 |
| |
|
|
OliverFA
|
|
Leeds, UK
Sep 2002
time: 06:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
oliverfa, Most Americans are supportive of a united states of europe, in prinicple. We do not ever want to see a repeat of the two world wars in the last century. However, our vision of a united europe is one where we are friends and allies. One where we cooperate together to advance civilization to further our shared values. |
I fully agree with you. An united Europe would be a very good idea and a way for the "old continent" to step forward into the future. I supported this idea and I still support it. What I don't support is a Europe whose main goal is to fight the US outside and the destroy the western values inside. I'd rather prefer being a citizen of a less important country which respects (or at least try to) the values of our civilization that a citizen of a new URSS, to say it in a few words. It would be ironical that now that Russia and the former soviet countries are adopting the western civ values the EU did exactly the oposite.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MBD
|
|
quote:
It's long been a dictum of "realist" foreign policy analysis that shortly after one great power arises, another just as surely emerges to counter-balance it. In the past, that has meant militarily - but it could also be expressed diplomatically. Since the end of the Cold War, realists have been waiting for this to happen, but couldn't see how. China is still too militarily weak. Terrorist Islam operates on an asymmetrical level, but, as we saw in Afghanistan, it's still vulnerable to conventional military superiority. But if combined with the diplomatic and economic clout of the fading Euro-Asian powers - France, Germany and Russia - it could still manage some kind of balance. That, perhaps, is what is happening now. But, of course, these old powers are riding a terrible tiger in Islamist terror, hoping it will eat them last, terrified it is actually in a stronger position to devour them first. The counter-balancing alliance is therefore real but also terribly fragile. Certainly far more fragile than the shared values and military power of the Anglosphere. I think we should think of this riveting period as a time when new alliances are being tested for future use. Some might work; others won't. But that makes it all the more important to keep our nerve and make this war so successful it deters such potential hostile alliances from taking root.
|
another interesting take on what's happening now, from Andrew Sullivan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:26
|
|
I'm sorry, Arrian, but no one in the US is anti-European. We, do, however, have some strong feelings about France and Germany. After all, France and Germany are not Europe as Pekka and others have pointed out heretofore.
I would say that there is a tremendous amount of goodwill in the US for Britain. They have been there with us in Iraq since 1991, and have not only supported, but shaped our combined policy.
We have similar good feelings toward Spain, Italy, Poland, Denmark, Bulgaria and every other European state that has supported us.
It is interesting that the UK seems to have inherited none of the anti-US feelings of the French and Germans. They simply derisively label him a lap dog. He is hardly a lap dog. He is a great and courageous leader. One of the very best prime ministers Britain has ever produced.
So, in a way, this thread is "mislabelled."
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ned
|
|
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Vagabond
I believe that all this talk about a Europe-US split is just bunk. Material being determines conciousness. In essence, Europe feels comfortable in America-centered world. Unless the war in Iraq goes terribly wrong, the current ideological rift won't shatter this materially determined reality. |
Europe has been living in a relatively secure environment since WWII due to the United States. It is drifting now since the end of the cold war, seeking safe footing on an unfamilar sea. The current run-it with the US by the French and Germans seems wildly popular in much of Europe. But where do the Europeans want this to lead?
You can be assured that America will now view France and Germany very suspiciously. Once your spouse has cheated on you, there is almost nothing you can do to put the marriage back together again. I am generally optimistic, but I see no good coming from the current events, either in the short or long run.
The current controversy seems also to have split Europe into pro-US and anti-US camps. While most here say this will not affect further integration of Europe into a state, I suspect that this is only wishful thinking. The relationship any European country has with the US is its most important relationship. Extreme differences in opinion on the US may eventually reverse European integration.
All this is the result of the demand by the Europeans that the US go through the UN to seek autorization to enforce disarmament on Iraq. Kennedy did not do this in '62 when he threatened to invade Cuba to prevent nukes there. Clinton did not do it when he bombed Iraq in '98. Clinton did not do it when he declared war on Yugoslavia. No prior president has conditioned US policy on SC consent even while seeking UN approval for US actions.
This is the very first time, though, the US has gone to the UN to seek authorization for action that the US has deemed to be in the US vital national interests. (No Korea was not in our vital national interests - I can explain this further if needed.). The very first time. What this approach to the UN has done is to cause a tremedous fight amount friends and allies. It is queer to blame Bush for "unilateralism" when his resort to the UN is unprecedented.
But now the world faces nuclear aggression from NK and potentially from Iran. Having crippled the UN SC, what will the EU now do about these rogue nations? Japan and SK definitely feel threatened by NK nukes. Undoubted, Israel feels the same about Iranian nukes.
The only thing I have heard here and in the press is that this is the US's problem, not the UN's.
How bizzare.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
LoneWolf
|
|
The French (and Euros in general) want to act as a "counterweight" to us. They want to be big-shots. They want to be adversaries.
Well, cool, lets rumble.
But don't come running to us for help when you get in over your heads (again).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Anyone who has read the lunatic ravings of Wolfowitz et al. about ensuring American "pre-eminence" in the world and then read much the same thing in Bush's pre-emptive strikes policy has a right to be alarmed at current US policy. Why can't Americans see this?
