A Primer on Transatlantic Relations
by Lee
NOTE: This post turned out to be about ten times longer than I had originally planned. You might want to grab a soda or go to the can before you begin, this is probably the longest post I’ve ever written.
I had a thought occur to me yesterday, and I’ve been pondering it ever since. The more I think about it, the more I think there might be something to this. Now, before I begin, let me explicitly state for the record that I am going to be speaking in generalizations here. Every one of us will be able to come up with specific examples to refute these generalizations, but I think that there are enough obvious trends to merit discussion. A couple of days ago I wrote:
This is why this torture issue has me so bothered. It’s not that I have sympathy for terrorists or any of that other nonsense. It’s that for 58 years America and the rest of the civilized world have spoken clearly with one voice as far as what is acceptable. Whether or not you happen to agree with the specifics of this agreement is immaterial. The important aspect is that the Geneva Conventions, the UN Convention Against Torture, the UN Declaraton on Human Rights, and other similar treaties and agreements establish a common baseline, a standard agreement among civilized people, on how everyone should act. This is leading by example.
My thought—and, admittedly I have no real data to back this up, it’s just my personal viewpoint—is that the more you interact with foreigners, the more you care what they think. And the less interaction you have with the people and societies outside the United States, the less you care what they think. And this goes for Europeans, too.
It is an unquestioned fact that, by and large, Americans don’t travel around the world as much as people from other places. Elitist Eurosnobs like to think that this is a sign of their superior culture, but the fact of the matter is that it’s one of geographical necessity. America is so big and so varied that we have everything you want. No matter what type of climate, no matter what type of activity you wish to engage in, you can find it in America. From skiing and mountain climbing to the hottest deserts to gambling to sport fishing and everything in between, America’s diversity makes it so that there’s no real need to travel overseas, unless you’re going there specifically to experience another culture. This is not so in Europe, which has countries that function in a very similar way to US states. In America we travel between the states; in Europe this same amount of travel is technically “international.” With most countries in Europe having a distinct language and culture from its neighbor, people there are inherently exposed to different viewpoints.
So, where do Europeans get their views on Americans? From movies and TV. The greatest export that America makes is popular culture. It doesn’t matter where you are in the world, people are watching American films and television and listening to American music. How much does this affect their opinion of us? When I was young I spent my 4th through 6th grade years living in Stavanger, Norway. At the time Dallas was the most popular TV show in the world. Many Norwegians were under the impression that, in America, everyone lived on ranches, wore cowboy hats, and drank booze out of crystal decanters. The modern view is that America is a violent place full of gun-toting crazies and racist rednecks, where the Bloods and the Crips patrol the darkened streets looking for victims. And why do they think this? Because this is what our popular culture exposes them to: cop shows, gangsta rap, and war movies. Conversely, America views popular culture as something to be exported, never imported. The BBC shows American television shows all the time, as do stations in all countries in the world. When was the last time you saw anything broadcast on one of the major TV networks that originated in another country? I can’t think of one. Any foreign TV that we see in this country is on a cable network. We really are not exposed to any foreign culture in the same manner that American culture is foisted on Europeans, often times at the expense of their own.
The other place the world learns about Americans is from American tourists. Allow me to state this in no uncertain terms: there is no such thing in the world more obnoxious than an American tourist. Having lived in Europe and traveled all around the world, American tourists stick out like a turd in a punch bowl. They are loud, bossy, and expect everything to be done in the American manner to which they are accustomed. For example, food portions in Europe are much smaller than they are here. I have heard, with my own ears, American tourists in a nice restaurant complain that their portion of food was too small and not worth the price. The fact that this portion of food at this price was perfectly acceptable to everyone else in the restaurant was immaterial, it was that it wasn’t identical to what they were used to and thus felt slighted. The fact that there might have been 30 other Americans eating in that restaurant who were not bothered by the portion is also immaterial, the image that will stick in everyone’s mind is of the Yank yammering on about how, “Why, back home in America…”
In the 80s I saw a comedian on British TV make a joke about this. He described a situation where an American was given a British apple to eat. “You call that an apple?” the American remarked. “Why, back home in America we have apples that are the size of a softball.” “Well, you see,” came the response, “we only grow them big enough to fit our mouths.”
Consider the stereotype of French people being rude. As anyone who has been to France can tell you, there is a large element of truth to this. But are French people really more rude? When you go to a foreign country, what foreigners do you generally interact with? Hotel employees, tour guides, waiters, and cab drivers. Are you really getting a representative sample of French people as a whole? When I was working in software years ago I had to go to demo at Apple Expo Paris. A couple of guys from our Paris office decided to take me out for a night of “real” French cuisine. We went into a restaurant in a building that was about 300 years old. It was in the basement, and there were only about eight tables in the whole place. It was a real hole in the wall, something that would never be on any tourist guidebook. My two French hosts did all the ordering, and when the food came I set about sampling the fare. Because of how small the room was, and because of how I was dressed, it was obvious that I was American and I was sampling (and loving) French food. Other diners in the restaurant actually offered to let me try some of their food. “If your friend likes that, he will find this rabbit stew absolutely delicious.” “Please, try one of these sausages.” I’ve never forgotten that night. When the French were presented with an American who was not ridiculing their culture or pronouncing the superiority of the American way, who was actually enjoying what France had to offer, they were some of the friendliest people I have ever met. But the guy who worked behind the desk at the hotel? Total dickhead.
If you go to New York City to see the sights, are you going to meet any actual New Yorkers? Of course not, you’re going to meet other tourists. I was standing in line to go into the Tower of London once and I heard nothing but American accents. So the tourists deal with the hotel people, and find them to be rude and jaded. The hotel people deal with the tourists, and find them to be loud and obnoxious and quick to complain. Do you see how both sides form mistaken impressions of each other?
As I wrote the other day, there is a tendency among Americans to view the American way as being the “right” way simply by virtue of it being American. Europeans have the same attitude about their culture and views. And just like both sides believe in their own righteousness, there is a growing tendency to view the opposite opinion as being wrong simply by virtue of it being from the opposition. In other words, if the Europeans think something is a good idea, this in and of itself, is evidence of its wrongness, irrespective of the merits of the European viewpoint. Shortly after the London subway bombings I coined a term, Reductio ad Bushium, based upon the logical fallacy known as Reductio ad Hitlerum.
What the British and European people have been deluding themselves with is sort of an inverted “reductio ad Bushium,” in that if Bush believes something then it must be inherently wrong, thus the opposite must be supported. Therefore when Bush says that terrorism is a global threat and the western world has not done enough to be proactive in fighting it, the “reductio ad Bushium” argument dictates that anyone who supports this belief therefore supports Bush. Because of the palpable hatred of Bush, societal pressures have forced a lot of people to willfully ignore the threat of radical Islamism, lest they be seen by their peers as somehow being a gullible, willing pawn in Bush’s nefarious quest for global fascist hegemony. By portraying Bush as alternately a mindless chimp, a puppet whose strings are being pulled by his overlords in the military/industrial complex, or a fascist dictator, it has made it so much easier for so many people to ignore the validity of his underlying message.
Now, while there have always been significant differences between the United States and Europe, we have so much shared history and culture that it is inevitable that we would be generally allied and share common goals. During the Cold War, Europe was instrumental in deterring the Soviet Union by allowing the United States to garrison troops and install nuclear weapons on their territory. This brought out massive protests from the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND), such as this one in London which attracted 250,000 protesters. However, while there might have been opposition to specific American policies, there was not a general dislike of America. While Reagan might have been despised for his rhetoric, most Europeans grudgingly acknowledged that he was exactly the type of 800 lb. gorilla that was needed to defeat the USSR. At the time, the only power on earth able to be that gorilla was the United States. There was a stasis in American militarism and European pacifism that worked out nicely.
It is also worth exploring where this pacifist sentiment came from. World War II literally demolished the entire continent. Millions died. In the wake of the atrocities of the era, diplomatic organizations were created to try and deal with future problems, so as to avoid having to go through another devastating conflict. As America beefed up its military, Europe beefed up its social welfare systems and its reliance on diplomacy. The WWII generation had children, who were no doubt told of the unspeakable horrors that their parents had visited upon them. From birth they were essentially indoctrinated with the idea that war and conflict were something to be avoided at all costs.
Conversely, America was not destroyed during WWII. War was something that happened “over there.” No American cities were destroyed. There were no concentration camps set up in America, the Japanese internment camps notwithstanding. There was no refugee situation, where people lost everything, and whole families were wiped out. This is not to in any way diminish America sacrifices to WWII, which were significant, but on a personal and cultural level, America was relatively unscathed on the home front.
The Cold War was fought on two fronts, militarily and diplomatically. The military part was primarily handled by the Americans. The diplomatic efforts were through the UN. This symbiotic relationship was well-suited for the Cold War, where there was a common enemy. When the USSR fell, however, both sides drew different conclusions. The Americans admired Reagan’s steely resolve and unflinching weakness. The Europeans, however, tended to view it as a result of Gorbachev’s policies of perestroika and glasnost. America views it as a win for resolve, Europe views it as a win for compromise.
Throughout the Cold War, as Europe relied more and more on American military spending for its defense, it became less aware of the need for a military presence. America had the muscle, and it contributed significantly to the diplomacy, but everyone knew that America didn’t really need the diplomacy. If there was a WWIII it would be fought primarily between two great armies, the USA and the USSR. So while America viewed the diplomatic effort as optional, Europeans viewed it as essential, because they didn’t have the military option to fall back on. When it became obvious that their diplomacy was not going to work to stop the genocide in Kosovo, they had to once again turn to the 800 lb. gorilla to do the heavy lifting. In America, the general rule is that diplomacy should come first, but that the threat of military force is always there. In Europe, the rule is that diplomacy is really the only option, because for them it truly is.
If you are opposed to handgun ownership, it’s very easy to say, “I manage to live my life without a gun, why can’t everyone else?” This is, of course, shortsighted. In a similar manner, Europe says, “We manage to settle our differences without military force, why can’t the Americans?” In return, America says, “We’ve been dicking around with diplomacy for ages now, can we please just go in and solve this problem?”
Does this situation sound familiar to you?
Now that I’ve illustrated the dynamic at work, let’s look at how this relates to the war on terror and related issues. Consider that, prior to Bush, we had eight years of Bill Clinton. Look at it from a European perspective. The Cold War was won, and Europe wiped its hands and said, perhaps naively, that now we will have an era of peace, the “payoff” for their toleration of American militarism during the Cold War. We had in the 90s an era of prosperity and technological advancement. Economies boomed. During the period, President Clinton was warmly received by our continental cousins. And why not? He was an absolutely brilliant man, educated at Oxford. He was seen as rejecting the militarism of the Reagan and Bush eras, and he payed a great deal of deference to European opinion. In other words, he was exactly like I was in that French restaurant. Clinton didn’t belittle Europe, and when he promoted an American view he did so respectfully and diplomatically. If Europe was a restaurant, Clinton was being fed samples from every country’s table. They responded to him because he respected them and their traditions. He was a very European president.
