The differences between America and Europe

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by notyoueither
America will win the conflict with radical Islam through strength. Agressors respect nothing else.

P_ussy-footing around active supporters of terrorism will get you nothing but ten-fold increases in terrorism. Smacking them down, hard is the only solution.

Show muslims sympathetic to the lunatics that the path they are on leads only to misery and suffering for their own families. They will cease to support the fanatics.

Remove all illusions of any possible victory. Then what would be the point?

I don't know about that. Remember these folks actually enjoy dying, particularily now that they've perfected the personal high explosive self-destruct device. I think that defeating these guys will require active and aggressive support from the Muslim community. Only once they've lost the support of the Muslim world will they cool off.

[Dry]

My reaction to the (complete) article is that it explains only one side of the complex european phenomenon.
He speaks a lot of Frenchmen, Germans and Britons, citizens of former great powers, but there are other europeans. There are medium countries like Spain or Italy, and there are a lot of smaller countries who were always in the situation of 'weak' powers having to sail the same seas as the great powers.
I agree when he says that The means by which this miracle has been achieved have understandably acquired something of a sacred mystique for Europeans. That is indeed one thing we have in common. From a small european country POV, I too, am really happy that France and Germany agreed not to fight in our yards anymore... it became a little bit irritating... the last times especially.
The argumentation "It worked for us, let's try to export it" is indeed the one I hear most when we speak about european foreign policy.

Where I do not agree, it is on his view of the role of the US in this 'European dream'.
He seems to view US as some white paladin, fighting all evil, offering unselfishly, his protecting shield, to make it possible for the widow/orphan Europe to dream about a world without evil.
First, I do not think US did it unselfishly. There were colonies to get and US - together with SU - did share the former european colonies in the great so-called decolonisation game (re: will it be your dictator or mine that will lead free, autodeterminated elbonians?).
Second, I think that the US paladin is more fantasy than reality. That is how US's see themselves. It looks like most US super-hero scenarios: small ordinary boy in small ordinary town discovers/gets superpowers... ok, what does that imply for him?... he becomes a nice guy, fighting all evil... he saves the free world ... and his girlfriend, despite the stupidity/sabotage/evilness/corruption/... of the official police.
Is this not how american see America in the world of today?
Frightening moral for the rest of the world: becoming the most powerfull will make you the nice guy ?!?!

I liked the sheriff and barkeeper image, but he didn't go far enough in the image: the barkeeper now wants a judge! And the sheriff keeps refusing the judge, thinking "they want to get rid of me, maybe the judge will even condamn me...". NO, barkeeper(s) do not want to get rid of the sheriff, NO, the judge will not put the sheriff in prison, but YES, the sheriff will have to refer to the judge for his actions. The barkeeper just doesn't want a town with one guy being both judge AND sheriff.
All democracies have what they called the separation of powers. Try to think why, and you may understand why Europeans have cold chills when thinking about US...
No, sorry, I do not subscribe to the Americans being good children of the Enlightenment. No black, no white please. Today white, tomorrow black, today nice, tomorrow evil. And BTW, I've been told that is how frenchmen see themselves...children of the Enlightenment think about it, dear Americans... same spirit here?
The evilness of the paladin? He is white. Fully. There is no black in him. Not even suspecting himself, he won't even notice when he turns black. That is most evil... (remember Saroumane).

Cop? no cop? Asked Dr Strangelove. Europeans want a cop, but also a judge. No robocop please. No super-hero, deciding by his own who is bad and who is good, please.
That is part of our sacred mystique, our mission civilisatrice. That is why we are so fond of international organisations. We know that unlike people, it is impossible to designate one country as judge for the others. That is why we need international laws to decide what is legal and what is no, and neutral parties to comdamn/innocent suspects. Only after Justice decision, the police may enforce the law.

