yet again*

If we and the American people aren't careful, the American government is going to trample all over everyone.

[Comrade Tribune]

Sharon is the worst warmonger of the Middle East, and the US fully support him. If anything, European critique of that is too inconsistent.

[Comrade Tribune]

Originally posted by SMAC Fanatic
If we and the American people aren't careful, the American government is going to trample all over everyone.

The American people seem to like it, though. Although they are short-changed, because the money wasted could be spent on something useful. Americans today are just as masochistic as the Germans in the 1930s.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by gopher
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.

And the US has a history of putting dictators in power, and occassionally later attacking them when the dictator begins to believe he is indispensible to America (Noriega, Hussein). Furthermore, the US had supported Hitler up until he began gobbling up everything around him. The US thought he was a great bulwark against Bolshevism, so don't get on a high horse and pretend America's foreign policy smells like roses. Our foreign policy is among the bloodiest of the 20th Century.

Furthermore, Dalgetti, the US does not carry out a foreign policy that is favorable to its own citizens. US citizens have no material interest in bombing Serbia or fighting Iraq or propping up Israel or any of the other hundreds of evil things the US has done. After all, we often pay the price of these polices. Americans did not benefit from invading Vietnam (although we benefitted from fighting against our government over the invasion of Vietnam).

A more humane policy towards the rest of the world would greatly benefit Americans, from reduced terrorism gainst us, to having to fight less wars and catch less bullets, to less environmental pollution to less loss of jobs overseas because of US policies that keep foreign labor union free. American business benefits greatly, but the American people do not.

[Zoid]

Re: Re: Re: BAM strikes again!

Originally posted by DinoDoc


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.

OK, for you and other reading impaired in this thread I´ll take it from the top:

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.

Originally posted by SMAC Fanatic
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?

Do you understand now, Dino?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Faeelin
the EU has announced that they support a Palestinian state. Yet another example of European unilateralism.

19 countries acted unilaterly together? Please explain how countries can act unilateraly together. I'm very curious about this concept of joint unilateral action.

[Zoid]

Originally posted by 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.

Amen to that, Comrade

[Faeelin]

But wait, isn't the European Union one nation?

It was just a little sarcasm to how its essentially different states of the EU agreeing on something.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by SMAC Fanatic
So doesn't simply morality count?

No, it does not. Personal morality and foreign policy don't mix IMO because it only causes unnecessary conflict.

Don't you have any morals whatsoever?

Ad hominems only hurt your case.

Comrade Tribune: I think DinoDoc, repulsive as the guy is, has a point: Europe needs a self-serving foreign policy.

1) You wound me to the core with your biting wit. *sobs*

2) Europe (France especially) already has a self-serving foreign policy. Unless you'd like to tell me where the so-called guardian of human rights was during the Rawandan genocide just as an example.

[Saint Marcus]

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. European unilateralism? The EU consists of many countries, thus is multilateral. Add to that, that the EU's proposal is applauded by more countries in the ME than the US' proposal.
2. Leaders of the EU? Same as above, the EU consists of many countries and therefor has many leaders, INCLUDING the leaders of the UK. Which leads to point 3.
3. Side with the UK and Russia? Funny since the UK is part of the EU, and is part of making the EU's ME policies.
4. Wrong with the US' foreign policies? Europeans find the blind backing of Sharon repulsive. Sure, Arafat is a bastard too, but no worse than Sharon. Backing one, and not the other, is hypocratic. Both warmongers should be part of the peace process, not just one.

Unless you'd like to tell me where the so-called guardian of human rights was during the Rawandan genocide just as an example.

Guess why Ruwandese warcriminals are tried now in European (read Belgian) courts.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
Guess why Ruwandese warcriminals are tried now in European (read Belgian) courts.

Which is a far cry from European (military) actions during the break up of Yugoslavia now isn't it?

[faded glory]

Originally posted by paiktis22
faded important question: did that guy Chris something really say these things to the belgian ambassador?

Yes, he hosts a show on MSNBC called hardball at aound 4:00pm (think). (good ratings)

Guess why Ruwandese warcriminals are tried now in European (read Belgian) courts.

wooohooo!!! We arrest a bunch of nun's who didnt give shelter to refugees!


Yet the men with machette's still walk freely.

[faded glory]

hey is Lieichtenstien a member of the EU?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Not really, but who cares? We can accommodate the funny little gatecrashers like Liechtenstein and San Marino.

[Goingonit]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Speaking of simplistic

What does "you give money to 3rd world countries due to terrorism" mean anyway?

It's not the US hasn't supported terrorism in the past. The Contras, for example.

"We must address the causes of terrorism" means "we will contribute to programs set up in order to improve conditions in 3rd-world countries". This is spending money due to terrorism. Most of this money will end up in the hands of the government, as shown, for example, by Saddam Hussein's willingness to sacrifice his people to buy weaponry.

And Mr. Tribune, please name the last time Sharon has invaded a country (i.e. caused war). You can say many things about this guy, but calling him the biggest warmonger in the Middle East is not one of them.

And if you want to see hypocrisy, look at Yasser Arafat's speeches in English vs. his speeches in Arabic.