Enter George W. Bush. As soon as he announced his candidacy, the stories began. He was a moron, despite somehow managing to graduate from Harvard and Yale. He was militaristic in a way not seen since the Cold War. He was a vocal proponent of American exceptionalism, of “the American Way.” He was a religious man, and a largely secular Europe did not respond well to that. In short, he was the literal opposite of Clinton. He was a very American president.
There was the 2000 election fiasco, in which Bush was largely perceived as having stolen the election. So, not only was he a gung-ho cowboy, he was illegitimate as well, which provided a justification for Europe’s visceral hatred of the man. It would be sort of like when a neighbor who you really like moves out, and in moves a complete asshole. He throws parties at all hours, blasts his stereo, doesn’t take care of his yard, and so on. You can’t do anything to make him leave, but you hate him at the same time. You’re forced to deal with him, which makes you resentful. This resent turns to anger and hatred. That’s how Europe feels about our president, the obnoxious asshole they can’t do anything about.
Now, think about the stereotype that Europeans have of Americans: loud, obnoxious assholes who are convinced that the American way is right. And who do we elect as our president? A loud, obnoxious asshole who is convinced that the American way is right.
Then 9/11 happened. Despite how people might choose to remember it today, there was a general outpouring of sympathy from Europe. They’ve been suffering from war and terrorism and destruction for years. It’s a part of their collective psyche. From their point of view, the last haven of real safety on the planet—America—had just been violated. Now we would experience what they have. Of course, when you consider what they have lost over the years due to war and terrorism, 3,000 people is a relatively low number. From their point of view, we had just gotten a taste of the European experience.
From our viewpoint, however, this was brand new. There is no tradition of war being meted out on our shores. We didn’t lose any cities during WWII. Terrorists haven’t been detonating bombs in our subway systems since the 1960s. We never had to deal with the IRA or Black September or the Red Brigades or any of the other terrorist groups which Europe has been fighting for decades. This experience was totally foreign to our collective psyche. We were outraged at this offense against our homeland, and we responded exactly the way the 800 lb. gorilla acts when you poke him with a stick.
While there was, of course, a howl of opposition from the pacifist anti-American wing of the European population, there was virtual uniformity among all nations that the United States was going to strike back, and that this would be perfectly justified. When we went in to Afghanistan, the nations of the civilized world gladly joined in. NATO gave us its full backing. For all the differences between the United States and Europe, there was still a bedrock of similarities and shared values and customs.
Then Bush talked about Iraq. From the European standpoint, they said, “Huh? You were attacked by terrorists who trained in Afghanistan. You lost 3,000 people which, while tragic, isn’t the end of the world in the grand scheme of things. You’ll rebuild and go on just like we have done. So how can you possibly use 9/11 as justification for invading a country which had nothing to do with it?” What did we do in response? We told them to shove it up their ass. We said that their diplomatic traditions were stupid and weak, that their pacifist tendencies were not appropriate for the post-9/11 world, that they just “didn’t understand” terrorism, and that we didn’t give a shit what they thought—we were going to do whatever the hell we wanted, because we were America.
The 800 lb. gorilla had somehow gotten out of its cage. And here a vitally important point comes into play. They already had a negative stereotype about Americans, and now were not only forced to deal with a president who not only was the living embodiment of this stereotype, but who was acting exactly the way the stereotype said he should. Whereas Clinton was sitting in the restaurant sampling delicious French food, Bush charged in wearing boots and a cowboy hat, yelled that their food sucked, and told them that if they knew what was good for them they’d all start eating McDonalds. George W. Bush is the literal embodiment of the stereotype of the ugly American. Therefore, by extrapolation, the actions of George W. Bush became completely intertwined with the image of America. If you hate Bush, then you hate America.
Now comes the torture issue. In light of all that I have written above, allow me to requote the text from the beginning of this paragraph.
This is why this torture issue has me so bothered. It’s not that I have sympathy for terrorists or any of that other nonsense. It’s that for 58 years America and the rest of the civilized world have spoken clearly with one voice as far as what is acceptable. Whether or not you happen to agree with the specifics of this agreement is immaterial. The important aspect is that the Geneva Conventions, the UN Convention Against Torture, the UN Declaraton on Human Rights, and other similar treaties and agreements establish a common baseline, a standard agreement among civilized people, on how everyone should act. This is leading by example.
These treaties and organizations and agreements are the literal bedrock upon which the EuroAmerican alliance is built. They state that, no matter what our disagreements may be on politics, we have created a set of standards to codify these shared values. They are, in the minds of Europeans, inviolable. Why? Because, in the European psyche, in their collective consciousness, they still remember the atrocities of WWII. Even today there are reminders everywhere. The death camps, the rusting wrecks from the D-Day invasion off the coast of Luc-sur-mer, the craters in the countryside; all these provide a very real, very tangible link to a horrific past. The Geneva Conventions were created by the very generation who lived through these atrocities as a direct result of the atrocities themselves. As the Europeans rebuilt their shattered continent, they enacted these rules so that it would never happen to them again.
Now, George W. Bush has come along and, using parliamentary tricks and legal loopholes, is weakening the very bedrock upon which European peace and security is based.
Americans view European diplomacy as weakness which will virtually guarantee more bloodshed. Europeans view American militarism and total lack of respect for their political and diplomatic institutions as something that could one day unleash a new wave of atrocities and violence upon them. This has turned out to be true. There were the bombings in London and Spain, the bombs planted on the trains in Germany, the recent London airline plot, and so on. Every one of these happened in Europe. Number of American domestic terrorist attacks: zero. So, in a very real way, we’re fighting the war and they’re paying the price. It was a war they wanted no part of to begin with, but have been sucked in anyway. George W. Bush’s America has made modern Europe less secure.
The point of this long post was to detail European attitudes towards these issues, because unless you had the benefit (as I did) of growing up all around the world and being immersed in these cultures and attitudes you would have absolutely no reason to really know what foreigners think. From our standpoint we’re just nudging these rules a teensy weensy bit to enable us to smack around a few terrorists. From their standpoint, we’re making it more likely that WWIII will be unleashed.
Why should we care what they think of us? Allow me to give you an illustration from the Cold War. During the 1980s our president was a conservative icon, Ronald Reagan. France’s president was Francois Mitterand, a Socialist. You couldn’t have two men whose views were more diametrically opposed to each other, but they had one thing in common—they both understood the need to defeat the Soviet Union, and they both knew that the way Reagan and Thatcher were going about it was the right one. Even though there was a significant amount of anti-American sentiment in Europe at the time because of the nuclear weapons issue, most European leaders were willing to stand up to their people and say, “This is something we need to do. We have to stand tough, together, and win this war.” Whether the people were emotionally with the United States, intellectually they knew that it was in their best interests to do so. And they did.
What has Bush done? He led the coalition of the willing into war in Iraq to rid the world of Saddam’s WMD. European political support for this gambit was lukewarm at best; European popular support for the man waging it was even lower. Whereas European leaders had an often-grudging respect for Reagan and his policies and thus placed their trust in the United States, they have absolutely no faith in our president or our country. He, and by extension we, are despised. European leaders were willing to defy their people to support the United States, but they are not willing to do so to support George W. Bush. No matter how righteous his cause may be, the principle of Reductio ad Bushium comes into play—if Bush thinks it’s a good idea, then it must be bad. Look at what happened to Tony Blair as a result of his decision to support us. The same goes for Spain. That’s the warning to every other European leader—support us and die politically.
When I say that there are bigger issues at stake than just torture, this is what I mean. Our “slight tweak” to these conventions is, to Europe, the most grave attack on their way of life since Adolf Hitler destroyed their continent. We have to look at it from their point of view. What we have to ask ourselves is whether, in totality, the right to smack around prisoners is worth the cost in terms of our international prestige.
These laws are sacrosanct to Europeans because they are the only means of caging an 800 lb. gorilla. When the gorilla gets free to do as the gorilla wishes, there is no telling what mayhem will result. In the European psyche, the memories of the last bout of mayhem are all too real and all to personal. We have to respect that. In the America vs. Islam world, we have two 800 lb. gorillas who might go at full war with each other. And guess which part of the world will feel the brunt of that battle: Europe.
The point I want to close on is this: I believe that the people most likely (like me) to oppose changing these conventions are the people who have the most experience in an international context. Note that this does NOT imply any kind of moral or intellectual superiority on my part, it is simply stating a fact. When you have virtually no experience with Europeans, or if your only experience was the jerk working the front desk at your hotel, then you are less likely to view Europe as someone who should be viewed as an equal. This does not mean that we need to kowtow to Europe’s demands. Reagan sure as hell didn’t. However, we could take a number of pages from Bill Clinton’s attitude towards diplomacy, because the way Bush does things has made the whole world hate us.
Comments
What we have to ask ourselves is whether, in totality, the right to smack around prisoners is worth the cost in terms of our international prestige.
That pretty much sums up my take on the whole torture debacle. Is it worth all the trouble?
Brilliant post Lee. Have some thoughts of my own as a European who has spent quite a lot of time in the US.
Firstly, on the travelling thing. There are actually a lot of Americans who do travel. I have done lots of backpacking and it seems a universal rule that when you go backpacking there will always be a Brit, an American, A Canadian (with a canadian flag on their backpack) and Aussie and some other European. I don’t think I have ever stayed anywhere without this combination! For people who actual “travel” I think Americans are actually highly represented. What may be less so is that Americans are less likely to go on European holidays, for brief visits of a country. Instead, as you say, you go from state to state, Colorado to ski, Hawaii for the beack, Vegas etc. You don’t experience any real difference in culture on these trips (ok, there is some in Hawaii but heavily touristified) and miss out.
The BBC shows American television shows all the time, as do stations in all countries in the world. When was the last time you saw anything broadcast on one of the major TV networks that originated in another country? I can’t think of one. Any foreign TV that we see in this country is on a cable network. We really are not exposed to any foreign culture in the same manner that American culture is exposed to Europeans.
Some of the sterotypes I hear when I come to the US are hysterical, especially the ones based around Austin Powers. Americans also seem to have no idea who the Brits in their tv shows even are, that people believe Hugh Laurie from “House” is American still astounds me.
Still, the sterotypes in the UK of Americans exist, and I have to say I still suffer some of them even as someone who has spent quite a bit of time in the US. When I was in Japan I met an American girl who was gay, a vegeterian and a democrat. She also lived in Texas and loved it there. This I found an amazing contradiction and just go to show how my sterotype of Texas is completly out of whack with reality.
As America beefed up its military, Europe beefed up its social welfare systems and its reliance on diplomacy.
This is such an important point. This is one of the major reasons for the EU. Can you even imagine a US state having a war with another state? Of course not. This is, to my mind, the most important aim of the EU. For countries so economically and politically linked, war is impossible. Could France and Germany go to war? Absolutly not, the idea is now absurd - yet in the last 90 years they have fought against each other in the two biggest wars in the history of the world. This is *monumental* progress, European’s response to WW2 has worked, conclusivly.
