Question to Gustaf and other European Posters

[MarkDel]

Gustaf,

You are right about France over the long haul, though I find it amazing that the Mitterand government was actually "softer" on America than the Chirac government.

Unfortunately, it's not just France. Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, etc....all have taken this path. And it will happen in Spain as well once Azonar is out of power, and perhaps in Italy when the Bertulosconi years have passed.

And it's not just the leaders, it's rank and file citizens. How else can you explain polls which indicate that Europeans are essentially equally divided on the question of who constitutes the bigger threat to them...the United States or Islamic Terrorism?

[Gustaf]

Gustaf,

You are right about France over the long haul, though I find it amazing that the Mitterand government was actually "softer" on America than the Chirac government.

Unfortunately, it's not just France. Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, etc....all have taken this path. And it will happen in Spain as well once Azonar is out of power, and perhaps in Italy when the Bertulosconi years have passed.

And it's not just the leaders, it's rank and file citizens. How else can you explain polls which indicate that Europeans are essentially equally divided on the question of who constitutes the bigger threat to them...the United States or Islamic Terrorism?

Well, these people are kind of stupid, but I think the reason is that Islamic terrorism doesn't constitute much of a threat against Europe since we haven't pissed them off to such an extent. I think the polls you are referring to are about threat to wprld peace, not Europe in itself.

I did meet some Belgians on a train last year, and I remember they actually talked about how the US was being very aggressive against them, etc. But it's essentially nonsense.

I started a discussion on the relations between the US and Europe in this forum. The response from the Republicans on the forum was that who cares about Europe, they're incompetent, cowardly idiots, which the mighty US does not need. This seem to be the prevailing feeling among Republicans, and a great part of the reason why not even sensible Europeans regard the US as a friendly ally anymore. I do though, even though I have been losing faith throughout the last few years.

Americans generally seem to take little interest in the outside-world, convinced of their own virtue. That is, I believe, a bit arrogant, though most of you would probably retort that you are.

[Michael Z]

Michael Z,

Thank you for two very intelligent and accurate posts. I totally agree with you, it is dangerous and unfair to lump all people from a nation or continent together. That was not my intention and I'm sorry if it came across that way. I was referring specifically to certain posters here who all seemed to have similar political ideology.

I especially appreciate your admission that there is widespread anti-americanism in parts of Europe, and I appreciate even more your comment at the end about America and Europe being great long term allies. I agree with you and I assure you that until very, very recently, virtually all Americans shared our view. Unfortunately, a growing number of continental Europeans, including many of the most prominent leaders like Chirac, Schroeder, Fischer, etc...seem to believe that the post-Cold War world must be seen in different terms because the world is no longer "bi-polar" in terms of US and Soviet Union. The view of leaders like Chirac, and many prominent European academicians, suggest that the new world will include a bi-polar tension between the United States and Europe based on economic self-interest in the global economy. Thus anything which makes America weaker helps Europe. This is an unfortunate view, but it essentially explains the behavior of France and other nations. And when European nations take this dim view of US/Euro relations, the Neo-Conservatives (of which I am one) are forced to react in a rational manner and accept this as an unavoidable shift in international relations. This is VERY, VERY unfortunate, because the world will always be FAR safer when the United States and Europe are strong allies. But unless there is a change in the foreign policy of many European nations, this is the path we seem to be heading down in the 21st Century, and we head down this path to the peril of the entire world.

It goes without saying that I agree with the general tone of your post, and I want to thank you for your reconciliatory response. I also worry about the future of the US/Euro relationship; like you mentioned, we're stronger together than divided. If anything, Kosovo and Afghanistan proved that there is room for a transatlantic alliance in the post-Cold War world.

That said, I fear (or at least suspect) that the likes of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld seem to quite actively undermine the relationship with some of the policies that are being pushed through. I personally am sceptical as to whether the neocons' reaction is really all that rational, and whether we would really be in this mess with a Gore administration. It also bears pointing out that the same European countries which defied America over Iraq (namely Germany and France) gave the United States their unconditional support in Afghanistan.

Gustaf does have a point. Many Republicans seem to regard Europe as cowardly and useless; whether this is a reaction to European anti-Americanism is beside the point, resentment breeds more resentment, and I'm sure you can appreciate how a vicious circle can easily form itself there. We've both addressed the anti-Americanism which exists in Europe, and some extremist groups quite blatantly pursue it, but I fear it works both ways.