PS1: but I will agree that when there is an urgency (people taken in hostage in a bank), the police needs to act fast, without waiting for a judge decision... but that should be specified in that 'international' law.
PS2: and in all countries I know, every citizen has a possibility of righteous self-defense, but this is also usually decided by a tribunal.

[DanS]

"Kosovo - undecided"

I thought you were against this action. Did you change your mind?

For my own account, I thought we did way too much cowboying on this one and it seemed like the politicians' views were not informed by the military realities. We were just lucky that Milosovic was so weak because we didn't have a plan (only will). Don't think we had an end-game in mind.

"Afghanistan - yes"

Just to be clear, you recognized the U.S. right to go kick some ass in Afghanistan, but did not support the ass kicking, correct?

"they've perfected the personal high explosive self-destruct device"

Strangelove: I think they've got a new model out. Designed to take out 20 or 30 at a time.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dry
My reaction to the (complete) article is that it explains only one side of the complex european phenomenon.
He speaks a lot of Frenchmen, Germans and Britons, citizens of former great powers, but there are other europeans. There are medium countries like Spain or Italy, and there are a lot of smaller countries who were always in the situation of 'weak' powers having to sail the same seas as the great powers.
I agree when he says that The means by which this miracle has been achieved have understandably acquired something of a sacred mystique for Europeans. That is indeed one thing we have in common. From a small european country POV, I too, am really happy that France and Germany agreed not to fight in our yards anymore... it became a little bit irritating... the last times especially.
The argumentation "It worked for us, let's try to export it" is indeed the one I hear most when we speak about european foreign policy.

Where I do not agree, it is on his view of the role of the US in this 'European dream'.
He seems to view US as some white paladin, fighting all evil, offering unselfishly, his protecting shield, to make it possible for the widow/orphan Europe to dream about a world without evil.
First, I do not think US did it unselfishly. There were colonies to get and US - together with SU - did share the former european colonies in the great so-called decolonisation game (re: will it be your dictator or mine that will lead free, autodeterminated elbonians?).
Second, I think that the US paladin is more fantasy than reality. That is how US's see themselves. It looks like most US super-hero scenarios: small ordinary boy in small ordinary town discovers/gets superpowers... ok, what does that imply for him?... he becomes a nice guy, fighting all evil... he saves the free world ... and his girlfriend, despite the stupidity/sabotage/evilness/corruption/... of the official police.
Is this not how american see America in the world of today?
Frightening moral for the rest of the world: becoming the most powerfull will make you the nice guy ?!?!

I liked the sheriff and barkeeper image, but he didn't go far enough in the image: the barkeeper now wants a judge! And the sheriff keeps refusing the judge, thinking "they want to get rid of me, maybe the judge will even condamn me...". NO, barkeeper(s) do not want to get rid of the sheriff, NO, the judge will not put the sheriff in prison, but YES, the sheriff will have to refer to the judge for his actions. The barkeeper just doesn't want a town with one guy being both judge AND sheriff.
All democracies have what they called the separation of powers. Try to think why, and you may understand why Europeans have cold chills when thinking about US...
No, sorry, I do not subscribe to the Americans being good children of the Enlightenment. No black, no white please. Today white, tomorrow black, today nice, tomorrow evil. And BTW, I've been told that is how frenchmen see themselves...children of the Enlightenment think about it, dear Americans... same spirit here?
The evilness of the paladin? He is white. Fully. There is no black in him. Not even suspecting himself, he won't even notice when he turns black. That is most evil... (remember Saroumane).

Cop? no cop? Asked Dr Strangelove. Europeans want a cop, but also a judge. No robocop please. No super-hero, deciding by his own who is bad and who is good, please.
That is part of our sacred mystique, our mission civilisatrice. That is why we are so fond of international organisations. We know that unlike people, it is impossible to designate one country as judge for the others. That is why we need international laws to decide what is legal and what is no, and neutral parties to comdamn/innocent suspects. Only after Justice decision, the police may enforce the law.