Enter George W. Bush. As soon as he announced his candidacy, the stories began. He was a moron, despite somehow managing to graduate from Harvard and Yale. He was militaristic in a way not seen since the Cold War. He was a vocal proponent of American exceptionalism, of “the American Way.” He was a religious man, and a largely secular Europe did not respond well to that. In short, he was the literal opposite of Clinton. He was a very American president.
You have to be careful here, Europe is in a lot of places very religious, more so than America. Italy for example is still a very catholic country, restrictions on Abortion in ireland (and even contraception) would perhaps surprise you. Britain is most likely the least religous of countries and discussion of religion is very rarely accepted at all in the political sphere but this istn’t to say there are not a lot of religious people in Britain, there are.
The differences to me seem clear. In Europe religion is a personal issue. It’s not a political issue in the way it is in the US. Also, there are not “religious pundits” like there are in the US who say the most stupid things. There is not the money involved in religion in the same way either, religion is not run as a business like it seems to be in so many of the mega churches. This may make religion look less prevalent in Europe but I don’t think it is.
We said that their diplomatic traditions were stupid and weak, that their pacifist tendencies were not appropriate for the post-9/11 world, that they just “didn’t understand” terrorism, and that we didn’t give a shit what they thought—we were going to do whatever the hell we wanted, because we were America.
It was worse than this. The “With us or against us” comment I think was the start of the unravelling. Them comes “freedom fries” in Congress. Politicans insulting all French people etc.
Therefore, by extrapolation, the actions of George W. Bush became completely intertwined with the image of America. If you hate Bush, then you hate America.
Here I think you are very wrong. I have never met a European that can’t seperate their opinions of Bush (almost universally negative) with their view of America and Americans. I have never seen anyone rude to an individual American because they where an American. Come to Europe and express your love of Bush and sure, you may get some abuse back - but this is because of your opinion of Bush, not because you are an American.
There is anti-Americanism of course, but again I still think this is a directed a lot at the political class, the superiority of these people and how they act on the national stage. I think Europeans maybe think Americans are a little dim witted for voting Bush in, but again I think a lot understand Americans don’t really get a huge amount of choice these days in who they elect with the name recognition and money needed to run for President.
These treaties and organizations and agreements are the literal bedrock upon which the EuroAmerican alliance is built. They state that, no matter what our disagreements may be on politics, we have created a set of standards to codify these shared values. They are, in the minds of Europeans, inviolable.
This is also important, and has been a bone of contention for a number of reasons:
- Free trade agreements not honoured by America. The steel issue with the UK was annoying. Canadians are pissed about lumber etc. America seems quite happy to ignore trade committments when they so decide
- Land mines treaty opposition
- Death penalty for children (this has finally changed though now right?) along with only two other countries I believe
- Kyoto
- International Court
- Undermining the UN
The list goes on. The rest of the world sees the US using all these treaties and neogitiations to gain advatnage for the US. The rest of the world sees these treaties and obligations as costs, but things that are important to improve the world.
What we have to ask ourselves is whether, in totality, the right to smack around prisoners is worth the cost in terms of our international prestige.
So completly true.
You also have to remember that prestige is an important military tool. Its harder to get people to try and kill US soldiers and citizens when they believe these people are good / honourable people. When they are shown reports of torture and their President won’t even condemn this, it makes it a little easier to find people prepared to kill Americans.
I hear you, having spent quite a bit of time in Europe, but frankly I think German tourists can be even worse. And a lot of Europeans, especially in Mediterranean areas where Germans like to vacation, will agree.
Germans reserving all the best chairs by the pool is a bone of contention with most! But it sums up Germans perfectly, they are organised and disciplined, so they get up early and remember to reserve the beds before breakfast!
When I was in Japan I met an American girl who was gay, a vegeterian and a democrat. She also lived in Texas and loved it there. This I found an amazing contradiction and just go to show how my sterotype of Texas is completly out of whack with reality.
Dallas, I bet.....
Very few people in Dallas are actually from Texas. I remember when we lived there several years ago. We attended a Christmas party at the home of some neighbors. Everyone sat around bad-mouthing and making fun of Texans. Hubby and I just sat there, feeling very uncomfortable and out of place.
(Sorry - off subject, I know).
I thought at first, Padders, that you had met my niece. She spent a year in Japan a few years ago, and your description fit her to a tee, except the gay part. :)
Yup, Dallas :)
It was this year I was in Japan so wouldn’t have met your niece :)
(oh how on Earth did she survive being a Vegetarian in Japan for a year, that really can’t have been easy - unless she eat’s fish that is). They put fish/meat in everything there, I wonder if they even have a word for vegetarian :)
When was the last time you saw anything broadcast on one of the major TV networks that originated in another country?
The corporation for Public Broadcasting reaches all areas of the country and has programming from all over the world.
I have said all along that our inability to be reflective will be our undoing. One can’t even speculate out loud why 9/11 happened or any of the other terroist events in Europe or the rest of the world. “They hate our freedoms” is as far as you can take it. Surely there is more to it than that. Most people aren’t interested in reflecting on our place in the world and how we are perceived by others. I predict you are going to have your rhetorical ass handed to you over this post. I hope I’m wrong but I doubt it.
She may not be a strict vegetarian. But, if they have coke (the soda) and potato chips, she would manage just fine....
The “With us or against us” comment I think was the start of the unravelling. Them comes “freedom fries” in Congress. Politicans insulting all French people etc.
If I was an American, I would have been deeply ashamed when this was all going on.
What we have to ask ourselves is whether, in totality, the right to smack around prisoners is worth the cost in terms of our international prestige.
Don’t forget that it takes years to build a reputation, but it can be lost in an instant.
Lee, it seems to me that you’ve grown while writing this blog. I couldn’t have imagined you writing posts this sensible when I first started reading your blog.
I suspect there are quite a few gay vegetarian Democrats in the Austin, TX area ...
So, beano - why, in your opinion, did 9/11 happen? What is the “more to it”?
(Serious question. Not being tacky)
It was worse than this. The “With us or against us” comment I think was the start of the unravelling. Them comes “freedom fries” in Congress. Politicans insulting all French people etc.
So it wasn’t Iraq alone then, it was just a few days after 9/11. Nice.
Here’s the actual full quote.
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.
You really have a problem with this? It’s basically saying either you harbor terrorists or you don’t. Sorry we we’re so demanding. After all, we’re the real terrorist in the eyes of so many. Whatever.
I suspect there are quite a few gay vegetarian Democrats in the Austin, TX area ...
Yes. Absolutely. But are they native Texans?
My niece that I mentioned is a UT grad. But then, so is my son-in-law....
The “freedom fries” were so stupid, and so totally embarrassing.....
If I was an American, I would have been deeply ashamed when this was all going on.
If I was an American, I would have been deeply ashamed when this was all going on.
Why shouldn’t we? We should be ashamed of everything. Why we love it when just a few weeks after the attacks we start reading polls that 9/11 was at least partially our fault. We love to hear about our kids being booed at a hockey game in Canada (and yes, I know they’re not part of Europe), among other things. Our flags being burned, mass protests, and I can go on and on about it, but hey, you guys don’t do any of that stuff. You’re just too intellectual. When I read your post Lee, it started getting me thinking, and thought it was right on in many respects, but of course the same usual fuckheads jump right on the ‘You should be ashamed of yourself.’ bandwagon. Not to mention that France was some innocent victim here. Even though I didn’t agree with going into Iraq, and have stated it a million times, their tactics were just plain insulting.
but of course the same usual fuckheads jump right on the ‘You should be ashamed of yourself.’ bandwagon.
I never said that you should, just that I would have been (and it seems that RepMom agrees with me).
We love to hear about our kids being booed at a hockey game in Canada (and yes, I know they’re not part of Europe), among other things. Our flags being burned, mass protests, and I can go on and on about it, but hey, you guys don’t do any of that stuff.
Nor did I say that any of that stuff was not shameful. You seem to be under the impression that I’m trying to prove Europe’s superiority when I’m not. I’m just saying that the anti-French stuff was supid - which it was.
So it wasn’t Iraq alone then, it was just a few days after 9/11. Nice.
Here’s the actual full quote.
And we will pursue nations that provide aid or safe haven to terrorism. Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.
You really have a problem with this? It’s basically saying either you harbor terrorists or you don’t. Sorry we we’re so demanding. After all, we’re the real terrorist in the eyes of so many. Whatever.
You are right, its usage there is not offensive. What became offensive when this language was used regarding Iraq (often by implication I accept)
So, beano - why, in your opinion, did 9/11 happen? What is the “more to it”?
(Serious question. Not being tacky)
Do you really think these people killed themselves and thousands of others because they hate American freedoms? What does that even mean?
You can explain the actions of these people in lots of ways and the likely answer is there are a whole host of reasons as to why the acted in the way they did. When people make big decisions there are often a multitude of factors that led them to it. Simplifying their motives with a stupid slogan is not helpful.
Nor did I say that any of that stuff was not shameful. You seem to be under the impression that I’m trying to prove Europe’s superiority when I’m not. I’m just saying that the anti-French stuff was supid - which it was.
This reminded me of one point I wanted to make. I think Europeans generally are much more self-critical. The British are constantly taking, as well call it “the piss out of themselves”. Other European countries do this as well.
Can you imagine TV shows such as “Little Britain” appearing in a US format. Sorry that few of you will have seen this.
Lee, it seems to me that you’ve grown while writing this blog. I couldn’t have imagined you writing posts this sensible when I first started reading your blog.
One of the things I like about blogging is that you are constantly forced to defend your beliefs. If you find you can’t defend them, and intellectually honest person will confront that reality.
I wouldn’t say my opinion has changed, at least on this issue. Let me put it this way. When the Abu Ghraib photos came out I, like everyone else, spoke ill of the people in the photographs. America doesn’t treat people like this, therefore this has to be just one rogue unit which got out of control. But then the other stories came to light. Initially they were all denied, but they were subsequently shown to be true. So it’s hard to defend this president against the latest allegation when the vast majority of the past allegations were accurate, despite the administration’s claims to the contrary.
As I’ve said before, I think that there are certain privileges which come with power. As the world’s lone superpower, the United States has the ability to defy convention and custom if it chooses. This is an awesome power, and the responsibility necessary for wielding it cannot be understated.
We wanted international consensus over Iraq. We couldn’t get it. We created the coalition. Up to this point I’m with them. I supported telling the rest of the world to fuck off because, like everyone else, we all knew that Saddam had warehouses full of this shit. After we got into Iraq, the news cameras would be there to show soldiers ripping open the doors to bunkers full of the world’s most deadly weapons. Once we had that justification, the Europeans would be cowed into admitting they were wrong.
The problem is that, no matter what intel led to the war or what our assumptions were, we were wrong. That cannot be denied.
But, still, I was willing to cut the president some slack. He’s got the most difficulty job in the world, and I was more than willing to accept that sometimes mistakes happen. But there is a condition on my willingness to forgive, and that is the person takes steps to make sure that the mistakes don’t happen again.
I have not seen George W. Bush the slightest bit interested in evaluating what went wrong. His only interest is in continuing his same flawed plan out of some sense of consistency. This isn’t steely-eyed resolve, it’s abject fucking weakness.