As for Germany, I have relatives there (my surname should be hint enough of that ) and the country is currently going through a bit of an identity crisis; you always have to bear in mind its post-Hitler trauma and the pacifism which resulted from that, and the way this pacifism is effectively being compromised by the war on terror. Many Germans simply don't want to go to war, no matter how justified it may be (and Afghanistan was obviously justified due to 9'11). Schroeder risked his political career for sending troops to Afghanistan (and even had to force a vote of confidence), so you can imagine how well a campaign in Iraq would have gone down, especially at election time. It goes without saying that Chirac is using that to his advantage, to manipulate Schroeder and Fischer. Obviously I'm sceptical with regards to Chirac's motives, but then who isn't.

Anyway, feel free to e-mail me: michael.z@dial.pipex.com

[Gustaf]

Michael Z,

Thank you for two very intelligent and accurate posts. I totally agree with you, it is dangerous and unfair to lump all people from a nation or continent together. That was not my intention and I'm sorry if it came across that way. I was referring specifically to certain posters here who all seemed to have similar political ideology.

I especially appreciate your admission that there is widespread anti-americanism in parts of Europe, and I appreciate even more your comment at the end about America and Europe being great long term allies. I agree with you and I assure you that until very, very recently, virtually all Americans shared our view. Unfortunately, a growing number of continental Europeans, including many of the most prominent leaders like Chirac, Schroeder, Fischer, etc...seem to believe that the post-Cold War world must be seen in different terms because the world is no longer "bi-polar" in terms of US and Soviet Union. The view of leaders like Chirac, and many prominent European academicians, suggest that the new world will include a bi-polar tension between the United States and Europe based on economic self-interest in the global economy. Thus anything which makes America weaker helps Europe. This is an unfortunate view, but it essentially explains the behavior of France and other nations. And when European nations take this dim view of US/Euro relations, the Neo-Conservatives (of which I am one) are forced to react in a rational manner and accept this as an unavoidable shift in international relations. This is VERY, VERY unfortunate, because the world will always be FAR safer when the United States and Europe are strong allies. But unless there is a change in the foreign policy of many European nations, this is the path we seem to be heading down in the 21st Century, and we head down this path to the peril of the entire world.

It goes without saying that I agree with the general tone of your post. I also worry about the future of the US/Euro relationship; like you mentioned, we're stronger together than divided. If anything, Kosovo and Afghanistan proved that there is room for a American-European alliance in the post-Cold War world.

That said, I fear (or at least suspect) that the likes of Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld seem to quite actively undermine the relationship with some of the policies that are being pushed through. I personally am sceptical as to whether the neocons' reaction is really all that rational, and whether we would really be in this mess with a Gore administration. It also bears pointing out that the same European countries which defied America over Iraq (namely Germany and France) gave the United States their unconditional support in Afghanistan.

Gustaf does have a point. Many Republicans seem to regard Europe as cowardly and useless; whether this is a reaction to European anti-Americanism is beside the point, resentment breeds more resentment, and I'm sure you can appreciate how a vicious circle can easily form itself there.

As for Germany, I have relatives there (my surname should be hint enough of that ) and the country is currently going through a bit of an identity crisis; you always have to bear in mind its post-Hitler trauma and the pacifism which resulted from that, and the way this pacifism is effectively being compromised by the war on terror. Many Germans simply don't want to go to war, no matter how justified it may be (and Afghanistan was obviously justified due to 9'11). Schroeder risked his political career for sending troops to Afghanistan (and even had to force a vote of confidence), so you can imagine how well a campaign in Iraq would have gone down, especially at election time. It goes without saying that Chirac is using that to his advantage, to manipulate Schroeder and Fischer. Obviously I'm sceptical with regards to Chirac's motives, but then who isn't.

Yes, Germany is still carrying the burden of WWII, unfortunately. Chirac...I will refrain from commenting on this [insert whatever you feel like]. Especially since I never been to France, and thus am in no position to do so. Schröder was being an opportunist though, he was clearly going down in the election when he went against the Iraq War and that gave him a narrow win.

[MarkDel]

Gustaf,

If any American takes the position that European support is irrelevant, then they are taking a very limited approach to complex problems. We may not NEED European help to defeat Global terrorism, we may have the military might and will (?) to do so all on our own, but WHY IN THE HELL WOULD WE NOT WANT HELP!!! The world will always be a better and safer place when the US and Europe cooperate.

[Gustaf]

Gustaf,

If any American takes the position that European support is irrelevant, then they are taking a very limited approach to complex problems. We may not NEED European help to defeat Global terrorism, we may have the military might and will (?) to do so all on our own, but WHY IN THE HELL WOULD WE NOT WANT HELP!!! The world will always be a better and safer place when the US and Europe cooperate.

Well, that's what I thought. I suppose you could check out the thread if you want, it was called something like "US-World relations in the long run", where my idea was to discuss the rift between the US and Europe and how to solve it, b/c I think it's horrible. As I said, the response wasn't very encouraging, there seemed to be little interest in it.

