Europe steps up criticism of US

[gopher]

Originally posted by Comrade Tribune


Is the fact that your avatar is the German Panzer unit somehow related to your political opinions?

The comparison should be obvious to anybody watching things without prejudice: Attempt at world takeover = attempt at world takeover. Going to war without casus belli = going to war without casus belli. Ignoring the Geneva Convention = ignoring the Geneva Convention. Jews then = 'Towel Heads' now.

It is harder to see the differences between USA and Nazi Germany than the similarities. There are some differences, however: Hitler´s policies were not quite as popular. He couldn´t afford to keep the semblance of a democracy; the US obviously can. Goebbels would be proud of your TV and newspapers.

If you really believe what you wrote, I have some Enron shares you should look at.

[kolpo]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Umm

the countries were multilateral when it came to punishing germany



the US was the one the unilaterally didn't punish Germany

Jon Miller

unilateral doesn't mean from one country, but from, 1 side. This can also refere to a coalition, like the coalition againsts Germany in WWI.

The terms unilateral and bilateral where used in teh cold wars to decribe politics of both sides: Warshaw pact and NATO. So it can refere also to a coalition.

[Roland]

Short rundown of why dick-dubya's policy outline (aka the fundie version) is idiotic.

In the fundie version, there is only good and evil. The good are very very good, and the evil are veeery, very, very evil. The US is the boss of the good, of course, and gets to pick who's good, too. Funnily enough, this is very much in line with political preference. So Pakistan is ok, and Israel's illegal settlements are ok, and Saudi islamism is ok... Problem 1: Preaching morality and acting like a whore hurts your credibility. Even worse if you suffer enough delusion to believe your own propaganda.

Then the war on terror is used to push the old domestic agenda. Like, silly tax cuts became an "economic security package". That spin is so ****dumb, it always cracks me up hearing it. But here is Problem 2: Too much linkage between domestic and foreign agenda. Like playing to jingoism at home that backfires abroad.

Related to this ideology is the reduction of the problem to a military one. I really fail to see how a 150 billion $ extra in military spending make the US safer. Being able to bomb 3rd world countries even more effectively ? But an integrated strategy (as announced initially) would require economic, intelligence, peacekeeping, diplomatic cooperation from allies. Here we have problem 3: Hubris, the believe that allies have nothing valuable to contribute.

Based on that, it is not surprising that without a comprehensive policy, with no clue how to integrate allies into this, the fundies do not want to listen or coordinate policy. Problem 4: Ad-hoc alliances may work for the moment, but they are extremely fragile and such allies are very unreliable.

But if all this finally cracks up the US pseudo-protectorate over europe, fine with me.

[Rogan Josh]

Good grief! Reading this post really answers the question of why so many people hate Americans.

Maybe it is because of perverts like Faded who jerk-off over the US $50B military budget increases. Do you realise how much money this is, and how many good things could be done with this money?? Spunky Americans indeed - don't let it hit you in the eye.

Or maybe it is because of the continual insistance that the US won WWII. If anyone can make that claim it is the Russians. Some Americans even seem to claim that it was a purely European War, where they 'saved Europe's butt'.

Why then was it called World War 2? In fact, the US didn't do anything (directly at least) to halt Germany's expansionism in Europe until the Japanese (that famous European nation ) attacked them.

Even worse is the complete bull**** about Europeans being cowards in WWII. This really doesn't deserve a response except to say that the originator of that comment had his head firmly shoved up his ass.

What do they teach in US schools? It is hardly surprising really. I remember being in the States when their media was reporting on the peacekeepers in Kosovo. They kept talking about US troops there, keeping the peace, but every picture they showed was of British troops. They never mentioned any European presence though. Or how about the discovery channel documentary on the US submarine fleet. The only sub they showed the inside of was a British sub. They even interviewed the crew (British accents and all) and refered to them as Americans.

But we really shouldn't judge the Americans so harshly.
Thankfully I have met quite a few very resonable, intelligent Americans - so they do exist (Chegitz is American isn't he?). And the others, like Dino and Faded, just don't have much of an education - they just don't know any better. It is just a little unfortunate that their leaders (apart from maybe Powell ) fall into the second category.

[Jon Miller]

in all honesty

I think it is troll and troll alike

(I at least seriously hope that many of the people here actually don't beleive what they say)

Jon Miller

[Adam Smith]

Just a few comments...

1. I think Bush's State of the Union Speech was primarily for domestic consumption, intended to rally the populace, and should be viewed that way, not as a definitive statement of foreign policy.

2. What is acutally going on in US ME policy behind the scenes is considerably more nuanced than most European posters here seem to believe. The LATEST of a series of recent articles on foreign policy in the Washington Post provides consderable evidence of this. The most relevant section is as follows:

For the Saudis, Bush's letter (edit: in response to Saudi concerns about the US backing Israel at the expense of the Palestinians) was "groundbreaking. . . . Things in it had never been put in writing," one Saudi official said. According to Saudi accounts, Bush outlined an even-handed approach to settling the Arab-Israeli dispute that differed considerably from Sharon's positions on the peace process. One Saudi official said this was a key element: a U.S. vision of a peace settlement that was acceptable to the Saudis, and that differed from any Israeli plan.