Now he wants to weaken the Geneva Conventions. I’m not some kind of Kerry-eque internationalist, and I certainly don’t think that the United States should be beholden to the whims of the rest of the world. The Kyoto Accord is a good example. The world loves it, but it’s a completely worthless treaty, and as such the US is completely right to stay out of it. But the Geneva Conventions are a completely different story. This gets right to the heart of civilization versus barbarity. The GCs are an extension of our civility, even towards the most evil members of humanity.
I think there’s a big, big difference between having a rule in place and occasionally finding it necessary to break it, and engaging in a widespread flaunting of the rule, all the while using trickery to try to pretend that you’re still following it.
If Bush said that, hey, I felt it was appropriate to authorize coercive techniques on Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, I’d be able to live with that. But there’s a far cry from that and wanting to routinely abuse prisoners on the *hopes* that they might confess to something useful.
To get back to the point I made earlier about being forced to justify your beliefs, this is why I continually asked Drumwaster to factually defend his argument that torture yielded superior results to regular interrogation. I provided copious examples of knowledgeable people showing why this was false. So, whether or not anyone else agreed with me, nobody could say that I couldn’t factually and rhetorically back up my thesis.
Drumwaster could not, and he got pissed off because he was backed into a corner and knew he had two options, admit he was wrong or try to intimidate me. He chose the latter.
I think it’s vitally important to question your beliefs. This is why I read liberal blogs, never watch Fox News, and subscribe to three different magazines: National Review (conservative), The New Republic (liberal), and Reason (libertarian). If you can’t defend your views, then you really have no right to them in the first place.
I thought the “freedom fries” were silly and embarrassing, but I had no problem with the “with us or against us” comment.
And I will admit that I stopped buying any French wines. Plenty of other wines out there to purchase.
But, still, I was willing to cut the president some slack. He’s got the most difficulty job in the world, and I was more than willing to accept that sometimes mistakes happen. But there is a condition on my willingness to forgive, and that is the person takes steps to make sure that the mistakes don’t happen again.
There is another aspect here. Can you imagine the US press / pundits had the weapons been found. They would have expected personal apologies from Chirac etc.
There has not been any contrition from Bush. I think the best he could come up with was making jokes about finding the WMDs under some chairs and tables.
Lee, you really should subscribe to the Economist. I think you would like quite a lot of it although there is definitely enough in there to make you question some of your beliefs. Not sure where I would put it on a political spectrum though.
Nor did I say that any of that stuff was not shameful. You seem to be under the impression that I’m trying to prove Europe’s superiority when I’m not. I’m just saying that the anti-French stuff was supid - which it was.
Gotcha. My apologies then. I guess diplomacy does work. ...with reasonable people anyhow :)
So, beano - why, in your opinion, did 9/11 happen? What is the “more to it”?
(Serious question. Not being tacky)
Do you really think these people killed themselves and thousands of others because they hate American freedoms? What does that even mean?
You can explain the actions of these people in lots of ways and the likely answer is there are a whole host of reasons as to why the acted in the way they did. When people make big decisions there are often a multitude of factors that led them to it. Simplifying their motives with a stupid slogan is not helpful.
So, why did they kill themselves and others? List some reasons for me. You and beano are making general statements, but nothing specific. If there were a whole lot of reasons for 9/11, surely you can come up with one or two....
So, beano - why, in your opinion, did 9/11 happen? What is the “more to it”?
My opinion doesn’t matter. I just think it is striking that their has been no national discussion about it. It is blown off with “they hate our freedoms”. No one seems willing to examine if there is anything we can do for ourselves to mitigate the damage while we are fighting this WOT. An energy policy would be nice, for example.
On this whole diplomacy thing. I have often wondered what would happen if everyone from here met in the real world. Would we leave disagreeing with each other more or actually realising that we probably don’t have as different opinions as we may think.
So, beano - why, in your opinion, did 9/11 happen? What is the “more to it”?
My opinion doesn’t matter.
What do you mean “my opinion doesn’t matter”? That’s what this blog is all about - opinions.
Can you imagine TV shows such as “Little Britain” appearing in a US format. Sorry that few of you will have seen this.
Quite frankly yes I can.
Gotcha. My apologies then.
No need to apologise, it can be very hard to work out the intentions of what people say when you only get to see it typed out on a screen.
I think it’s vitally important to question your beliefs. This is why I read liberal blogs, never watch Fox News, and subscribe to three different magazines: National Review (conservative), The New Republic (liberal), and Reason (libertarian). If you can’t defend your views, then you really have no right to them in the first place.
And it’s to your credit. I think that there is nothing worse than when people only read news and opinion from sources that reinforce their world view, though I’m sure we are all guilty of that to some degree.
What do you mean “my opinion doesn’t matter”? That’s what this blog is all about - opinions.
My opinion doesn’t matter because that is not the point I was trying to make. You will not goad me into an argument so near dinnertime. :-)
My opinion doesn’t matter because that is not the point I was trying to make. You will not goad me into an argument so near dinnertime. :-)
Ok, you can write what you think after dinner.
On this whole diplomacy thing. I have often wondered what would happen if everyone from here met in the real world. Would we leave disagreeing with each other more or actually realising that we probably don’t have as different opinions as we may think.
That’d be cool if we could all meet someday, but I have a face made for blogging.
My opinion doesn’t matter because that is not the point I was trying to make. You will not goad me into an argument so near dinnertime. :-)
Hey, no excuse. I was trying to get dinner ready AND keep up with this discussion. :)
Enjoy your dinner, then, as Section 8 says, tell us what you think while you have your after-dinner coffee…
That’d be cool if we could all meet someday, but I have a face made for blogging.
Just be sure to give me plenty of warning, so that I have time to color the hair and knock off a few pounds.......
color the hair
We would disagree on spelling though. As far as I’m concerned: our language, our rules.
What did I spell incorrectly? Color?
On this whole diplomacy thing. I have often wondered what would happen if everyone from here met in the real world. Would we leave disagreeing with each other more or actually realising that we probably don’t have as different opinions as we may think.
That’d be cool if we could all meet someday, but I have a face made for blogging.
LOL me too… but i would keep my promise to buy Stogy a beer…
then argue with him…
At one time one of the illustrious libs here made a comment on how left leaning Americans travel more abroad, compared to their right wing counterparts… hmmmm if there is such a negative view of American tourists and such, i just wonder who is teh most responsible for that ... LOL
just saying.
At one time one of the illustrious libs here made a comment on how left leaning Americans travel more abroad, compared to their right wing counterparts… hmmmm if there is such a negative view of American tourists and such, i just wonder who is teh most responsible for that ... LOL
just saying.
Good one, Harley! :)
Harley,
Was that George, or Bob?
What did I spell incorrectly? Color?
Yep, we say “colour”
Harley,
Was that George, or Bob?
I dont remember who it was.
I very much enjoyed your essay, Lee. I’m not completely comfortable with the W characterization, but as it is set out in contrast to the Clinton characterization, I wouldn’t find it worth arguing about.
But, here’s what I DO have to say. Your points are well made up to this point in time, and as history has been written/lived.
What the Euros say AFTER one or more Euros have been beheaded with their hands behind their backs on put on videotape remains to be seen. And, it IS coming. The al Qaeda announced that a week or so back. That other countries were the next places to be hit. I’m guessing the beheadings as well as the bombings will take place, also.
But, maybe the bombings will be enough to convince the Euros that there is something not so wrong with W and that there is something not so right with diplomacy against the worldwide muslim revolution of violence in the name of converting all peoples to the religion of peace . . . or else.
But, maybe the bombings will be enough to convince the Euros that there is something not so wrong with W and that there is something not so right with diplomacy against the worldwide muslim revolution of violence in the name of converting all peoples to the religion of peace . . . or else.
No we willjsut hear anotehr round of “ITS AMERICAS FAULT!!”
But, maybe the bombings will be enough to convince the Euros that there is something not so wrong with W and that there is something not so right with diplomacy against the worldwide muslim revolution of violence in the name of converting all peoples to the religion of peace . . . or else.
Harley’s right. It’ll just be blamed on America and that evil George W. Bush....
I don’t think anything would convince them that there is something not so wrong with W.
OMG you Christ Punching Liberal!
Kidding.
Great post. Your longest ever, you said? But also maybe your best. My favorite, anyway.
Lee, you seem to have run into a lot more of the “ugly American” types than I, despite the fact that our foreign travels are fairly equivalent. I’d speculate that that may be because my travels were normally business and our tourists jaunts tended to be out-of-the-way things like flying to Dubrovnik and driving through Montenegro and Marathon to Athens. Not a lot of American tourists in Yugoslavia in 1982. I’ve always found I could identify Americans abroad by teeth, shoes, and altitude, not attitude.
On a more substantive note, it occurs to me that an important word was missing from your post: oil. I’m not one of those who believe that oil drives our foreign policy exclusively, but it certainly is an important determinate in how we see and deal with the rest of the world and how they see us. Given the reason for most of your time overseas, you should take that into account. We’ve done some pretty unpopular things in the world in the name of our gasoline supply.
No, sorry, it’s not “coming.” The rest of the world, including Europe, has lived with this kind of thing for decades. In just the immediate past: subway bombs in Madrid and London, the nightclub bombs in Bali, sarin in the Japanese subways, the heads of three Brits and a New Zealander in a bag near Grozny. I’d say you’ve substantiated Lee’s point about Americans not knowing much about the rest of the world.What the Euros say AFTER one or more Euros have been beheaded with their hands behind their backs on put on videotape remains to be seen. And, it IS coming. ... But, maybe the bombings will be enough to convince the Euros that there is something not so wrong with W
Given the reason for most of your time overseas, you should take that into account. We’ve done some pretty unpopular things in the world in the name of our gasoline supply.
Yup. I wonder how much difference to the world an extra $1 federal gas tax would have made. Probably quite a lot.
Of course Bush’s response was to increase spending, cut taxes and fight a war all at once.
What the Euros say AFTER one or more Euros have been beheaded with their hands behind their backs on put on videotape remains to be seen. And, it IS coming. The al Qaeda announced that a week or so back. That other countries were the next places to be hit. I’m guessing the beheadings as well as the bombings will take place, also.
At one time one of the illustrious libs here made a comment on how left leaning Americans travel more abroad, compared to their right wing counterparts… hmmmm if there is such a negative view of American tourists and such, i just wonder who is teh most responsible for that ... LOL
There’s no doubt about that. Every idiot “Long Island bitch” type I’ve met in my life (using a NY characterization of 20-something women with too much of daddy’s money, no real knowledge, and a huge list of demands upon the world at large) has also been a flaming liberal who thinks that life can accomodate their exorbitant wishes for free everything, no work, and carefree vegetarianism (denying themselves protein and iron without taking steps to do anything about it, then being shocked when the health consequences set in).
I’m sure there are rich conservative pricks out there, too, but I’d wager they spend a lot less facetime colliding with the “peasant folk” in foreign countries.
Given the reason for most of your time overseas, you should take that into account. We’ve done some pretty unpopular things in the world in the name of our gasoline supply.
