Europe's Long-Standing Dislike of America

[Said1]

Well, let’s get going, shall we?


No, you don’t have to believe everything I say, I recall posting somewhere before that you should not swallow ANY information as if it were candy, not mine, nor your government’s.
As for Norway, it’s been called the greatest nation by the UN’s human development report, which ranks 173 countries across the globe, based on the quality of life – using indicators such as life expectancy and income per person. for the second year in a row according to the first link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2149799.stm - 2002
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/07/16/norway.best/ - 2004

Notice the US has dropped from place six to eight./QUOTE]

But, Norway (forget exact city) is one of the most expensive places in the world to live in terms of goods and services, as is Canada. How are taxes where your are?

Our quality of life is also reflective of government social spending and for that, we are taxed heavily.

 

[CSM]

Well, let’s get going, shall we?


No, you don’t have to believe everything I say, I recall posting somewhere before that you should not swallow ANY information as if it were candy, not mine, nor your government’s.
As for Norway, it’s been called the greatest nation by the UN’s human development report, which ranks 173 countries across the globe, based on the quality of life – using indicators such as life expectancy and income per person. for the second year in a row according to the first link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/2149799.stm - 2002
http://edition.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/07/16/norway.best/ - 2004

Notice the US has dropped from place six to eight.



I’m sorry if you misinterpreted: I did not state anywhere that you are an evil person, although I may have stated you could use some education on worldly matters, which may have come across as rude. Understandably. And as to the arrogance; yes, you are correct. However, you keep posting comments that have not convinced me to withdraw this statement. Still, some credit for this:



No, I didn’t mention it, although it is correct. I myself, in all my hypocrisy, have neglected to mention this fact, and perhaps buried it by acknowledging we were pirates that robbed the Spanish tradefleets, which is a far less evil than the things you refer to – Indonesia for one have had some bad experiences with the Dutch, as did South Africa.

Which was mainly the point I was trying to make previously. But if you fail to draw the parallel with our exploitations of foreigner’s wealth in the past, and your exploitations of foreigner’s wealth in the present, you are in a dire need of an update on current events.



That is a bold statement by me, I agree. And probably untrue.
However, I do check multiple sources to get to the bottomline.
You see, there is not one mainstream media source that states the truth and nothing but the truth. All countries suffer from certain blind spots, mostly regarding the atrocities they commit themselves. I’m merely trying to shed light on yours.

Now, on to Sitarro, I still have a lot of explaining to do.

Well, now we can get someplace.

I would point out that the reports you cite do not list Norway as the "greatest" nation, but as the best place to live based on the Human development Index (HDI). That is an entirely different thing. While Norway may or may not be a great place to live, I dont believe that is the only criteria for defining a "great" nation. I suppose it is great for the people living there.

Personally, I could give a tinker's damn what you think of my education on worldy matters. I can tell you that I have lived and worked extensively outside the United States (toalling almost 15 years, actually) to include Europe and Asia. you have no idea what my level of understanding or education is...so your comment is not only rude, it is unfounded. I suspect you base your comment ont he fact that I do not agree with your opinion, which is also childish.

Explotation of foriegner's wealth by any nation has never ceased to exist...it's called "trade". Some are better at it than others. The Netherlands is still "exploiting" foriegn wealth by the way so dont pretend it's all in the past for your country.

Thanks for shedding light on US blind spots. I will return the favor for you every chance I get...you can bet on it. I will most assuredely check multiple sources as well.

 

[Harmageddon]

Sitarro,

Although as of yet I have failed to slap your cheese back onto your cracker, I’ll have another go at it. You are a stubborn one though, I’ll give you that.

Let’s take it from behind once more

Assuming your last remark was sarcastic, I’ll start here

Originally posted by Sitarro
What relief has "the world" contributed to the victims of poor planning in New Orleans? I remember reading that France was sending some moth eaten cots, and Britain was sending meals that weren't edible. What did the Dutch contribute, warm air? New Orleans is and has been a disaster waiting to happen, it was Euros that settled it and decided that building below sea level was a good idea, I believe you may know more about that since flooding is a major concern in Nederland. The Hurricane wasn't the problem for New Orleans, graft, corruption, greed was and still is the problem with New Orleans. Hurricanes happen every year, not a lot that can be done about them. If the same storm would have hit in Europe I would imagine there would have been deaths in the 10s of thousands. After all, Europe lost over 20,000 a few summers ago because the temperature reached 90 degrees. . . . it will be 98 here today, as it has been all summer. . . 0 lives will be lost.

Thank you for your remarkable insight into these matters. Let me spell them out for you.
European aid for the victims of the hurricane was mostly rejected.