[Gustaf]

Ah, you should check out the best presidents thread, that seems to be where most of this debate was actually held at some point or another.

[Huckleberry Finn]

MarkDel.  Prime minister of Spain is Aznar not Azonar
And prime minister of Italy is Berlusconi not Bertuloscone.
You beginning to sound like your president.
 
Markdel. There are also topics of International Elections and International General Discussion in THIS FORUM! If you want to be in some place which is secure and familiar American-only, this is not your place.

Gustaf, Michael and Realpolitik very good posts!

[MarkDel]

Huck Finn,

I also spelled John Kerry's name wrong in another thread today. Does misspelling someone's name constitute a lack of knowledge of that person? Do you dispute the fact that Aznar and Berlusconi are more pro-American than the average citizens in their respective nations? That, of course, was my main point, not the correct or incorrect spelling of their surnames.

[© tweed]

Miami,

I know you think you are being terribly clever with this Sherlock Holmes thing about "JMF" but I am NOT this person. I just recently found this site less than two weeks ago and was not aware that there were past discussions on this "european" subject. If you like, please ask the moderator of this forum to check my IP address against this other poster. Contrary to what you might think, the questions I presented were not unique to one individual in terms of relevance.

I know that you're not him, but when I saw this thread I immeadiately thought of Jmf.  That's it

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Mitterand was a member of the Parti Socialiste, while Chirac is a Gaullist.
Says it all really...

[Gustaf]

Huck Finn,

I also spelled John Kerry's name wrong in another thread today. Does misspelling someone's name constitute a lack of knowledge of that person? Do you dispute the fact that Aznar and Berlusconi are more pro-American than the average citizens in their respective nations? That, of course, was my main point, not the correct or incorrect spelling of their surnames.

You know, I doubt whether Berlusconi is really pro-American in a genuine sense, considering the fact that the guy is a crook who got into politics mostly in order to change the law so as to avoid prison. But it's true that they supported the Iraq War and their voters did not. Bus opposition to the Iraq War does not always denominate anti-Americanism though it of course does in many instances.

[afleitch]

I think those who complain should be be thankful that we take an interest in American Politics! For one I'm studying both American and British politics at universtity, so I think I know more about the system than say Joe Redneck, though I would say that all of us are perfectly entitled to comment whatever way we wish. Besides, the decisions a US president takes in regards to foreign affairs and especially the economy have effects throughout the world. Afterall there are people close to home in the UK who have been sent to fight in Iraq, or who have lost their jobs as a result of the US economic downturn, indirectly as a result of President Bush, so think before you lash out.

[amvanveen]

MarkDel,

As the United States are the only superpower left in
the world, Its ia natural for people outside the US
to be interested in American politics.
After all, the US have political and economical
interests is allmost all countries and try to influence
the politics of those countries. I suppose you agree
with this so I don't understand your unwillingness to
let other people comment upon the US, their government
and their politics.
And I have been in the US on holiday: 5 times for a total
of 20 weeks and in all parts of the country (except
Idaho and Montana!)

Greetings,

amvanveen

[MarkDel]

Afleitch,

Yes, you are perfectly entitled to say and think whatever you want. But...you tell me to think before I lash out...how about you try and READ before you lash out. Please tell me where I said you don't have the RIGHT to post. All I questioned was the wisdom of it for certain posters.

And some posters (Gustaf, Huck Finn, etc...) proved to me that despite my reservations, they DO have informed opinions despite their lack of knowledge about certain factors involved in regional politics. BUT...your comments in your last post here suggest that you may NOT represent a useful opinion. Your use of the "Joe Redneck" phrase immediately tells me that you are a classic cultural elitist who has pre-disposed views of the American electorate which are neither accurate nor helpful to any discussion. Still, you have the RIGHT to post and say whatever you want...just as I have the RIGHT to tell you that you may not know what you're talking about.

[MarkDel]

Amvanveen,

I certainly understand your point and I agree with most of it. However, I'm not certain that I agree with the phrase that the US is trying to influence the politics and economic outcomes in all nations. You would certainly be right if you were referring to non-democratic rogue nations like Iran, Syria, etc...but I don't think the US does anything to try and influence legitimate political elections in places like France, England, etc...

I have never seen a US President or high government official make a statement endorsing one party over another in a Democratic nation. I guess the closest this came to happening was in the 1990's when Bill Clinton sent James Carville and other "political operatives" to work against the Likud Party in the Israeli Election for Prime Minister, but this is certainly the exception instead of the rule.