PS1: but I will agree that when there is an urgency (people taken in hostage in a bank), the police needs to act fast, without waiting for a judge decision... but that should be specified in that 'international' law.
PS2: and in all countries I know, every citizen has a possibility of righteous self-defense, but this is also usually decided by a tribunal.

Dry, I am not convinced that a UN approach will ever truly be effective. It wholly failed with Iraq.

Guys like you and Roland offer no solution for Iraq - except to complain about anything that the US proposes.

I again offer your side an opportunity to state a solution: How do you prevent Saddam from acquiring WoMD?

[ZoboZeWarrior]

Nuke Irak !

[Roland]

"I thought you were against this action. Did you change your mind?"

No, I just thought and still think that how it came about stinks to high heaven.

"...we didn't have a plan (only will). Don't think we had an end-game in mind."

And Notatallbright happily jumping around, throwing ultimatums. Absolutely bizarre.

"Just to be clear, you recognized the U.S. right to go kick some ass in Afghanistan, but did not support the ass kicking, correct?"

I was in favour of supporting the northern alliance.
I thought and still think that a large scale US ground invasion would have been nuts.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Ned
I again offer your side an opportunity to state a solution: How do you prevent Saddam from acquiring WoMD?

Solution1 (euro-leftist):
Remove the need of such a weapon. Ask yourself why Saddam needs/wants WoMD and why not Belgium, Japan, South-Africa, Brazil, Zaire?

Solution2 (embargo):
Forbid him
- nuclear plants (allow him only solar power plants).
- chemical factories (no fertilizer, no insecticides,...)
- IT companies (no computers)
- telecom companies (no phones, radios)
-...
Send back Iraq to stone age, because even with TNT, they could proceed as Pal suicide bombers. They will hate you for complete destruction of the country, but at least you will have peace... until the boys born there now becomes terrorists.

Solution3:
Get rid of Saddam and don't give a F to what may happen to Iraq, they are only fanatics anyway.

Solution4:
Attack Iraq, because you are a Paladin fighting for good and seeking evil everywhere it hides. Kill the dragon and get us back his head. The crowd will greets you back home. With this, you will be declared hero of the free world in the US, and Great-Satan, heir of the crusaders in most Islamic countries, They will not attack you only because they fear your strength, not because they respect your wisdom. If one single day you show one single weakness, they will backstab you. But you don't care, it will only be a problem for your children... and you are soooo strong anyway.

Solution5:
Attack Iraq, the same way you attacked Nazi-Germany, or Afghanistan. Not as a white Paladin, but with a real project for the region. A little bit like Bush is doing now with the Pals. I have to confess that G.W Bush has improved hugely in international politics. Maybe he was a monkey, but the monkey has a team and they learn fast... He proposed something!!! No more good vs evil, but a real project. Maybe not perfect (far from it), but more than simply "Butt-kicking, for goodness!" or "Go for the eyes, Boo!".
What did you do in Afghanistan? Bomb them and them leave them alone? No. So why not the same in Iraq?
Try to make arabs proud of themselves, not on sacrifice and destruction level, but well on construction and achievement.
Destroy whatever they try to build and they will try to (mass) destroy what you are trying to build.

Guess which is my favorite.

[Roland]

Originally posted by Ned

Guys like you and Roland offer no solution for Iraq - except to complain about anything that the US proposes.

I again offer your side an opportunity to state a solution: How do you prevent Saddam from acquiring WoMD?

The same way the US prevented Pakistan from... oh wait.

What is the risk if he has them ?

What is the risk of invading Iraq ?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Roland


The same way the US prevented Pakistan from... oh wait.

What is the risk if he has them ?

What is the risk of invading Iraq ?

There is a difference between Iraq and Pakistan. We are at war with one and allies of the other.

On Iraq, the UN is on record that Saddam cannot have WoMD. It has imposed sanctions. They have not worked.

