So, just how useless are the European NATO members?

[Elok]

it must come from a desire to feel (and i choose the word feel deliberately here) part of something, even if that something is merely the vicarious pleasure of belonging to to some distant state and the system it protects, of swapping their freedom and surrendering their dignity in exchange for a place in a hierarchy, just as long as they have one. the witless patriots cheering on the soldiers and the politicians who send them to far off lands to slaughter brown people and even feeling some connection with those making the decisions to kill, and pride in those doing the killing, rather than solidarity with those being killed.

I don't think this kind of speculation is terribly helpful. The American version would go something like: "Euros are resentful of their third-place role in international affairs/our superior prowess/whatever, so they blither on about all the free candy their governments give them while ignoring their bad economies caused by regressive taxation." Or something like that, Kucibros can do it better. The true picture, IMO, is not a matter of one side's suppressed feelings of envy, but of two genuinely diverging cultural views of how things ought to be. I mean, your account would depend on us being both totally aware of the plight of the poor, and genuinely concerned about it to the point that we had to rationalize it away. I think this is generally untrue. Most of us who are really aware of the scope of our problems there are on your side politically (I'd say I'm on the fence, personally). The ones who aren't, think it's a problem with the hippity-hop rap videos and entitlement culture. That's not an excuse, it's AFAICT what they genuinely believe.

Also, very few of us have a clear picture of what life in Europe is like. I say "Europe," but really you're something like forty countries, depending where you draw the lines, whether you count San Marino et al, and so on. And, yeah, we pretty much take you for granted. I get the Economist, but I skim over the Europe and Britain sections, because the politics are impenetrable and, in the final analysis, the events in Italy or Spain have no significant effect on me. I'm inclined to be suspicious of claims that life is sunshine and buttercups over there, since I get incidental glimpses of contemporary Europe here and there, and they tend to involve: monetary problems; a different, but still quite bad race problem (Muslims and/or Gypsies rather than Blacks); 10% unemployment being regarded as normal; riots in Paris, for whatever reason; "Study finds British still drink way too ****ing much"; and, occasionally, some state or other will apportion a small, but not nearly small enough, number of parliament seats to a pack of crypto-Nazis who only stopped Seig Heiling in 1997. Of course, these problems are spread out across a whole bunch of European countries, though I've heard of that last one taking place in France, Greece, and I want to say Norway (?), among others I've forgotten. But c'mon. The situation is not as simple as you paint it.

Or, if that doesn't work for you, we can all get together and be thankful that we're not Russia.

[Dinner]

Ir irritates me that when we call you yanks we're liable to get nagged to that only northerners are yanks, but it's perfectly alright for you to call yourselves yanks when you're referring to the whole US.

We do it to piss off southerners sothat makes it ok.

[kentonio]

you seem to think that 'freedom' (whatever that means) is something which can be: a) given and; b) imposed from the outside. i reject that completely and see it as no more than an updated version of the white man's burden. you also assert, again, that people's "utterly horrible lives" will be improved by dropping bombs on them; i disagree and once again point to recent examples of dropping bombs or sending troops: iraq; afghanistan and; libya and the complete lack of improvement in people's lives resulting from these actions.

Possible the most naive thing I've ever heard you say. Also pretty damn hypocritical when you're the one in the role of the superior white man sitting there ignoring mass suffering because you can't deal with the consequences of actually fixing it. Iraq and Afghanistan incidentally are perfect examples of what I keep saying we shouldn't be doing, but hey don't let that get in the way of a good rant eh.

my position is that the libyan people were better off before gaddafi's overthrown than they are now, and i have provided some evidence to support this. you seem to think the reverse is true; perhaps you could explain why.

Living under a dictatorship is not a good life. Transitioning through revolution to a new system is not easy, quick or cheap. It is however worthwhile, which is why people under oppressive regimes keep risking their lives and their families lives to try and overthrow these regimes, while western socialists sit back sipping lattes and telling them that they should be content with their lot in life. Because hey they might risk death, rape or torture at the whim of a dictator and his thuggish regime, but at least you won't have to watch it happen on TV.

i think the idea of separating intervention from advancing western interests is a mere fantasy.

Of course it's a mere fantasy, because no country is willing to spend the money and risk lives of their citizens for completely philanthropic ends. Despite the propaganda about the west, everything we do is within the larger picture of furthering our interests.

while i agree that long term solutions in the middle east will probably require some borders to be withdrawn (or people deciding to abandon them and the states they separate altogether), i don't really see what that has to with the syrian civil war, and in general, this part is rather unclear.