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/0,1518,374268,00.html
“Last week, a German military cargo jet carrying 15 tons of food labored into the air bound for the United States. The goal, of course, was to feed needy victims of Hurricane Katrina. But the food supplies never made it. Refused permission to land, the plane was forced to turn around and head back to Cologne, still fully loaded. Food from other countries has likewise been banned.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina
More of the same refusal.

As for the Netherlands, check the above link. Here’s a preview of what we offered.
Royal Netherlands Navy Frigate Hr.Ms. Van Amstel has arrived from the Netherlands Antilles. The frigate is filled with supplies and has helicopters on board that can be used in rescue actions. Further, The Netherlands have sent experts on the subject of water containment and dikes, identification teams and pumps to deliver clean drinking water, F-16s and divers from the Royal Netherlands Marine Corps.

As for the death toll would the hurrican have hit Europe, you seem to be fairly confident in your conclusions. Now find some facts regarding your statements, since that is the order in which you prefer to make a case. And your temperature remarks, althoug I cannot be bothered to check your numbers, I’ll have to assume they’re true. For the sake of argument: people tend to develop certain traits that will guarantee their survival. If your whole summer is 98 degrees, most people will have adapted to that environment. For Europe, 90 degrees is higher than average, so most people will not have adapted to those temperatures. Still, it is a sad fact.

Originally posted by Sitarro
What are the Dutch known for, carving shoes out of wood, ancient windmills, One decent painter(Rembrandt) that would have rathered live in America if given the chance, liberal prostitution laws, liberal drug laws, murder, and an economy the size of Rhode Island. . . . wow, get me a ticket as long as it's not on an Airbus.

And all this from the top of your head? No wonder it lacks a foundation.
We did have multiple world-renowned painters, Van Gogh – my opinion of him is not that great, but that’s a matter of taste, Vermeer, Rembrandt, Hals, Mondriaan, Steen, and on and on. Liberal prostitution laws seemed only natural, since we’re talking about the oldest profession in the world here. Liberal drug laws managed to cut down the number of harddrugs users by a signifacant number. In fact, the USA sports more drug addicts, percentage-wise, than the Netherlands.
The Dutch are also renowned for their “Deltawerken” which is the biggest functioning system of dikes in the world. One of the reasons we sent experts on this matter to the downed city of New Orleans. We are also world famous of course for inventing “apartheid” which is basically racism.
This all illustrates the point I made previously, that no country can claim it is a force of pure good, nor can it claim it is a force of pure evil. But I regress.

Originally posted by Sitarro
I'm curious hans, are you sitting on a bidet as you peck that drivel out on your American designed computer system broadcasting it across the American developed internet?
Oh wait, I'm sure you have been told that the Dutch created those things and it was also the Dutch that went into space first and the Dutch that landed and returned from the moon.tehee

Nice one, mate. I’m impressed.
Seriously, where did I ever state the Americans produce only crap? Point it out to me will you? I understand you’re a little pissed off about my bashing, but pointing out more crap is not really helping you to improve your image.

Once more: I do not have a problem with the United States as such. I’m sure there are marvellous people there, you have produced some marvellous things, amongst them the Internet.

All I am pointing out for the fifth time in a row is that the United States has also produced some very large piles of shit. And if you can’t face them or even acknowledge them to begin with, then you’re a sad piece of shit yourself. No offence.

To CSM:
Dude, I'm sorry I offended you, but I wanted to stir up some response that was beyond "yeah well fuck Europe" kind of thing I recieved after my first post. Shredding people's lives seemed to work, so I took it from there.
I did not truly mean to degrade your education or working experience to nothing, but my goal of opening people's eyes to the atrocities their nations commit in their names is not easy. You think the dutch actually knew what was going on in the colonies? Of course not. Same as the Germans during WWII: "Wir haben es nicht gewusst" is a common joke here still. It means: "We didn't know". The concentration camps, the deportation of jews, they didn't know. Because their government didn't tell them.

Lucky for us there's internet. Multiple sources is the key in my view, to get a grasp of what the f*ck is going on. It's sad that this needs to be so, but that's the way it is.

 

[CSM]

Look, I know full well that the US is not blameless...it is after all a nation of humans. However, to say the US is on a course of evil is inflamatory (at the least!) and most certainly propaganda for the US bashers.

Personally, I like the Netherlands. I have visited there several times and really like the country side and the people. One of my favorite events is the "Gloriada" (not sure I spelled that right). The Netherlands is 9th on the HDI and though one of the most densely populated countries in Europe a generally nice place. The Netherlands is also aknowledged as the gateway for illegal drugs into Europe as well as the largest producer of XTC (in illegal labs) which is sent to the US. Not bashing them for this as the Netherlands is one of the leading partners to the US and other countries in fighting illegal drugs. the Netherlands is also one of the largest contributors of foriegn aid to developing nations (I beleive it is around 1% of their GNP).