Well, we’ve some pretty unpopular things in the world *that liberals claim* are in the name of our gasoline supply. Actually, mainly one.
If we were primarily concerned about our gasoline supply, it’d have made no sense to stop at Kuwait, and we would’ve blown the Ayatollah all to hell years ago.
“Yup. I wonder how much difference to the world an extra $1 federal gas tax would have made. Probably quite a lot.”
Other than making our poor people poorer and damaging American (and, by extension, global) economic growth, not much.
Consider cigarette taxes: They don’t actually tend to stop people from smoking, they just create a massive financial drain on heavy smokers, who are often low-income types and have decided that they are *going* to smoke.
In fact, Harvard studies have shown that many states now have a theoretical financial incentive to *encourage* smoking, since it means they get to keep the money and, if they’re lucky, the smoker who paid it will drop dead of cancer young, meaning they don’t have to support them as seniors. Not that there’s a direct analogy to gasoline, but the notion that taxation is an effective way to radically alter people’s lifestyle is assinine.
I have said all along that our inability to be reflective will be our undoing. One can’t even speculate out loud why 9/11 happened or any of the other terroist events in Europe or the rest of the world. “They hate our freedoms” is as far as you can take it. Surely there is more to it than that. Most people aren’t interested in reflecting on our place in the world and how we are perceived by others. I predict you are going to have your rhetorical ass handed to you over this post. I hope I’m wrong but I doubt it.
Beano, you’re one of the more rational left of center posters around here. However, more often than not, the reasons behind horrific events have very simple answers. It isn’t even as complicated as “They hate our freedoms.” Some people simply hate, period.
Virtually all of the Middle East lives in abject poverty by our standards. They have dictatorship/theocracy controlled media telling them constantly the west is responsible for stealing the wealth of their nations. Their governments tell them that we are stealing their wealth. Those same governments keep their people ignorant of the fact that wealth is created by the people. They still live in the dark age concept that wealth is a static concept. That you can only be richer by taking from another. When the only people really taking from the people of the Middle East are their rulers. These leaders are stealing every penny that the west gives them through trade or aid.
Add to that a culture which demands absolute religious submission, and the conclusion is ineluctable, certain extremists will want to kill us. At all costs.
Not a lot of American tourists in Yugoslavia in 1982.
Let me guess, you were over there designing the Yugo right?
The “freedom fries” were so stupid, and so totally embarrassing.....
Absolutely! I don’t know what we were thinking.
Would we leave disagreeing with each other more or actually realising that we probably don’t have as different opinions as we may think.
I must say that just talking with a European I would like them much better. Especially because I wouldn’t have to deal with their infuriating habit to put an “s” where there should be a “z.”
;-)
you were over there designing the Yugo right?
Nope, pure vacation. A week on the Dalmatian Coast (like California without people), a week driving through Montenegro and Greece (Meteora, Delphi), a week sailing around the Greek islands, and a week in Paris. We’re thinking of doing it again, much more slowly, but the Dubrovnik to Greece segment is a lot more problematic than it was when the communists were in charge. Maybe down the western shore to Brindisi, then the ferry to Greece.
I must say that just talking with a European I would like them much better.
This theory didn’t work with Quebecois for me. I just wanted to wring their little pencil necks.
My opinion doesn’t matter. I just think it is striking that their has been no national discussion about it. It is blown off with “they hate our freedoms”. No one seems willing to examine if there is anything we can do for ourselves to mitigate the damage while we are fighting this WOT. An energy policy would be nice, for example.
Some reasons for 9/11. US support of the Saudi royal family. US bases in the muslim holy land.
Things like this were talked about quite regularly after 9/11. It was not all “They hate our freedoms.” That line also comes about due to the wish to submit the world to Sharia Law, which has significantly fewer freedoms for peopl.
So much for no one willing to discuss the reasons huh?
We would disagree on spelling though. As far as I’m concerned: our language, our rules.
Borrowed from all over the place and mostly Germanic anyway.
Besides, when we did away with the king. We did away with the king’s English as well. Our way of speaking is just as valid as the worst of your cockneyed accents.
Fun historical quirk: When the country was formed, there was a debate over whether our official government language would be English, German (the language of a huge portion of the country’s immigrants, especially in Pennsylvania country), Greek (the language of knowledge) or Hebrew (the language of God).
Naturally, English won the debate.
US support of the Saudi royal family. US bases in the muslim holy land.
These are all frankly the same argument: “America is in the way of the expansion of Islam”.
Ask an Islamist. Read any of their speeches. That is why they hate us, because as long as we exist, and as long as our troops are out there (sorry, but “the middle east” is all collectively Muslim Holy Land, as are all countries that have ever been under Islamic rule), they cannot impose their will.
That’s not my speculation, that’s their own words, including Abu Bakir Bashir, Osama bin Laden, Zarqawi, and that whacky British guy with the hook hand.
On a more substantive note, it occurs to me that an important word was missing from your post: oil. I’m not one of those who believe that oil drives our foreign policy exclusively, but it certainly is an important determinate in how we see and deal with the rest of the world and how they see us. Given the reason for most of your time overseas, you should take that into account. We’ve done some pretty unpopular things in the world in the name of our gasoline supply.
Yes, we do have our oil concerns in mind. However, if we were ONLY concerned about oil why on Earth wouldn’t be advocating for total appeasement of the Middle East and total free trade? We certainly wouldn’t be advocating boycots of certain Middle East countries would we?
However, if we were ONLY concerned about oil why on Earth wouldn’t be advocating for total appeasement of the Middle East and total free trade? We certainly wouldn’t be advocating boycots of certain Middle East countries would we?
As a matter of fact, threatening to refuse to sell oil was how Arab nations bought European cooperation (including arms sales) for their wars against Israel.
Leftists are always quite prepared to attach the oil argument to American actions, but always seem to reserve similar condemnation for Arab, French and Chinese actions.
However, if we were ONLY concerned about oil why on Earth wouldn’t be advocating for total appeasement of the Middle East and total free trade?
Because Saudi Arabia exists. And because our attitude and actions related to oil are irrational to the point of insanity (and have been for decades).
When was the last time you saw anything broadcast on one of the major TV networks that originated in another country? I can’t think of one.
Depends on if you count PBS as a major network. Sure it’s not CBS/NBC/ABC but it is available around most of the country. PBS used to play a lot of British shows at least. Thought that’s not all that much.
One of the best shows I’ve liked on TV in the last few years is British… MI-5 (Spooks in the UK).
Yes, we do have our oil concerns in mind. However, if we were ONLY concerned about oil why on Earth wouldn’t be advocating for total appeasement of the Middle East and total free trade? We certainly wouldn’t be advocating boycots of certain Middle East countries would we?
Not to mention the Persian gulf region only accounts for about 23%/24% of our foreign oil supply. Canada and Mexico alone provide more oil.
When was the last time you saw anything broadcast on one of the major TV networks that originated in another country? I can’t think of one.
Why would we? Our marketplace largely satisfies our demand for entertainment (though BBC America has been a reasonably popular cable channel in it’s own right), and foreign and independent film channels and theaters are out there for anybody who wants them. Most people simply don’t.
Hell, even Canada has to pass laws to *force* Canadians to be exposed to native Canadian entertainment, because without government intervention, they’d just as soon watch Malcolm in the Middle and the local market would shrivel up and die. The most hilarious scene is Liberal defenders of this tactic, who seem to really believe that the Canadian productions are original and “uniquely Canadian"… When, in fact, most of them are knockoffs of American formulas (just as some American productions are based on successful foreign models). Frankly, the subsidy probably just encourages bad product.
Hell, even Canada has to pass laws to *force* Canadians to be exposed to native Canadian entertainment, because without government intervention, they’d just as soon watch Malcolm in the Middle and the local market would shrivel up and die.
What is the canadian content requirements for the radio stations anyways? Its a decent percentage of what they must air isn’t it?
For most mediums, I believe they have a 35% Canadian content requirement. They pissed a bunch of people off when they only mandated 10% for satellite radio, which is ironic, since the point of satellites is that they’re global. Basically, the CRTC is driven by a bunch of cultural fascists who think it’s the Ottawa’s job to tell Canadians what their culture is.
Virtually every left-leaning Canadian I know owns an illegal pirate satellite dish to receive American programming, admits all their neighbors do, too, and yet they see nothing wrong with these laws and still defend the content requirements. Mainly, as near as I can figure, because they’ve been told to defend it because “it’s Canadian”.
Americans also seem to have no idea who the Brits in their tv shows even are, that people believe Hugh Laurie from “House” is American still astounds me.
Man, the guys making the show didn’t even know he was a Brit. Read the trivia on the imdb. Just goes to show how good an actor is I guess.
Virtually all of the Middle East lives in abject poverty by our standards. They have dictatorship/theocracy controlled media telling them constantly the west is responsible for stealing the wealth of their nations. Their governments tell them that we are stealing their wealth. Those same governments keep their people ignorant of the fact that wealth is created by the people. They still live in the dark age concept that wealth is a static concept. That you can only be richer by taking from another. When the only people really taking from the people of the Middle East are their rulers. These leaders are stealing every penny that the west gives them through trade or aid.
Dakrat,
Do you think illiteracy of the masses make them more susceptible to such ideas? Do you think a lack of critical thought by our own folks add to the mix? So much of this stuff tells me we need to check our emotionalism and our partianship at the door. We are all in the same boat and we need to communicate, not find a way to marginalize each other. (I just saw the 1958 movie “A Night to Remember” about the sinking of the Titanic, hence the “we are all in the same boat” metaphor.)
I’ve said this so much, I’m a broken record, I don’t want to argue, I want to find common ground. I want us to solve problems, all while knowing who we are and what we are fighting for.
I want to be a patriot, not a democrat or a republican.
because the way Bush does things has made the whole world hate us.
Who cares. What’s the deal with Europe and America? You left out the middle east. They hate us more. What can we do to please them, Lee. Why does European knob need to be polished by America’s Diplomatic Palm?
The fact that a lot of people like Jackass movies, shows a lot about how we are viewed in Europe. Yet you love it. You have no one to blame for the American stereotype but yourself.
And do you think the WoT is the reason Europes collective panty is in a bunch? Fact they hate capitalism. Fact they love socialism. Fact they hate successful individuals. My German news source, straight from the German state funded news outlets. Where is all this talk by you in the past about Europeans hating the USA because of success/wealth/power=Jealousy? This is just naother reason they hate the USA.
Now we would experience what they have. Of course, when you consider what they have lost over the years due to war and terrorism, 3,000 people is a relatively low number.
They experience the same? Live TV of hundreds of YOUR countrymen jumping to their deaths, with billions watching LIVE? This was 3000 in a matter of 2 hours. 2 Hours. Not decades combined caused by domestic terrorism. War in Europe? Yeah, Wars THEY started amongst themselves, that drew other continents into the fray. And we need to listen to them, why?
From their point of view, we had just gotten a taste of the European experience.
Really? You can see into their minds? Well then, their point of view is flawed.
From their standpoint, we’re making it more likely that WWIII will be unleashed.