Simply that this happening organically would only be as a result of conflict, yet the final outcome would likely be positive. Borders very rarely get withdrawn peacefully like this, no government willingly hands over territory.

[Bereta_Eder]

Well maybe the resentment for the US, in some parts of society comes from US involvement.
Bare with me when I say that rationaility is not always a prerequisitive.
Someone said the US did not have colonies and that's absolutely true.
But it supported people who were sh!t.
When one of your own was murdered or couldn't get a job because of a regime that the US totally, clearly, supported, it leaves a lingering impression.


In this we may forget a few things: that the one who performed the tortures or the killings (say chile for example) wasn't an american. But it doesn't matter. The prespection is that without american help that wouldn't have happened.

Hell, I was having a coffee with a girl from brazil of all places and she said that if latin america rose, US is finished.
She had no reason to say it. But she did.

I can only imagine what the sentiment is in the middle east.
Now this is the real sh!t, and that's the reason 9/11s happen, make no mistake.

Having said that, some people like scapegoating. And that's bad, for themselves mostly.

But again, I don't think govs all over the world sweat it that much. It serves their interest having foaming at the mouth people, from all sides.

As why europe doesn't have big armies and an analog irrational nationalism is because it has payed dearly for that in the past and the whole concept is a bit repulsive and a confirmed dead end.

[Elok]

I'm sorry, but if you're so over irrational nationalism, why do crackpots like Golden Dawn keep getting seats? And why, in that thread Sava bumped maybe two weeks back, were all the Euros on here baying for blood over the reaction to the Jyllands-Posten debacle? I know America's made plenty of mistakes, but that explanation rings hollow to me.

[Bereta_Eder]

Because they are crack pots and uragotangs.
Europe is not out of the woods and no country really is. This is something that needs monitoring all the time.
Golden Dawn or Front National makes such an impression because they are violently nazis. (although the latter mostly for its virulent antisemitism and islamophobia all in one)
Heider in Austria got 27% of the votes in previous years. He was more subtle, but his plans were as repulsive as any other.
The freedom party in Sweden is the same.

[Bereta_Eder]

Besides Greece has a long fascist history.
It's not something that they teach you at schools but it's true.
Even at the beggining of WW2, the famous (around here) "NO" that was said to the proposition to join the Axis was said by a ...fascist government

[Felch]

Hell, I was having a coffee with a girl from brazil of all places and she said that if latin america rose, US is finished.

That's quite a big if.

[pchang]

Brazil and the rest of South America do not move in lock step. I think the reality would be quite a bit more fragmented than that girl thinks it would be. In reality, the U.S. would hardly notice and most of the rest of the world would not really notice either.

[regexcellent]

None of our really big trade partners are in South America. Mexico is a big trade partner but it is in North America. Also, we have reasonably good relations with Mexico and they have no reason to cut off trade and every reason not to.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Possible the most naive thing I've ever heard you say. Also pretty damn hypocritical when you're the one in the role of the superior white man sitting there ignoring mass suffering because you can't deal with the consequences of actually fixing it. Iraq and Afghanistan incidentally are perfect examples of what I keep saying we shouldn't be doing, but hey don't let that get in the way of a good rant eh.p

Ignoring "mass suffering" or creating "mass suffering". This is the question. If we take western involvement post WWII, other than Korea, ex YU (Americans no less) and recently Mali, I cannot recollect another action which reduced suffering rather than increased it.

While it is nice to think that western interventions have some positive intentions for the local population, this is not the case in majority of cases (me being lucky enough to be on a happy end of one of the few). Therefore they should not be painted as such either by the media, or by the people who can use their head.

Living under a dictatorship is not a good life. Transitioning through revolution to a new system is not easy, quick or cheap. It is however worthwhile, which is why people under oppressive regimes keep risking their lives and their families lives to try and overthrow these regimes, while western socialists sit back sipping lattes and telling them that they should be content with their lot in life. Because hey they might risk death, rape or torture at the whim of a dictator and his thuggish regime, but at least you won't have to watch it happen on TV.

What would you know about living under a dictatorship, especially in Libya?

How was it in Indonesia under Suharto? Or Chile under Pinochet? Or Zaire under Mobutu? What do those three have in common?