Having said all that, I do not believe that the Netherlands or its citizens have any more insight into the truth of global politics than anyone else. I do not believe that ANY nation (European or otherwise) has the right to look down their noses at the US or have any reason to believe they are somehow "better". We can certainly disagree on our approach to international issues but that does not have to make us enemies per say. I resent the fact that many Europeans view US citizens as cowboys or gangsters or somehow less cultured, intelligent, or travelled. I would imagine that you resent the fact that some Americans view all the Dutch as pot smoking, lazy, arrogant UN lackeys.

 

[TheButlerDidIt]

... or rather Robert Kagans two cents. I believe the differences in european "thinking" and American "know how" are summed up pretty well in Kagan's article "Power and Weakness". I don't tend to agree with all that he has to say however, he makes a good point when talking about our "two different worlds" and how hostility is dealt with in each world.

http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html

 

[Harmageddon]

To CSM:

It’s good to see we’re getting somewhere, which is remarkably looking like a discussion. Thanks for the compliments regarding my country, although I do have to point shamefully inform you that XTC is actually export product number one. Our international aid is indeed roughly 1 % of our GNP, it’s a little less at 0,8%, but it’s more than any other country spends on aid per capita, so we’ve probably got guilt problems.

Originally posted by CSM
Having said all that, I do not believe that the Netherlands or its citizens have any more insight into the truth of global politics than anyone else. I do not believe that ANY nation (European or otherwise) has the right to look down their noses at the US or have any reason to believe they are somehow "better".

I do agree the Netherlands has no more insight into global politics than the USA or any other nation, although most third world countries suffer from lack of information. The majority of citizens has even less insight into global politics than most nations do. However, several citizens know just as much about these matters as most nations.

This can be achieved by reading statements of multiple nations across the spectrum about a given subject. All statements will be coloured – that is to say, they will reflect the interest of the nation in question, and will be biased as such. All statements will therefore lack certain information. If you check multiple statements, this means that although none of them is exactly true (nor the enemy’s statement nor your or mine own governments), the real truth is somewhere in the middle of all these statements.

I agree no nations should trumpet itself to be somehow “better” than other nations. Sure enough, many nations believe themselves to be superior to others. As I stated in my first post: “I'm merely trying to point out that no nation on the planet can claim it's a force of good or evil. That's just ridiculous. ANY nation has a history, and it will show that the nation in question will have done some good things, as well as some nigh unspeakable evil ones.” Which is basically the same – none is better than others overall. Only temporarily and only as far as a single aspect is concerned can a nation be said truly that it is the better one.

Obviously, the USA has the most superiour army by far of any nation. But Norway apparently has the most superiour standard of living of any nation.
I think comparing some facts about a nation with all others should really only serve as to provide an example of what we can achieve, should we put our minds to it.

I believe however, that by agressively invading Iraq, which has been proclaimed illegal under international law, the USA has shown the world the finger one too many times.

The USA has previously denied the credibility of the International Court in The Hague.

The USA has vetoed roughly 35 United Nations resolutions regarding the illegality of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.

The USA has refused to sign the Kyoto treaties which were designed to try and collectively bring pollution down to more acceptable levels and so on. Obivously, the USA is not the only nation with veto power to shred some descent UN resolutions. But it has been using it’s veto more and more.

This means the USA has been sending signals to the rest of the world, indeed before G. W. Bush came into office, that America intends to stand alone in the world and it does not wish to cooperate – this is seen by many as a statement of superiority. Thus, the USA itself is trumpeting the image that it is somehow “better”.

We both agree this is unacceptable.

Originally posted by CSM
We can certainly disagree on our approach to international issues but that does not have to make us enemies per say. I resent the fact that many Europeans view US citizens as cowboys or gangsters or somehow less cultured, intelligent, or travelled. I would imagine that you resent the fact that some Americans view all the Dutch as pot smoking, lazy, arrogant UN lackeys.

As for the stereotypical views: hehe . Right on the mark for many people, I think. Although everyone that has done a little travelling, such as yourself, knows there are both good and evil people in any country.

As I blatantly disagree with the course of the USA regarding foreign policy, I’m not too happy about my own country’s approach either. We’ve just copied your multicolor terror alert system, which I think is basically useless. As soon as a terrorist strikes Amsterdam, it will go up to red. Which is a little late, I’d say. And before that, there is no point in playing with the colours other than to scare people and keep them focused on their own survival instead of whatever the government is doing. People in the Netherlands have recently been polled, and their faith in our government is down to 19%. So we’ve got enough shit as it is as well.