Bush's letter, according to Saudi officials, endorsed the idea of a viable Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza Strip. He expressed a willingness to begin participating more actively in the peace process.

3. Multilateralism clearly has the effect of allowing more nations to have their concerns addressed in any decision making process. However, anbody who proposes increased multilateralism in foreign policy needs to address the criticism that the more parties involved in making a decision, the harder it is to reach a decision. This increased difficulty in reaching a decision allows undesirable events to continue for longer without intervention, and for the ultimate intervention to be less effective, since action can be taken within a more narrow consensus. See, for example, Yugoslavia, Rwanda, Iraq. Getting any kind of effective decision making out of the UN, with literally hundreds of members, is probably the ultimate example of the problems posed in foreign policy by committee.

edit: Any thoughts on how to make multilateral decision making more responsive to pressing world concerns?

4. And while we are talking about multilateralism, lets also recognize the self interest of other countries who want in on the process. The French have been hypocritical in the exterme in this regard. They have b!tched for years about sanctions against Iraq because ELF, the French oil company, has long-term oil supply contracts with Iraq which cannot be honored while the sanctions are in place. The next time I hear them complain about how US policy in the region is being driven by a desire for cheap energy I think I am going to scream.

[DanS]

AS: Yeh, I've been reading those Post articles too (The Post at its best). The timing on this is heartbreaking.

[Roland]

AS:

"I think Bush's State of the Union Speech was primarily for domestic consumption"

Yes, but you can't separate that from the impact abroad. And US jingoism is riled up enough to give him a 90% approval rating. So what's it worth ?

"What is acutally going on in US ME policy behind the scenes is considerably more nuanced than most European posters here seem to believe."

Nuances or confusion, remains to be seen. We had a half-endorsement of a palestinian state, then some anti-Arafat rhetoric, then support for Sharon, then less support....

Maybe a plan, but I distrust governments to come up with anything intelligent until I see the evidence.

"Getting any kind of effective decision making out of the UN, with literally hundreds of members"

Out of the SC with 15 members, rather.

"ELF, the French oil company, has long-term oil supply contracts with Iraq which cannot be honored while the sanctions are in place."

Well France has economic interests in the region, and the US has. Funny thing is that all the anti-french feeling in the US seems to be based on them acting a bit like you. How dare they invade the hypocrisy monpoly of the US.

Thing is, the fundie US line wants all countries to suck up to US policy that is based on a wrongly framed self interest and vaguely disguised in some justice-rhetorics. France isn't much better, but a multilateral approach needs to balance those interests.

[DinoDoc]

How did I earn a specific mention in Rogan's idiotic rant?

[DanS]

Roland: I think the point here is that Europe's approval is unnecessary for US action. This "unilateralism" label is absurd on its face. For instance, we have a vibrant coalition on Afghanistan.

I think "multilateralism" is just Europe's way of saying that y'all want influence--it is only unilateral from Europe's perspective when Europe isn't consulted to a degree that it feels is necessary. But influence doesn't come cheap.

[Roland]

"I think the point here is that Europe's approval is unnecessary for US action."

That depends on the action. On Iraq, you need it legally, to some extent politically. And then there's also Russia....

"I think "multilateralism" is just Europe's way of saying that y'all want influence"

Of course. Wouldn't you want influence on the 800 pound gorilla threatening to go gaga ?

[DanS]

Well, the perceived threat against the US of the conjunction of religious terrorism and weapons of mass destruction went through the roof on 9/11--the message received loud and clear that terrorists would use any weapon at their disposal. It isn't helpful when your allies don't appreciate the fact.

Even though not an ally, Russia does appreciate this fact and we are listening to them. About a week ago, a Russian message appeared in the Post saying that they would try to help us sort it out. It's a jungle out there.

"That depends on the action."

Agreed. That is the only thing that the US has been saying. But I think Europe is anxious about the implications of this.

edit: Or more precisely, Europe is anxious about what the US thinks the implications of this are.

[Roland]

"the message received loud and clear that terrorists would use any weapon at their disposal. It isn't helpful when your allies don't appreciate the fact."

The fact is clear and far from new. It is most of America that still felt invulnerable and is now still in a state of shock, it seems. Before sept 11th, one of the complaints about dubya was the silly NMD project in the face of just those threats that needed to be addressed through a variety of means.

"Even though not an ally, Russia does appreciate this fact and we are listening to them."

So no action against Iraq ?

"About a week ago, a Russian message appeared in the Post"

A Russian message ?

"But I think Europe is anxious about the implications of this."

We are mostly anxious about dubya starting a war that creates more problems than it solves. And about a couple other things.

[DanS]

"A Russian message ?"

Yes, messages appear all of the time in the Washington Post when a wider scope is intended than a strictly government-to-government exchange. A "high-ranking officical" or two comes and says their piece on the front page of the Post, below the fold.

In this case, the Russians made clear that they were freaked out by the implications of what GWB said, that they understood why we had our finger on the trigger, that they didn't trust Saudi Arabia just as we didn't trust Iran, and that they would offer any of their intelligence assets to help us sort out the real threats from threats that only appeared real but weren't. This is valuable feedback.

Other messages over the last couple of months that I have seen were the Iranian blank check in Afghanistan and the Saudi threat of breaking the alliance.

[Roland]

"A "high-ranking officical" or two..."

Example ?