[Gustaf]

MarkDel,

As the United States are the only superpower left in
the world, Its ia natural for people outside the US
to be interested in American politics.
After all, the US have political and economical
interests is allmost all countries and try to influence
the politics of those countries. I suppose you agree
with this so I don't understand your unwillingness to
let other people comment upon the US, their government
and their politics.
And I have been in the US on holiday: 5 times for a total
of 20 weeks and in all parts of the country (except
Idaho and Montana!)

Greetings,

amvanveen

Why not come here?  We have awesome tourist attractions!  Next time you come to the US, you have to make sure to go to the Sawtooth Mountains, raft some of the best waters the US has to offer.  Idaho is great, my friend.

Feeling left out?

[nclib]

I would never go on a forum in England and try to tell Brits why the inhabitants of Leeds vote a certain way because I've never been there, so what makes it OK for you to try and tell me how people might vote in Alabama or South Dakota???

I'm American, but I find it interesting that you would raise this point. Definitely, having lived in or been to a certain place is a benefit for predicting voting patterns. But I think one can still make an educated guess otherwise. Even among the American posters, I bet very few (if any) have been to all 50 states. But both Americans and Europeans are capable of researching information before predicting the voting results.

[afleitch]

Apart from Likud, certain Democratic strategists who helped Clinton in 92 and 96 helped the British Labour Party's campaign in 1997. Although unsung heroes, they and campaign co-ordinator Peter Mandelson helped Labour and Tony Blair formulate a winning strategy in 1997 and 2001. As i mentioned on a previous topic, Labour will no doubt return the favour. I would agree that most European's have a dislike for Bush, as they did with his father and with Reagan, and yes they have a general likeness for the Carter's and Clinton's of the world, but that is because Europe is generally to the 'left' of America. Even the British Conservative Party would be appalled at some of the Republican policies put into practice. On a personal note, as a Catholic myself, my parents and grandparents idolised the Kennedy's and believe it or not were fans of Nixon. In the London Times, the recent New Hampshire primary, something that has very very little to do with the UK, had a double page spread, and the campaign is covered daily. The following of US politics is not just a personal thing, it is nationwide.

[Gustaf]

Apart from Likud, certain Democratic strategists who helped Clinton in 92 and 96 helped the British Labour Party's campaign in 1997. Although unsung heroes, they and campaign co-ordinator Peter Mandelson helped Labour and Tony Blair formulate a winning strategy in 1997 and 2001. As i mentioned on a previous topic, Labour will no doubt return the favour. I would agree that most European's have a dislike for Bush, as they did with his father and with Reagan, and yes they have a general likeness for the Carter's and Clinton's of the world, but that is because Europe is generally to the 'left' of America. Even the British Conservative Party would be appalled at some of the Republican policies put into practice. On a personal note, as a Catholic myself, my parents and grandparents idolised the Kennedy's and believe it or not were fans of Nixon. In the London Times, the recent New Hampshire primary, something that has very very little to do with the UK, had a double page spread, and the campaign is covered daily. The following of US politics is not just a personal thing, it is nationwide.

I don't have a dislike for Reagan...

[Dave from Michigan]

I have no problem with the international members i think they add an interesting perspective to the site.  i myself am interested in other countries politics.

[MarkDel]

Afleitch,

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what specific policies of the Republican Party are so awful?

[Gustaf]

Afleitch,

Perhaps you could enlighten me as to what specific policies of the Republican Party are so awful?

I'd guess the social conservatism. I read in the paper today about how the person responsible for schools in Georgia wanted to get rid of the "monkey to man thingy" and have the schools teach the bible instead. I think that sort of thing worries a lot of Europeans, who're generally more secular.

[opebo]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I don't have a dislike for Reagan...

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Why not?  Bush is his direct descendant in every aspect.

[afleitch]

That touches on a good point. In America, the Republican Party in particular focuses a great deal of emphasis on what we in the UK at least would call 'non-issues.' Abortion for instance is in the mainstream unchallenged in the UK. If you personally disagree with it  (such as PM Tony Blair),then that is a personal issue, freedom of choice allows the freedom to say no as well as yes and has around 70-80% backing in the UK. One reason why we are an international centre for stem-cell research. Evolution is a NON (emphasis on the non!) issue, in fact it doesn't even cross my mind, it's just taken as 'go.' Luckily we have no second amendment, but the gun consensus is that they should be banned for personal use, even if it took us the Dunblane massacre in 1996 to realise it. Prayer in Public schools funnily enough is part of the curriculum in schools here, children of all faiths and none take part in Christian prayer (more often if you went to a state Catholic school like me) as well as learning about other faiths. The reason for this is that the issue has not been taken over by evangelical nuts. And as for gay rights in the UK? Well Civil Partnerships are on the legislatory schedule for this session of parliament...