Good. Let it happen. Needs to be done. DO WHAT IS RIGHT. Stop this waiting around shit. Do you agree how we are dealing with Iran? Do we have to wait until a city is gone to care?
And guess which part of the world will feel the brunt of that battle: Europe.
Because Europe doesn’t see Islam as a real threat (similar to Americans 1935 and onwards about Japan and Germany). And they don’t see it as a/the problem. I guess I might as well blame Pearl Harbor on Europe then. Stupid European logic forces me to.
How do we win this War?
What has to be done?
That’s what needs to be discussed. But never is discussed here. We’re getting no where.
because the way Bush does things has made the whole world hate us.
Remember how everyone was astonished at the global unity supporting the United States after 9/11? How touching it all was?
Yeah, that’s because their default mode was to hate us *before* 9/11, too.
From their standpoint, we’re making it more likely that WWIII will be unleashed.
Clearly, appeasement made World War II *less* likely, then.
That’s about the level of absolute ignorance I expected from you, Kurtz. You responded just like Drumwaster, with a comment totally devoid of a single factual refutation of a single point I made. All you’ve got is your typical arch-conservative bullshit, declaring anyone who differs with you to be weak or feminine.
Can you actually refute anything I wrote, or are you going to remain a fucking fool?
How do we win this War?
What has to be done?
That’s what needs to be discussed. But never is discussed here. We’re getting no where.
Never discussed? You’re out of your fucking mind, Kurtz. What we need to win this war is pretty much the entire focus of this blog. Here’s what I think we need at a minimum.
1) Fire Rumsfeld.
2) Double the number of troops in Iraq.
3) Close the border.
4) Secure the ports.
Once we do all those things, then you can come and talk to me about empowering the government to torture Arabs so that you can feel like a real man.
Do you think illiteracy of the masses make them more susceptible to such ideas?
Is surely contributes.
My point was that lunatics tend to get themselves worked up for all kinds of reasons that are purely irrational. These misinformed, idiotic reasons are right there for everyone to see. There is no more need to send Jane Goodall to study the root behaviors of terrorists who want to blow us up, than there is to send Jane Goodall to The Order to find out why Tim McVeigh thought The Turner Diaries were so amusing. The point is that hateful pricks can be found all over.
There are plenty of Islamic people out there with whom we have common ground. There are also some really irrational Islamic pricks out there who don’t see any common ground.
So much of this stuff tells me we need to check our emotionalism
I don’t think emotionalism enters into the equation. At least not what I was trying to talk about. My point is that assholes are everywhere. Illiterate, backward people can be turned into assholes much easier than enlightened westerners, however. I could ask you to drop your emotionalism and go knock on your local neo-nazi’s door to enquire about the root causes of their irrational beliefs. Do you think you’d get a rational response? More importantly do you think he’d be interested in finding “common ground?”
Remember how everyone was astonished at the global unity supporting the United States after 9/11? How touching it all was?
Yeah, that’s because their default mode was to hate us *before* 9/11, too.
They didn’t “hate” us before 9/11, Aaron. Spend a lot of time overseas, did you? Spent any significant time living and working among Europeans, to get a feeling for their vibe? Or are you talking out of your ass?
These kinds of ridiculous statements are EXACTLY what this post was about.
There was no “hatred” of America before 9/11, other than the usual low-level bullshit that always exists. Europe hates America like America hates Europe—we have policy disagreements, sometimes fierce ones, but there is always a general level of respect. What we have seen since 9/11, and what is directly related to George W. Bush, is a hatred of America. Not American policies, not Americans as people, not the American political system, but America itself.
Now, I’ll issue you the same challenge I issued to Drumwaster and Kurtz. Do you have a SHRED of proof to back up the assertion that America was hated in Europe prior to 9/11?
This has turned out to be true. There were the bombings in London and Spain, the bombs planted on the trains in Germany, the recent London airline plot, and so on. Every one of these happened in Europe. Number of American domestic terrorist attacks: zero. So, in a very real way, we’re fighting the war and they’re paying the price. It was a war they wanted no part of to begin with, but have been sucked in anyway. George W. Bush’s America has made modern Europe less secure.
Lee, this point of view begs the question ; Would these attacks have happened even if we( the U.S.) had not invaded Iraq, and Afghanistan. I am certainly not convinced. Islamists tend to attack infidels regardless.
Lee, this point of view begs the question ; Would these attacks have happened even if we( the U.S.) had not invaded Iraq, and Afghanistan. I am certainly not convinced. Islamists tend to attack infidels regardless.
Oh, you’re absolutely right. Whether or not they would have happened anyway is a matter for debate. I think they probably would have. The important point is that, in the context of how Europeans feel towards America, they feel that we are responsible, so for all intents and purposes we are. Look at it from their point of view.
1) They tell Bush not to go into Iraq. He goes anyway.
2) Many of their government supported Bush, despite the fact that the people claimed that it would lead to more terrorist attacks.
3) The Iraq War is a disaster.
4) Europe falls victim to more terrorist attacks, and the terrorists explicitly claim that the reason was because of America.
If the shoe was on the other foot, don’t you think that the American people would be pointing the blame at European policies? Of course we would.
I could ask you to drop your emotionalism and go knock on your local neo-nazi’s door to enquire about the root causes of their irrational beliefs. Do you think you’d get a rational response? More importantly do you think he’d be interested in finding “common ground?”
This is exactly the mindset we’re dealing with in regards to the extremists. I wish more people would realize it.
Boy, I don’t know about that. I can think of just as many reasons and examples that show it to be the other way around. In the absence of any actual data, I’d assume the percentage of assholes to be pretty much constant in any particular population or cross-section of human beings.Illiterate, backward people can be turned into assholes much easier than enlightened westerners, however.
Maybe a little higher in Los Angeles.
Lee, explain the October 12, 2002 Bali bombing. 202 people killed, mostly Australians. Not even in Iraq yet.
If the shoe was on the other foot, don’t you think that the American people would be pointing the blame at European policies? Of course we would.
So, Europe was to blame for Pearl Harbor and American/Canadian lives lost in lend lease supply ships. Now, did we REALLY blame them? What about Europes stance on Israel 1970-1990? Can we blame Europe for kidnappings?
Never discussed? You’re out of your fucking mind, Kurtz. What we need to win this war is pretty much the entire focus of this blog. Here’s what I think we need at a minimum.
1) Fire Rumsfeld.
2) Double the number of troops in Iraq.
3) Close the border.
4) Secure the ports.
This isn’t just about Iraq, General Lee.
Not American policies, not Americans as people, not the American political system, but America itself.
And what is this “America itself” that you speak? America the land mass. Seriously. You lost me. Not the politics, not the people, not the policies… what else is there? The American Spirit?
They didn’t “hate” us before 9/11, Aaron. Spend a lot of time overseas, did you? Spent any significant time living and working among Europeans, to get a feeling for their vibe? Or are you talking out of your ass?
As a matter of fact, I hung out with a lot of Europeans before and after 9/11, mainly because I spent the years on either side in international freight. Most of them were dirtbags then, and they’re just *frothing* dirtbags, now. As a broad generalization, just as before, I still find Brits, Irish, Italians, and Swiss to be decent guys in general, and French, Russians, Germans, and Belgians to be obnoxious twits. Not all of them, but as a mean or median, absolutely.
Are leftists more unhinged than they were before George W. Bush? Yes. Are there armadas of new idiots being formed because of George W. Bush? No. That’s true both at home and abroad, although there were certainly far more socialist twits in the Europe of 2000 than there were in 1950.
There was no “hatred” of America before 9/11, other than the usual low-level bullshit that always exists. Europe hates America like America hates Europe—we have policy disagreements, sometimes fierce ones, but there is always a general level of respect. What we have seen since 9/11, and what is directly related to George W. Bush, is a hatred of America.
Whenever people insult France, there’s always some bozo who whines that somebody is just “on the bandwagon” of hating France because of Iraq and because it’s cool now. Yet we’ve always made fun of the French, Americans have loathed them for their cowardice and effeminate behavior since World War II, at least, enough so that the Army had to develop a special publication trying to explain to our GIs why the French weren’t so bad. I thought they were pricks before 9/11, too, but I only *cared* about my belief that they were pricks after the Iraq bit.
The same principle applies here: What you described as “low-level bullshit” has historically been pretty damn serious when European leftists want it to be.
Do you have a SHRED of proof to back up the assertion that America was hated in Europe prior to 9/11?
It’s not just Europe, it’s worldwide. The same people who hates us in 2000 hated us in 2004. Nobody who loved us in 2000, suddenly woke up and thought “Wow, they invaded Iraq. I’m so mad I could nuke Manhattan!”, and I’d counter your challenge with a challenge to prove that previously rational people went insane with anti-American bloodlust because of George W. Bush.
Europe has had a strong element that’s been obsessed with our destruction or failure since the Revolution itself. After France invaded Mexico to build a supply line to the Confederacy to help us destroy ourselves, there was a Congressional debate on that very issue, and on why we should never trust Europe, as a rule of thumb. The next century proved them right.
Here’s a reference to a 1901 article in the Atlantic Monthly:
Cultured Europeans intensely resent the bearing of Americans; they hate the American form of swagger, which is not personal like the British, but national....[a country] crudely and completely immersed in materialism....” There lay an entire continent over which the United States had hung a great “hands-off” sign, the Monroe Doctrine, “the most domineering mandate issued to the world since the days of Imperial Rome.” Germany and Russia were said to be particularly aroused, each for its own geo-political reasons, but in Continental Europe as a whole feeling was running high..."In newspapers, in clubs, in society, even in the street, the dislike of America, the desire, if it were only safe, to give her some savage snub, is unmistakeable.”
Gee, 100 years of being accused of being ravaging imperialists like the Romans. In fairness to idiots everywhere, if some other country were on top, I’m sure that our idiots would rage at the unfairness of *that*, instead.
The violent rage at our presence in Germany after the Cold War, the insane anti-nuclear protests, treating America’s economy as the source of global environmental problems, the absurd fear of American GM food… It’s the same shit, different day. There is no fundamental paradigm shift, just that the vile communist assholes are in now firmly in charge of much of European discourse, instead of being a mere presence in it.
Even back in the 60’s, the French-Canadian FLQ was virulently anti-American enough that one cell was plotting to cross the border to blow up the Statue of Liberty when the Mounties busted their skulls.
Quite simply, they did not magically appear because of the Iraq War or George W. Bush. Did not happen. These people already believed what they believed long before Iraq, and protested long before the war ever began. Many of them were opposed to Afghanistan, too.
To argue that they once “only” hated our leader, chosen by us, and now they hate us personally, is like arguing that people who viciously hate Israel don’t actually also hate Jews. It’s not true, and, surely, you know it.
The important point is that, in the context of how Europeans feel towards America, they feel that we are responsible, so for all intents and purposes we are.
I feel that many Europeans are idiots, primarily because they hold ignorant, naive, denialist views like this.
So, for all intents and purposes, they are.
1) They tell Bush not to go into Iraq. He goes anyway.
