The differences between America and Europe - Page 10

Dr Strangelove · June 25, 2002, 09:37

Quote:

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 · June 25, 2002, 10:26

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 · June 25, 2002, 10:39

"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 · June 25, 2002, 11:29

Quote:

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 · June 25, 2002, 12:03

Nuke Irak !

Roland · June 25, 2002, 12:03

"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 · June 25, 2002, 12:24

Quote:

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 · June 25, 2002, 12:47

Quote:

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 · June 25, 2002, 14:51

Quote:

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 · June 25, 2002, 15:00

Quote:

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 · June 25, 2002, 15:28

Quote:

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 · June 25, 2002, 16:57

Quote:

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 · June 25, 2002, 16:58

Quote:

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 · June 25, 2002, 16:58

Quote:

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 · June 25, 2002, 17:03

Quote:

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.

Saint Marcus · June 25, 2002, 17:08

I know. I'm trying to re-open it.

And I hereby credit you for trying first.

Ned · June 25, 2002, 17:12

Below is a quote from the State Department site. It looks like we are allies, but instead of helping Pakistan, we cut off military assistance in their war against India in 1965. (WTF was Johnson doing?)

The United States and Pakistan established diplomatic relations in 1947. The U.S. agreement to provide economic and military assistance to Pakistan and the latter's partnership in the Baghdad Pact/CENTO and SEATO strengthened relations between the two nations. However, the U.S. suspension of military assistance during the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war generated a widespread feeling in Pakistan that the United States was not a reliable ally. Even though the United States suspended military assistance to both countries involved in the conflict, the suspension of aid affected Pakistan much more severely. Gradually, relations improved and arms sales were renewed in 1975. Then, in April 1979, the United States cut off economic assistance to Pakistan, except food assistance, as required under the Symington Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, due to concerns about Pakistan's nuclear program.

The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December 1979 highlighted the common interest of Pakistan and the United States in peace and stability in South Asia. In 1981, the United States and Pakistan agreed on a $3.2-billion military and economic assistance program aimed at helping Pakistan deal with the heightened threat to security in the region and its economic development needs.

Recognizing national security concerns and accepting Pakistan's assurances that it did not intend to construct a nuclear weapon, Congress waived restrictions (Symington Amendment) on military assistance to Pakistan. In March 1986, the two countries agreed on a second multi-year (FY 1988-93) $4-billion economic development and security assistance program. On October 1, 1990, however, the United States suspended all military assistance and new economic aid to Pakistan under the Pressler Amendment, which required that the President certify annually that Pakistan "does not possess a nuclear explosive device."

There have been several incidents of violence against American officials and U.S. mission employees in Pakistan. In November 1979, false rumors that the United States had participated in the seizure of the Grand Mosque in Mecca provoked a mob attack on the U.S. embassy in Islamabad. The government's delayed response enabled the mob to burn the embassy. Four people died, two of them U.S. nationals. The American Cultural Center in Lahore also was destroyed by fire. In 1989, there was an attack on the American Center in Islamabad, where six Pakistanis were killed in the crossfire with the police. In March of 1995, two American employees of the consulate in Karachi were killed and one wounded in an attack on the home-to-office shuttle. In November of 1997, four U.S. businessmen were brutally murdered while being driven to work in Karachi. In November 1999, the Embassy and the American Center were the targets of rocket attacks that wounded one local national security guard.

The decision by India to conduct nuclear tests in May 1998 and Pakistan's matching response set back U.S. relations in the region, which had seen renewed U.S. Government interest during the second Clinton Administration. A presidential visit scheduled for the first quarter of 1998 was postponed and, under the Glenn Amendment, sanctions restricted the provision of credits, military sales, economic assistance, and loans to the government. An intensive dialogue on nuclear nonproliferation and security issues between Deputy Secretary Talbott and Foreign Secretary Shamshad Ahmad was initiated, with discussions focusing on CTBT signature and ratification, FMCT negotiations, export controls, and a nuclear restraint regime. The October 1999 overthrow of the democratically elected Sharif government triggered an additional layer of sanctions under Section 508 of the Foreign Appropriations Act which include restrictions on foreign military financing and economic assistance. Presently, U.S. Government assistance to Pakistan is limited mainly to refugee and counter-narcotics assistance.

Saint Marcus · June 25, 2002, 19:24

So sanctions in 1998, and more in 1999.

If there was an alliance on sept.10th, it was a pretty loose one.

morb · June 25, 2002, 20:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

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.

you couldn't have "helped" russia in the way that you think. even though it was weak at the time, there was no way they were going to allow you to deploy troops on russian soil for the sole purpose of preventing "bratanstvo" or "prihvatization" from taking its course. more could have been done trying to councel the russian leadership at the time, but even then, I doubt they wouldn't let it go in one ear and out the other. At the time, everyone, especially the leadership were out to make a huge sum of money. but its not some backwater nation you know....

now other republics like georgia, etc in the caucus region and all the 'stans in central asia, that's a whole different deal. then again, russia would get upset that US was trying to reach into its sphere of influence. the 'stans badly need US support right now too btw. probably more so than 10 years ago.

Ned · June 25, 2002, 20:46

Yeah, but Morb, the Russians did appear to have a functioning democracy. There was no need to send US troops to help. Yeltsin's enormous courage in standing on the tanks of the coup forces was a image for all time for those who value freedom.

GePap · June 25, 2002, 22:42

Quote:

Originally posted by Dalgetti
GePap:
you can't prove a negative. Prove to me that there is no animal called Gvazunda that has purple skin , 5 mouths , and 23 eyes.

I can't, nor will i try. The issue with God is that, since you can't disprove it, that leaves the way open for faith. Human beings like believing in things like God, and until its existance can be disproven (never), then we are going to have to deal with faith.

Quote:

Yes, I've blindly put my faith in reason.

Have you ever questioned your commitment? And have there nevr been any momens that you had some spark or relegious sentiment? i find that hard to believe. You and i could both be wrong and some angel could come down tommorrow and tell us both, "you were wrong". Since again, we can never disprove this possibility, we must take it on faith that it won't happen and move on. So yes, i do believe is faith, just like those tha believe in relegion.

Quote:

don't preach to me, please. I am tired of that.

I's my retorical style. besides, since you are many times wrong, it might do you some good!

Roland · June 26, 2002, 03:06

Ned:

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

Interesting. So a terror-sponsoring dictatorship can have nukes etc just as long as it is an ally of the US.

Now, should Musharraf get overthrown and this so called "alliance" be dissolved, will you invade Pakistan ? Does the logic apply to others - if the EU allies with Iran is it ok when we say "let's just let'em have some nukes - allies, you know" ?

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

They have worked to some extent.

"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."

That has to be one of the most bizarre statements I've ever read on poly, and that says something....

Kropotkin · June 26, 2002, 05:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Yeltsin's enormous courage in standing on the tanks of the coup forces was a image for all time for those who value freedom.

It was a IFV, not a tank.

Saint Marcus · June 26, 2002, 09:10

Quote:

"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."

shouldn't that be: "if only the will roll over and play dead, and do whatever Israel and the USA tells them to do, then the US and Israel may be generous enough to give the Palestinians some land"?

DinoDoc · June 26, 2002, 09:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Roland
Does the logic apply to others - if the EU allies with Iran is it ok when we say "let's just let'em have some nukes - allies, you know" ?

Iraq is the one your trying to give nukes to, not Iran.