Europe-US Split ... Ramifications May Last For Years

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by DAVOUT


On a global economic level, it is clear, but when you look at it at individual markets level, we are simply competing; example : Airbus.

True, but I didn't know we were talking about individual markets.

[DAVOUT]

In the hypothetical case where lobbies would have a tiny influence on diplomatic matters, it would be relevant to consider some invidual markets.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by DanS
Sure it does. And don't tell me that this sort of atmosphere wasn't encouraged by Schroeder.

Schroeder is an idiot. I support his cause (opposing the war) without approving the methods he uses. At the moment, the chances for him to get reelected are very low and would be even lower, if he would give in to Americas blackmailing. Unfortunately, the next elections are only in 2006.

[DuncanK]

I guess it is easier to see mutual benefit from trade from a US perspective and harder from a European perspective. I don't think there is any evidence that the US follows a general policy of preventing unity in Europe though.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Ned, when all that crap begun last year, Schroeder just said "We will not support...". Means, we'll neither participate in this war, nor will we pay the bill. Perhaps, because we overpaid the bill in Gulf War one, or hell knows for what reason. Mind you the difference between "we don't support" and "we oppose". The former means, you do it without us, and we won't disturb you. The latter means, we'll do everything we can to make it not happen. A big difference, you see.

In fact, the upcoming war in Iraq is a war of aggression. May be not for you, but for us it is, because we were not involved in Gulf War one. And as such it is against of our constitution.

Now came the overblown reaction from Washington. "Axis of Weasel", "Old Europe", "Germany along with Libya and Cuba" and so on, over several months. So do you wonder why we are pissed? And do you wonder why we now not only "don't support", but "oppose"? The public opinion about the US and their willing lackeys has reached a new low in the rest of Europe.

Sir Ralph, I do not remember this subtlety. It seemed that the anti-US and anti-Bush rhetoric was a bit extreme. I even remember Bush being compared to Hitler by the German government.

Germany started the verbal conflict. Did the average German really expect there would be no backlash at all in the US?

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
In the hypothetical case where lobbies would have a tiny influence on diplomatic matters, it would be relevant to consider some invidual markets.

I don't think any lobbies in the US are against events in Europe that would improve your economy. They are only concerned with their specific industries. Generally the US likes to see economic improvements in the world. It means we can export more.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Ned
I even remember Bush being compared to Hitler by the German government.

As mentioned above, the statement of a pretty dumb minister in a pretty dumb interview can not be taken as official governmental note. If it were so, Rumsfeld would cause an international conflict every time he opens his mouth. And other than Rumsfeld, Hertha Däubler-Gmelin was removed from power.

[DanS]

Ralph: Long story short, he actively stoked anti-Americanism for electoral gain. That's a no-no.

[Harovan]

Agreed. Even though it was his only chance.

[Ned]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"Your statement seems to assume that Saddam would have been cooperative without the US threat."

Think again, it does not.

You forget that we have been around this block before with Saddam. We first tried to appease him by offering him partial removal of sanctions in exchange for partial disarmament. That did not change his behavior though. He still did not cooperate.

Clinton withdrew the inspectors and bombed Iraq for three days. He warned there woud be further severe consequences if Saddam did not offer to cooperate. Saddam made no such offer, and the inspectors stayed out of Iraq until the Bush initiative.

I have no idea how the Europeans would have gotten the inspectors back into Iraq without Bush's initiative. Clinton, who wanted disarmament, could not do it even with bombing.

As to "regime change," this has been US policy since 1991. It was endorsed by Clinton and later by Congress in 1998, IIRC.

[MBD]

It is worth noting, though, that she was not removed immediately after she said it, but remained in the cabinet and the government through the election, which implies a degree of official approval.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by DuncanK


I don't think any lobbies in the US are against events in Europe that would improve your economy. They are only concerned with their specific industries. Generally the US likes to see economic improvements in the world. It means we can export more.

That is global, and I would say theoretical. The prospect that 50% of the world market be conquered by Airbus cannot be appreciated by Boeing first, but also by the US Administration. Dont you recall that Clinton liked to introduce himself as a salesman of the US industry? It is almost impossible that this was not reflected in your foreign policy.

[Ned]

One thing that will change in the future is that France and Germany will no longer be consulted on international security issues. They were always the first to complain if the US decided to do something on security without first consulting them. Well if they really wanted closer cooperation with the US on security, they have really shot themselves in the foot.

I even believe this may have implications for cooperation on ME peace.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by MBD
It is worth noting, though, that she was not removed immediately after she said it, but remained in the cabinet and the government through the election, which implies a degree of official approval.

A question of a few days, then her term ended anyway. During this time the discussion went about if it was really an insult or not. IIRC it was

"To distract public attention from domestic problems by pointing at a foreign enemy is a well known ploy. [Among many others] even Hitler did this."

Now if you read with a bit of goodwill and insert the words I added in brackets (they are implicitly in the sense of this phrase anyway, which proves the word "even"), it's not that bad. It would mean, Bush did the same, many other governments did before him.

The biggest irony is in the fact, that by resorting to anti-Americanism to distract from domestic problems her own party did the same she was blaming Bush for.

[DuncanK]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
That is global, and I would say theoretical. The prospect that 50% of the world market be conquered by Airbus cannot be appreciated by Boeing first, but also by the US Administration. Dont you recall that Clinton liked to introduce himself as a salesman of the US industry? It is almost impossible that this was not reflected in your foreign policy.

Yeah, surely the US wants to be more competitive in the world market, but I don't think that it follows that we should like to see your economies do poorly. The size of your eocnomy has little to do with your competitiveness. If size matters it follows that the US should be the most competitive economy. In fact, we have the largest trade deficit.