Which is rather my point: You saw the same protests that I did, and they all took places months before any fighting began. These are people, *millions of people* who were *seeking* a justification to go into the streets and proclaim their hatred of America, to burn our flags, to hang our leader in effigy, just as they’ve done for decades.
You appear to be contending that these people became that way overnight in response to Bush’s tactless approach to Iraq. I contend that that is absolutely absurd.
how on Earth did she survive being a Vegetarian in Japan for a year, that really can’t have been easy - unless she eat’s fish that is). They put fish/meat in everything there, I wonder if they even have a word for vegetarian
The actual word is saishokushujisha, but most people get by with the English katakana derivative: bejitarian (with the ta not pronounced like ‘tear’).
Great post Lee (ah, the poisoned chalice of stogy support!). Nicely argued. Given that Nato troops are now fighting in Afghanistan, I think ensuring European support is very important.
...and bear in mind that the generation that’s now in power in both Europe and Quebec are, quite literally, the same generation that drove the Paris student riots, the Canadian October Crisis, and the terrorist attacks against American interests across Europe in the 60’s and 70’s. In fact, some of them are indeed the same people who were probably throwing molotov cocktails, that’s certainly been true of Quebec. These are largely the same people who demanded Communist “social justice"/"class warfare” type reforms that have now failed and bitterly oppose reforming those failed reforms, and who the sane elements in government cannot override because stupidity is frequently the democratic majority in any given European political demographic. (That Muslims will be that majority in 100 years is beside the point.)
Quite honestly, I think your logic is reasonable given certain premises, but comparable to people who think Islamists hate us because we’re not playing fair economically or aren’t committed to social justice: You’re trying to take something that is fundamentally stupid and irrational (Europe’s absurd hatred of America), and place it in a framework that makes sense to you. All healthy brains do this to organize the world, but it’s still just not the correct answer.
These people were lurking in the bushes before George W. Bush was ever elected.
Free trade agreements not honoured by America. The steel issue with the UK was annoying. Canadians are pissed about lumber etc. America seems quite happy to ignore trade committments when they so decide
You mean like the Air Bus? Listen, I won’t even go down this path, because I think tariffs and subsidies are stupid to begin with, but each side has its faults. I’m just surprised that you only see it when America sets up a tariff or subsidy in violation of an agreement. If this is a big issue in Europe, they might want to look at a little history of tariffs and trade wars. It’s not new at all.
Land mines treaty opposition
Needs to be signed.
Death penalty for children (this has finally changed though now right?) along with only two other countries I believe
Don’t know, but some 16 and 17 year olds can pull of some pretty horrific crimes. If they’re by law old enough to have sex with older people in many other countries, because they’re old enough to know what they’re doing, then they sure as hell should be old enough to suffer consequences of their actions in a violent crime. By the time they’d get executed here they’d be 60 anyhow. They’ll still get a trial, a lawyer and everything, and be able to plead their case, which is a lot more than they offered the person they killed.
Kyoto
European countries signed it; they don’t seem to be following it. Is that our fault too? Should we get all upset at you for it? What leadership is that, blah, blah, blah?
International Court
Since we’re already seen as wrong at every step, and far worse actions by other countries aren’t even dealt with seriously, we feel we’re not going to get a fair shake. We seem to be a target of everyone’s anger and animosity. Is it partly because of Bush. Yes? A lot of it though is because we are the big kid on the block, and a superpower, and that’s not an acceptable reason to focus all the attention on us. The international community seems to pick and choose its targets. Is France taking any heat for things that have gone on in Africa recently? Are their going to be any trials coming up?
Undermining the UN
The UN has done that to itself. It can’t follow through with anything. Remember Iraq, and the resolutions for 12 years? Israel is always a target regardless of how many attacks they fall victim to. Cuba and Libya get put on the human rights committee. Where is the credibility in that? Personally, I just think we should leave the UN, and the UN should leave us. Even Chavez can be right once in a while.
If the agreements above are in inviolable, then maybe make sure you’re following them completely first before spending time blaming us. After all, we have no credibility due to our terrible human rights record right?
This is my point by the way. In the big scope of things, we’re not perfect, but we’re not assholes either. The same goes for your side. The difference is the US populace doesn’t get in an uproar over you guys in the same way you do over us. Only after quite a few months of US bashing starting shortly after 9/11, did we start say what the fuck is wrong with you people? Some anger at us may be warranted, but how we’ve been blasted day in and day out since shortly after 9/11 is ridiculous.
Are leftists more unhinged than they were before George W. Bush? Yes. Are there armadas of new idiots being formed because of George W. Bush? No. That’s true both at home and abroad, although there were certainly far more socialist twits in the Europe of 2000 than there were in 1950.
Yeah, but there’s always a marked difference between the moonbats and the regular lefties. This is true in our country as well. There was plenty of animosity between the US and Europe, but there wasn’t the palpable tension that exists today.
The same principle applies here: What you described as “low-level bullshit” has historically been pretty damn serious when European leftists want it to be.
Right, leftists. The hard core leftists have always been active, just like here in America. The shift in support we’re losing is coming from the non-moonbat segment of the population. Consider the Global Attitudes Survey from Pew.
America’s global image has again slipped and support for the war on terrorism has declined even among close U.S. allies like Japan. The war in Iraq is a continuing drag on opinions of the United States, not only in predominantly Muslim countries but in Europe and Asia as well. And despite growing concern over Iran’s nuclear ambitions, the U.S. presence in Iraq is cited at least as often as Iran - and in many countries much more often - as a danger to world peace.
A year ago, anti-Americanism had shown some signs of abating, in part because of the positive feelings generated by U.S. aid for tsunami victims in Indonesia and elsewhere. But favorable opinions of the United States have fallen in most of the 15 countries surveyed. Only about a quarter of the Spanish public (23%) expresses positive views of the U.S., down from 41% last year; America’s image also has declined significantly in India (from 71% to 56%) and Indonesia (from 38% to 30%).
See the link for the specifics, but suffice it to say that there are a few numbers, first for 1999 and the second for 2006.
Britain: 83% to 56%
France: 62% to 39%
Germ: 78% to 37%
Spain: 50% to 23%
Those are some pretty significant numbers in countries which are members of NATO and, traditionally, some of our closes allies. So where is the change? It’s in the attitude. Even during the Cold War, when the CND was whipping up the nuclear tension, most people understood that US missiles were there to deter a great evil, and protests notwithstanding they understood the benefit of ending the Cold War. So we worked together and the bonds were there, even if the usual low level rank anti-Americanism was as well.
No matter where you go in the world you’ll find people who don’t like you for being American. Usually these are the same old leftist morons who hate everything we do. The attitudes we see more now aren’t whether or not they approve of American policy. These numbers are shifting on questions like “Is America a force for world peace?” and the trend is down.
Just like here, they have three primary groups. The left who hate us, the soft creamy middle, and then the right who are as gung-ho about the Yanks as we are. The numbers we are losing are coming from the middle and the right, because the left would never have voted in the first place. So, this is a significant away from low-leved resentment into an active sociological shift away from the idea that America is a force for peace and into believing that our militarism will spawn more terrorist attacks against them. We’re losing “the middle” of Europe.
It’s not just Europe, it’s worldwide. The same people who hates us in 2000 hated us in 2004. Nobody who loved us in 2000, suddenly woke up and thought “Wow, they invaded Iraq. I’m so mad I could nuke Manhattan!”, and I’d counter your challenge with a challenge to prove that previously rational people went insane with anti-American bloodlust because of George W. Bush.
I never said they went sane with anti-American bloodlust.
Quite simply, they did not magically appear because of the Iraq War or George W. Bush. Did not happen. These people already believed what they believed long before Iraq, and protested long before the war ever began. Many of them were opposed to Afghanistan, too.
To argue that they once “only” hated our leader, chosen by us, and now they hate us personally, is like arguing that people who viciously hate Israel don’t actually also hate Jews. It’s not true, and, surely, you know it.
All you’ve done is show that they hates our specific policies. In my post I explicitly stipulated this point, because I didn’t want to give off the impression that Iraq was a wonderland full of rivers of chocolate. The moonbats and loudmouths view us as driven to dominate the world for US Industry. They’re dismissed, just like ours are here, by the normal middle, who understand that despite our problems together, the transatlantic alliance is of vital importance. It was the moonbats leading the charge before the election even, but it was a short 9 months later that 9/11 took place. You can see the lack of support of America the nation. They don’t see us as a force for good any more. And, despite all you “Reeeeaal Amerrrican badasses” trying to turn this into s “Lee is soft on terror” thing, the unquestionable fact is that, right now, they fucking hate us.
Quite simply, they did not magically appear because of the Iraq War or George W. Bush. Did not happen. These people already believed what they believed long before Iraq, and protested long before the war ever began. Many of them were opposed to Afghanistan, too.
To argue that they once “only” hated our leader, chosen by us, and now they hate us personally, is like arguing that people who viciously hate Israel don’t actually also hate Jews. It’s not true, and, surely, you know it.
Ah, but there’s one point you are missing. There was opposition to Afghanistan, sure, but it was not widespread in the mind of the average person, who understood what we needed to do. The data I posted show that our national image is going down.
And Bush is causing it.
Great Post Lee. Very Insightful.
The thing I remember most about Pres. Bush’s response after 9/11 was the whole “state sponsors of terroism” bit, and how it Imediatly occured to me how ironic it was being how much financial support the IRA got here...not state sponsored mind you, but support just as well.
I traveled several countries in Europe earlier this year with a Swiss co-worker. We had many discussion whilst driving about. He asked why we went to Iraq, and did I support that decision. Then he asked why we didn’t go to africa, and did I support that.
My response was “Why does it always come down to the US? I mean we are damned when we do, and damned when we don’t. It is impossible for us to do the right thing, and I do not think that is entirely our fault.” He agreed
Later he discussed how they are setting up their own GPS network...mostly because they didn’t like that the US could shut them off if we thought it suited us. My reponse was “GOOD, we did PAY for it after all..If you don’t like it then you should build your own”.
I have been to Japan, Germany, Italy, Austria, Switzerland,France and Mexico. It is very enlightening.
BTW...everyone in Europe hates the French too....because they make it so easy.
Most people in Europe take refuge in the fact that most of us originally came from over there, so there is much more of a bond amongst us all.
So, what this shows is that there was the usual low-level resentment and hatred that we get from the youth of Europe in 2008, but we still had an 83 in the UK and a 78 in Germany. Those are pretty good scores from two countries who at the time were allegedly filled with a burning hate for the US. Now we’re a 56 in the UK and a 38 in Germany. Remember after 9/11, when GW said to Blair, “America has no friend closer than the United Kingdom.” We’re still over 50% but not by much.
In other words, the drop in popularity is clearly due to Bush and the War. If we use “hate” for someone like the Islamists, who clearly hate us, and then say that Europe hated us, would that be accurate? Of course not. To make it accurate let’s say that going by the Islamic hate scale, Europe would be mildly irritated.
I don’t get it. You are freely admitting that the Europeans are observing America with a distorted view. Why do we have to alter our actions in order to present a better image of ourselves just because they have their facts wrong?