Reading some of the comments on this thread makes me think that the United States as a country is suffering from a kind of psychopathy. The US attitude seems to be "We can do whatever we like to you, but you can't do anything to us, and you can't complain either. And this isn't a matter so much of power as of moral right (i.e. we're always right and God is on our side)." Add to this an inability to empathise with others and a ridiculous overreaction to any perceived or real wrong and I think you have a good case. When individuals suffer from such delusions they are labelled psychopaths - why not a country?
And don't say we all want to be like you. I can't believe Americans think that the rest of the civilised world would want to swap places. I certainly wouldn't and hardly anyone I know does. Your social system sucks and your political system is a joke, the press isn't free and crime is rampant. And add to it all a powerful pressure to conform to a reactionary military jingoism, and you've got a basket case. After all, if the cap fits...
|
But it doesn't fit. I'm not particularly impressed with the accuracy of your opinions about the U.S., your experiences here notwithstanding. You seem to feel threatened to conform here when I have never felt it to be an issue in the 35 years that I have lived in the U.S. I have held views that were popular and views that were unpopular, but I have never felt that I cannot state my views.
As for press freedom, it is alive and well. Just because you may disagree with the large companies that run the large agencies does not mean that we in the U.S. cannot print whatever the hell we like. We do it all the time, here there and everywhere. A larger organization (for example CNN) has to make a profit, and so it shoots for the sort of audience and stories that can bring it a profit. It is an inherent limitation that is as obvious in the U.S. press as it is in the European press. In fact the differences in the way the news is slanted can provide some valuable insights into what sort of "truths" are considered sacrosanct on either side of the Atlantic from a press brand loyalty standpoint. It is most evident to me in the Middle East coverage, the Iraq coverage and coverage of events in the U.S. But the press isn't only a few news networks, wire services and newspapers. It is also the internet, small papers, weekly papers and magazines, cable access programming etc. These smaller enterprises are often freer from the demands of stockholders and more capable of taking a political stand. And they do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OliverFA
|
|
Leeds, UK
Sep 2002
time: 06:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Agathon
Had to laugh at the guy who said three million demonstrators are not a majority. That assumes that the other 37 million don't oppose the war, which is laughable given the polls. It's a bit like saying that the Romanians didn't want to depose Ceaucescu because only a small portion of them joined the demonstrations against him. Protests are usually the tip of the iceberg. Mostly younger people who have the time and the extra inclination. |
Laugh as much as you want. But unless you want to substitute people legitimacy and democratic system by another thing, 3 millions are not more than 37. Did you miss the math class? Probably. Why you asume that all the other people had to be also aginst THAT war? (they don't seem to be against lots of wars in world, only against this one). The monday after that big demonstration, the few radios and TVs that are still free at spain where plenty of calls from goodwill people that felt indigned that felt indigned because their presence in favour of peace at those demosntration was misunderstanded in purpose as a direct attack against our government. A government which is backed by the votes of the majority in free elections and despite the big campaign that the media did against it during the campaign. Don't compare my government with the one of a dictator, because my government has been choosen democratically. Don't change the power of the elections by the power of some media interpreting what some people tried to mean in a demonstration. Don't change democracy by mediacracy, pollacracy or yellocracy.
Last Wednesday I was at the university trying to solve some bureaucratic problems. And guess what happened. Yes! an anti-war demonstration! And guess what I had to do. I had to go to that demonstration because if I didn't the bureaucrat had never helped me with my problem. I had no freedom to choose. Everyone was looking at me, and i was expected to go there. I guess that I am also a "supporter of peace" :P
And I ask... Where is the anti-Sadam demonstration? How can I express myself? Are we still in democracy?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OliverFA
|
|
Leeds, UK
Sep 2002
time: 06:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by LoneWolf
The French (and Euros in general) want to act as a "counterweight" to us. They want to be big-shots. They want to be adversaries. |
Sorry, but I disagree.
Check again and see which countries are against US and which ones are with the US. On one side, France and Germany. On the other side, all the remaining countries.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The Viceroy
|
 |
tu mumbai se, mai Bombay se
Nov 2000
time: 05:26
|
|
I agree completely with oliverfa, Lonewolf .. we are Europeans, and we see our future as your allies !! Only France believe's its some kind of super-power .. although it never has been, and German history may explain why many of them don't support war.
As for Agathon's continuing belief in that polls should replace democracy .. I have to say I thought of you last night when the BBC News 24's latest opinion poll asking "Would you support a war on Iraq without UN backing" .. got 55% for war, 45% against ..
You see, as ive told you before, Polls are merely indicative, and do not represent the people. 2 million people marching in London is not a majority .. and considering each one of those 2 million people have a different shade of belief .. some don't want war at all, some hate the US for whatever reason, some hate society, some are old hat left wingers who hate blair .. and many many of them are people who simply don't want a war .. Nobody said there was a majority in favour of war , they said there isn't a majority against it either in any circumstance!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The election of Tony Blair and the Spanish prime minister was representative, not indicative, and long may our systems ignore indicative polls, which only serve the questioners bias anyhow.
Was it not the Simpson's joke, that the news channels were trying to make opinion polls legally binding ??
and the opinion that polls = democracy is just that .. a joke.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-03-2003 00:16
Going back to McCarthyism: Everyone who doesn't agree with the US stance is per definition a communist.
|
|