Gadaffi was only removed because it was an opportune moment, which has nothing to do with the "will of the people" as such, which the developments post the revolution show.

In unstable countries which were often drawn by some uninitiated diplomat sometime post WWI, if anyone had people's interest in mind, political situation would always be resolved via political means, like in Indonesia or Chile, and not via a revolution like in Congo, because once you start the overthrow with arms it is Congo you can expect and nothing else. Western decision makers are not idiots not to know this, but they do it anyway, as they really do not give a **** for the local population which in most cases will live worse for decades after the western "humanitarian" intervention. (this pathetic excuse was used in Libya)

People idealistically supporting it, like you, just give them a leg to stand domestically. If the opposition to such criminal behaviour was overwhelming in the local society, such deplorable actions taken on its behalf would be harder to make. (point in case - UK's parliamentary vote to block Cameron on Syria)

Simply that this happening organically would only be as a result of conflict, yet the final outcome would likely be positive. Borders very rarely get withdrawn peacefully like this, no government willingly hands over territory.

For the Middle east, the chance for some sort of peaceful future was thrown away with 2003 invasion, and right now there will likely be a lot more blood spilled until some sort of new power balance is struck. That is the real result of US actions taken back then. Also most of diplomats knew this is going to be the outcome, but the agitators in "then" government managed to silence the regular "pre-2000" election majority who were against this folly. Thus creating millions of people who directly suffered as a result of that action and of whom many will be willing to strike us back in desperation, comparing to what we had pre-2003.

Increase in suffering indeed, even on our end, these days often safe behind drone operating monitors.

[Hauldren Collider]

Most of us who are really aware of the scope of our problems there are on your side politically (I'd say I'm on the fence, personally). The ones who aren't, think it's a problem with the hippity-hop rap videos and entitlement culture. That's not an excuse, it's AFAICT what they genuinely believe.

Considering Cockney's side of the fence is almost literally communism, I don't agree with this at all, and I wanna state for the record that I absolutely agree there's some poverty problems here in the US, but they are 1. exaggerated and 2. being "solved" by solutions that make it worse, not better, and my prescription is the sorta stuff that Cockney thinks Maggie Thatcher shoulda done the hemp fandango for.

I don't know anyone who isn't basically Ann Coulter or some other pseudo-humorist who ****ing blames "hippity hop" videos...

[C0ckney]

I don't think this kind of speculation is terribly helpful. The American version would go something like: "Euros are resentful of their third-place role in international affairs/our superior prowess/whatever, so they blither on about all the free candy their governments give them while ignoring their bad economies caused by regressive taxation." Or something like that, Kucibros can do it better. The true picture, IMO, is not a matter of one side's suppressed feelings of envy, but of two genuinely diverging cultural views of how things ought to be. I mean, your account would depend on us being both totally aware of the plight of the poor, and genuinely concerned about it to the point that we had to rationalize it away. I think this is generally untrue. Most of us who are really aware of the scope of our problems there are on your side politically (I'd say I'm on the fence, personally). The ones who aren't, think it's a problem with the hippity-hop rap videos and entitlement culture. That's not an excuse, it's AFAICT what they genuinely believe.

Also, very few of us have a clear picture of what life in Europe is like. I say "Europe," but really you're something like forty countries, depending where you draw the lines, whether you count San Marino et al, and so on. And, yeah, we pretty much take you for granted. I get the Economist, but I skim over the Europe and Britain sections, because the politics are impenetrable and, in the final analysis, the events in Italy or Spain have no significant effect on me. I'm inclined to be suspicious of claims that life is sunshine and buttercups over there, since I get incidental glimpses of contemporary Europe here and there, and they tend to involve: monetary problems; a different, but still quite bad race problem (Muslims and/or Gypsies rather than Blacks); 10% unemployment being regarded as normal; riots in Paris, for whatever reason; "Study finds British still drink way too ****ing much"; and, occasionally, some state or other will apportion a small, but not nearly small enough, number of parliament seats to a pack of crypto-Nazis who only stopped Seig Heiling in 1997. Of course, these problems are spread out across a whole bunch of European countries, though I've heard of that last one taking place in France, Greece, and I want to say Norway (?), among others I've forgotten. But c'mon. The situation is not as simple as you paint it.