It seems, Roland, rather than enforce the UN resolutions like a law abiding nation should, you are going to simply put your head in the sand and pretend there is no lion.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Dry


Solution1 (euro-leftist):
Remove the need of such a weapon. Ask yourself why Saddam needs/wants WoMD and why not Belgium, Japan, South-Africa, Brazil, Zaire?

Solution2 (embargo):
Forbid him
- nuclear plants (allow him only solar power plants).
- chemical factories (no fertilizer, no insecticides,...)
- IT companies (no computers)
- telecom companies (no phones, radios)
-...
Send back Iraq to stone age, because even with TNT, they could proceed as Pal suicide bombers. They will hate you for complete destruction of the country, but at least you will have peace... until the boys born there now becomes terrorists.

Solution3:
Get rid of Saddam and don't give a F to what may happen to Iraq, they are only fanatics anyway.

Solution4:
Attack Iraq, because you are a Paladin fighting for good and seeking evil everywhere it hides. Kill the dragon and get us back his head. The crowd will greets you back home. With this, you will be declared hero of the free world in the US, and Great-Satan, heir of the crusaders in most Islamic countries, They will not attack you only because they fear your strength, not because they respect your wisdom. If one single day you show one single weakness, they will backstab you. But you don't care, it will only be a problem for your children... and you are soooo strong anyway.

Solution5:
Attack Iraq, the same way you attacked Nazi-Germany, or Afghanistan. Not as a white Paladin, but with a real project for the region. A little bit like Bush is doing now with the Pals. I have to confess that G.W Bush has improved hugely in international politics. Maybe he was a monkey, but the monkey has a team and they learn fast... He proposed something!!! No more good vs evil, but a real project. Maybe not perfect (far from it), but more than simply "Butt-kicking, for goodness!" or "Go for the eyes, Boo!".
What did you do in Afghanistan? Bomb them and them leave them alone? No. So why not the same in Iraq?
Try to make arabs proud of themselves, not on sacrifice and destruction level, but well on construction and achievement.
Destroy whatever they try to build and they will try to (mass) destroy what you are trying to build.

Guess which is my favorite.

I guess we Americans learn from our mistakes. Afghanistan was one of them. After defeating the Soviets, we allowed the country to descend into tribal warfare rather than trying to build a nation based on democratic principles.

The proposal the we have on the table now on the ME is a road to peace and prosperity for the Palestinians. We guarantee them hope, democracy and a bright economic future if only thew will reach out an grasp the olive branch Bush has extended.

We offer the people of Iraq the same. I personally believe that we can effect the regime change easily. However, what we need afterwards are US (and European) forces on the ground while we reorganize the government along democratic lines.

In the final analysis, it looks like we are on the same page with at least some Europeans.

By confronting the monsters of the world, we can change it for the better. Appeasement is not the path to permanent peace.

[Saint Marcus]

There is a difference between Iraq and Pakistan. We are at war with one and allies of the other.

At the time Pakistan was building their nukes, Musharraf was a dictator, Pakistan wasn't an ally of the US, and Pakistan was an ally of the Taliban.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus


At the time Pakistan was building their nukes, Musharraf was a dictator, Pakistan wasn't an ally of the US, and Pakistan was an ally of the Taliban.

I'm sorry Saint Marcus, we have a formal alliance with Pakistan, IIRC.

[Saint Marcus]

If Americans were to decide that Europe was no more than an irritating irrelevancy, would American society gradually become unmoored from what we now call the West? It is not a risk to be taken lightly, on either side of the Atlantic.

that's also what the article points out...

[Saint Marcus]

I'm sorry Saint Marcus, we have a formal alliance with Pakistan, IIRC.

Not before Sept.11th. As I recall, the US even posed sanctions on Pakistan during the pre sept 11 days, because of the nuke testing that went on there.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Saint Marcus
that's also what the article points out...

I already tried to bring that up as a topic of discussion. It quickly got buried.