Why can’t they just be right as opposed to wrong? Why must the entire world pay for their wrongness?
In other words, the drop in popularity is clearly due to Bush and the War.
Don’t underestimate the damage that GWB has done to American standing abroad. Anecdotal evidence I know, but my girlfriend hates him and I think that she is probably the most a-political person that I have ever met. I think that she knows he is a Republican, but I’m not sure what she knows above that.
So her dislike is not at all based on policy, purely on personality
In other words, the drop in popularity is clearly due to Bush and the War. If we use “hate” for someone like the Islamists, who clearly hate us, and then say that Europe hated us, would that be accurate? Of course not. To make it accurate let’s say that going by the Islamic hate scale, Europe would be mildly irritated.
It really istn’t as simple as the war. The things I mentioned above and the arrogance of Bush. The lack of his willingness to admit a mistake, to change course, to actually have a plan to win in Iraq beyond “stay the course” as if this is a strategy. Combine that with his general rudeness about Europe, his stupid blusterings that don’t help diplomacy work ("Axis of Evil etc”, his lack of any progress on the Palestinian issue and apparernt dismissal of its importance as something to resolve. The human rights record slowly reducing Western moral authority etc.
It’s not just the Iraq war, even in the incompetant way it has been fought. There are lots of other aspects to it as well. The problem is I don’t think the average European could find a single positive point about Bush any more. It’s strange, after 911 the belef generally went like:
“Well, he’s obvious a bit of an idiot, but istn’t it better to have someone strong willed like Bush - backed by intelligent people - to lead the US than pacifist Gore”. That was back in the day when Rumsfield was considered great as well.
How wrong we where.
Other than making our poor people poorer and damaging American (and, by extension, global) economic growth, not much.
Consider cigarette taxes: They don’t actually tend to stop people from smoking, they just create a massive financial drain on heavy smokers, who are often low-income types and have decided that they are *going* to smoke.
The idea is not so much to stop people driving cars, the demand for gas is obviously inelastic in the short and medium term, it istn’t in the long term however. The aim of the tax is really threefold:
a) To encourage car makers to make more fuel efficient cars because consumers will demand them. There is a cost tradeoff in fuel efficiency, and this tax will mean people are prepared to pay a little more up front for fuel efficiency
b) To encourage further r&d;into alternative fuels
c) The gas tax can then also be used as a temporary subsidy for fuel effeicieny firms to further encourage research, or used as prizes like the X prize or all sorts of other uses to encourage alternative fuels - and thus end the bargining power that the Middle East has on the rest of the world.
I don’t get it. You are freely admitting that the Europeans are observing America with a distorted view. Why do we have to alter our actions in order to present a better image of ourselves just because they have their facts wrong?
This basically sums up my response to your post, Lee, which brings up good points, but which I still feel only supports the premise of Europe coming collectively and more publicly unhinged. It’s not so much that Europe has changed, as it is that we’re now coming to clash with what it’s always been.
...and yet so many of the left’s arguments against Bush (shared by Europeans) are completely without basis in fact.The problem is I don’t think the average European could find a single positive point about Bush any more.
The aim of the tax is really threefold:
Well, consumers began demanding more efficient cars when gas prices went up anyway, and, more importantly, we’ve found that the market will pretty well bear $3 a gallon without blinking all that hard, and it took approaching that point to cause that demand to arise widely. Since, until the early 90’s, gas was about $1 a gallon, there’s some indication there that a $1 gas tax wouldn’t have made anybody care the way you think it might’ve. More importantly, the US already implemented efficiency standards, without that tax.
As for r&d;in alternative fuels and temporary subsidy for research, that’s all well and good, but I’d say that the market is already pretty heavily incentivized in that regard. To put it another way, why hasn’t the European Union simply done this themselves and built a free energy machine?
...and just to clarify that point, if anybody *had* tried to double or triple the price of gasoline, what would’ve happened?Since, until the early 90’s, gas was about $1 a gallon, there’s some indication there that a $1 gas tax wouldn’t have made anybody care the way you think it might’ve.
They’d have been voted out in favor of people who promised to repeal it. Democrats would’ve jumped all over it (rightly), as a tax that targeted the working and middle class.
Well, consumers began demanding more efficient cars when gas prices went up anyway, and, more importantly, we’ve found that the market will pretty well bear $3 a gallon without blinking all that hard, and it took approaching that point to cause that demand to arise widely. Since, until the early 90’s, gas was about $1 a gallon, there’s some indication there that a $1 gas tax wouldn’t have made anybody care the way you think it might’ve. More importantly, the US already implemented efficiency standards, without that tax.
Make up your mind, either a gas tax “hurts” consumers or it dosen’t. You can’t have it both ways.
But in some sense you are right, back when gas was only $1 a gallon you would have needed more than a $1 rise. But we are talking from current prices where a $1 rise would probably be sufficient.
As for r&d;in alternative fuels and temporary subsidy for research, that’s all well and good, but I’d say that the market is already pretty heavily incentivized in that regard. To put it another way, why hasn’t the European Union simply done this themselves and built a free energy machine?
A free energy machine? Not sure what you mean. I guess the French might reply that they are doing something like that with their use of nuclear energy. The British have not been to bothered about researching into alternative fuels because we have (or had) lots of oil, and BP. Shell being Dutch has controlled that aspect of the market etc.
Still, as you say, it’s disappointing that the EU has not done enough in this front, but I think - especially with automobiles - a global approach is needed. Cars are no sold in so many different places that it may take a global move towards an alternative fuel to make car makers want to invest the money. The prize of being able to sell lots of cars to Americans who want higher fuel efficiency would be high.
Of course this is not to say Europe has done nothing, our cars are far more fuel efficient than yours as well as being smaller. This is one of the many reasons that Ford and GM are in such dire straits right now.
...and just to clarify that point, if anybody *had* tried to double or triple the price of gasoline, what would’ve happened?
They’d have been voted out in favor of people who promised to repeal it. Democrats would’ve jumped all over it (rightly), as a tax that targeted the working and middle class.
I completly agree, however after 911 there was a perfect opportunity to link cheap gas prices with national security. We need to stop relying on countries such as Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuala. America could ignore the Middle East like you ignore Africa where it not for oil. It’s a clear national security problem. Addressing that will have a cost, sure, but that cost will certainly be less than the hundreds of billions spent on military adventures in the region.
They’d have been voted out in favor of people who promised to repeal it. Democrats would’ve jumped all over it (rightly), as a tax that targeted the working and middle class.
Again, you have a lot of money generated from the tax that can get spent. Public transport would be a good start and this often favors the poor. It wouldn’t be hard to come up with a list of measures to make sure that all economic groups are not affected by the tax, the point of the tax is to change preferences from one usage to another - not to make people richer or poorer.
This is not some wacky idea I have just come up with, you can read about some of the other supporters include Greg Mankiw, who as well as writing the economics text book I read in my first year at university, was economics adviser to President Bush.
This is why I read liberal blogs, never watch Fox News, and subscribe to 3 different magazines: National Review, The New Republic, and Reason. If you can’t defend your views, then you really have no right to them in the first place. Again, Lee, you get it right. This is precisely why it ought to be difficult to identify with only one party- none have a lockhold on the truth.
Maybe there are more atheists in the UK than the US, Richard Dawkins new book “The God Delusion” is at #1 on amazon.co.uk but only #5 on amazon.com
It was sometime after three a.m. last time I posted so I think I’ll clarify my position a bit more.
If Europe is wrong, let them be wrong. It’s suicidal to alter our actions to satisfy their twisted sense of rightness. If they insist on being wrong, why should we be bending over backwards to get on their good side, Lee?
Why do we need to wrangle the rest of the world into our camp anyway? Let them think what they want.
If Europe is wrong, let them be wrong. It’s suicidal to alter our actions to satisfy their twisted sense of rightness. If they insist on being wrong, why should we be bending over backwards to get on their good side, Lee?
But are they wrong? And which is more suicidal, being nice to Europe or empowering the United States government to torture people and weakening the Geneva Conventions?
It’s no argument. What we are doing is vastly more destructive than not doing it. Weakening these bedrock treaties is more destructive to America than refraining from torture.
Why do we need to wrangle the rest of the world into our camp anyway? Let them think what they want.
Because thats how wars are won. Through alliances and compromise - especially when the enemy isn’t a nation you can bring to it’s knees through military might. I’m not saying that you should kowtow to the whims of Europe, but the ‘fuck you’ attitude usually garners one right back.
Lee, you’re pretty much spot on. This indeed is pretty much the mood of the rest of the world when Iraq was brought into the picture:
Then Bush talked about Iraq. From the European standpoint, they said, “Huh? You were attacked by terrorists who trained in Afghanistan
The rhetoric about Blair getting involved was about him ‘riding the tiger’ - in essence, better to be on Bush’s side and calm him down than to opt out and let him make (what we saw as) a massive mistake for global security.
I wasn’t saying we were suicidal, I’m saying Europe is… The whole “Peace right now at all costs” mentality.
That was a cracking essay, Lee. It could have come from the pages of a top-rate magazine.
I really am amazed how this blog has changed since 2004… great work you’ve done here, I haven’t seen such an impressive take on these issues in a long LONG time.
This DEFINITELY could have been in a magazine.
Next entry: In the Mailbag
Previous entry: Jerkbutt
Who's Logged In
Total Members: 8230
Total Logged in members: 6
Total guests: 53
Total anonymous users: 0
chrisbg99,
Hal_10000,
Important Aspects Of,
Mississippi Yankee,
Orpheus,
Ronk,
Capitalism
Search
Search this site with Google
Search will take you to Google.com, which will display results from Right-Thinking and link you back here. Search using pMachineRecent Comments
How quickly they soured us on their ideology, huh?
(8 total, Last @ 08:58)
Mark_M: The average American is so fucking stupid I don’t give us much hope. I'll paraphrase a great line from Dennis Miller ..."The American people are so stupid...of course, I know better than them. But then again I DO have a bachelor's in communications from Tallahassee Junior College."
Tonight's speech by Obama on Iraq...
(30 total, Last @ 08:56)
Manwhore: It is striking to me that Alex is now the only real voice of conservative thinking on this blog. For the few who rebel against the idea are hit in the face with a Limbaugh smear. I think it was fucking hilarious that he handed all of you your asses;…
Quote Mining
(14 total, Last @ 08:04)
Dick Fitzwell: A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always count on the support of Paul--George Bernard Shaw Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.--Mark Twain A major source of objection to a…
How quickly they soured us on their ideology, huh?
(8 total, Last @ 07:34)
Seattle Outcast: Get that sand washed out yet muirgeo1?
The Discovery Gunman
(2 total, Last @ 07:33)
Seattle Outcast: Considering that this is exactly what I hear from your typical garden-variety libtard, I'm keeping my guard up around them in case they snap.
Last 30 Comments
I hear you, having spent quite a bit of time in Europe, but frankly I think German tourists can be even worse. And a lot of Europeans, especially in Mediterranean areas where Germans like to vacation, will agree.
OK, now I’m going to go read the rest of this.