Or, if that doesn't work for you, we can all get together and be thankful that we're not Russia.

i think you've rather misunderstood what i meant, and i suppose that i should take some responsibility for that, as my post wasn't entirely clear. my point wasn't about america vs europe, or even about poverty, but rather about patriotism and the ridiculous kind of thinking it leads to; the kind of thinking that leads someone to prefer a big military to social protections. it may be worth examining just why that's so ridiculous. although of course there will always be a level of abstraction and alienation from the nation state, there is at least some real connection to the services it provides: you lose your job, you can access unemployment benefits; you fall ill, you can see a doctor for free etc. in other words there is a real, tangible, effect on one's personal life and one's community from this. with the military there is no such connection, not one positive effect on one's life or community comes from standing up to perceived enemies or invading other countries and killing brown people, nor from having big shiny weapons capable of killing large numbers of people.

now it could be that people like regcolider are psychopaths who take pleasure in seeing others hurt and killed, but i don't think that's the case. it's far more likely that they simply buy into the false national narrative; the belief that our little lives are somehow connected to the actions of the state in foreign fields, that it makes a difference to us that the military can contain russian/chinese/today's enemy's territorial ambitions* and similar ideas which are at bottom false and totally disconnected from our realities, as is revealed by even a moment's reflection, but which nonetheless are very powerful. there's a wonderful expression in portuguese: gozando com pau do outro "cumming with someone else's dick" and i think that sums up what our armchair generals here are doing when they wax lyrical about the ships, planes, guns and bombs that 'their' military possesses and all the things it, and vicariously they, can do with them.

i suppose it's fair to say that americans are more susceptible to that kind of thinking, having a larger military and smaller welfare state, but europeans (and others) are by no means immune to this sort of nonsense.

*and of course it goes without saying that these are almost wholly unreal; born from our propensity to see 'our' countries as rational and moral actors and other countries as comic book villains.

[C0ckney]

onefoot puts it very well, but i think it's worth exploring a couple of points here.

Possible the most naive thing I've ever heard you say. Also pretty damn hypocritical when you're the one in the role of the superior white man sitting there ignoring mass suffering because you can't deal with the consequences of actually fixing it. Iraq and Afghanistan incidentally are perfect examples of what I keep saying we shouldn't be doing, but hey don't let that get in the way of a good rant eh.

it's remarkable the arrogance on display here. you assume that we (the west) not only have the solution to all these peoples' problems, but also that we have the right - nay, the duty - to impose those solutions on them. it's just more white man's burden; they really believed they knew what was best for the colonised peoples too.

Living under a dictatorship is not a good life. Transitioning through revolution to a new system is not easy, quick or cheap. It is however worthwhile, which is why people under oppressive regimes keep risking their lives and their families lives to try and overthrow these regimes, while western socialists sit back sipping lattes and telling them that they should be content with their lot in life. Because hey they might risk death, rape or torture at the whim of a dictator and his thuggish regime, but at least you won't have to watch it happen on TV.

i asked a rather simple questions here and it's telling that you can't say why you think libyans are better off now than they were under gaddafi.

Of course it's a mere fantasy, because no country is willing to spend the money and risk lives of their citizens for completely philanthropic ends. Despite the propaganda about the west, everything we do is within the larger picture of furthering our interests.

yes. it's almost as if:

the subordination of the syrian, libya or other people's interests to western interests is an inevitable consequence of western intervention.

having accepted this point, you still support these kind of interventions.

[kentonio]

it's remarkable the arrogance on display here. you assume that we (the west) not only have the solution to all these peoples' problems, but also that we have the right - nay, the duty - to impose those solutions on them. it's just more white man's burden; they really believed they knew what was best for the colonised peoples too.

That's amusing because from where I'm sitting it's you who holds the arrogant position. You were talking about how those people were better off under a dictatorial system than the cost of freeing them. I don't see how much more condescending a position you can hold that than. You also seem to completely divest the west of any of the actual responsibility for the regimes we created, while simultaneously bemoaning any form of current western intervention. So it's ok to just wash our hands of the whole region now we've profited from it enough?

i asked a rather simple questions here and it's telling that you can't say why you think libyans are better off now than they were under gaddafi.

You're fighting a strawman of your own making. I've said repeatedly that it's not about the short term. They don't have to be better off now for the long term outlook to be a positive one.

yes. it's almost as if:

the subordination of the syrian, libya or other people's interests to western interests is an inevitable consequence of western intervention.

having accepted this point, you still support these kind of interventions.

If we're only allowed to support positions that are likely to actually become reality, then you should probably just stop talking about international relations and domestic policy right now.