No, I agree that we as citizens of two nations would be fools to make enemies of ourselves, so keeping the discussion alive is a good thing. Thanks.

It was actually only from 9/11 onward that I started taking an interest in global politics. Before that I didn’t really give a shit, they were all lying sons of bitches in my view, so why bother. But I saw the 2nd plane live on television as it hit the 2nd tower, and something snapped inside. After my initial complete outrage, my first question was: “have I been missing something?”

This could basically not have happened, it did not fit the picture I had of the world. But it did happen. So either there is some divine power that likes to screw around with our thinking, or my picture of the world needs some reshaping. I chose the latter option.

And that automatically meant I needed to do some research, to start filling in the blanks. So I started reading everything I could get my hands on. Most of it was bull. But some of it made sense. And then sifting through the stuff that did make sense, an image emerged. It’s not completed yet, and maybe never will be, but it’s going to be one ugly image.

 

[Harmageddon]

To Said1,

Yes, taxes in Norway seem insane.
They are very, very high. But then education, healthcare and whatnot are completely free of charge.
Apparently the Norwegians have two tax classes:
class 1 is for mostly individuals
class 2 is for single-income couples, married couples.
Tax rates are in the order of over 50% of the income.
If you really want to know it all:
http://odin.dep.no/fin/english/bn.html

Taxes in the Netherlands are relatively high, as they are is most of Western European countries. We do not get anywhere near Norway however.

The dutch system is comprised of three so called "tax boxes"

Box 1 is tax on income from work and home
Taxed depending on income, in four classes:
32.35% on the first NLG 32,769 (EUR 14,870)
37.60% on the next NLG 26,751 (EUR 12,139)
42% on the next NLG 42,532 (EUR 19,300)
52% on the remainder

Box 2 is tax on income from substantial interests
Taxed at a fixed rate of 25%.

Box 3 is tax on savings and investments
Taxed at a fixed rate of 30%.

For more information check:
http://www.expatax.nl/contentstaxation.htm

However, there are plans to change to a two tax classes system, something similar to Norway. We'll see.

 

[Annie]

... or rather Robert Kagans two cents. I believe the differences in european "thinking" and American "know how" are summed up pretty well in Kagan's article "Power and Weakness". I don't tend to agree with all that he has to say however, he makes a good point when talking about our "two different worlds" and how hostility is dealt with in each world.

http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html

Thanks for the reposting of this. Great article! I agree, I liked that way back, alot.

I think den Beste followed up on it, or something similar. I'll see if I can find some of it.

 

[Annie]

Here's one, with good links to Kagan and others:

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2002/08/Transnationalprogressivis.shtml

Stardate 20020814.2036

(On Screen): I have just read an amazingly profound article, which now joins a select group along with Kagan, Mead and Peters as the most important I have read regarding international politics. (Update: here's a longer article by Fonte which goes into more detail.)

The very best analysis articles are those which take a lot of things which seem unrelated and show how they're actually part of the same thing, and what that implies. I try to do that here, but I've never written anything as profound as Fonte has. This article shows that a completely new international political movement has formed, which opposes liberal democracy as we in the US practice it. He refers to it as transnational progressivism and makes a persuasive case that it is the underlying philosophy behind such apparently disparate phenomena as the anti-globalist movement, the "sustainable development" movement, those who support the International Criminal Court, much of forces supporting "multiculturalism" in the liberal academia, the apparent hypocrisy of international human rights organizations who are eager to condemn the US while ignoring much worse abuse by third world nations, and the formation of the European Union and the structure of the European Commission in Brussels. It ties in the clear elitist elements that all of these demonstrate and the way that all of them are fundamentally undemocratic and demonstrably contemptuous of the opinions of the "common man". It also ties in with the entire idea that nations should have high taxes, central control and heavy social spending. These things don't seem to be related, but they all express the same fundamental political philosophy.

It explains why to some people there is no greater insult to throw at their opponents than "patriot". It explains the real basis of claims about "international law" and why those who use the term are so emphatic about insisting on it.

It is, quite frankly, the greatest challenge that the US faces. It's even more formidable than Islamic fundamentalism, because we can probably defeat that by largely military approaches, whereas the struggle against transnational progressivism will be strictly cultural, diplomatic, economic and political. And though Islam has little influence inside the US, transnational progressivism already has strong support in this country in certain sectors. They're the people I've been criticizing as "Berkeley Liberals".

Transnational progressivism is fundamentally authoritarian; it believes in the rule of the enlightened few over the unwashed masses, for their benefit. They are stupid and cannot be permitted to make up their own minds, and the enlightened few will do the right thing for them despite themselves. It is profoundly repugnant to every value I hold as a Jacksonian and a supporter of the fundamental principles on which the American system was founded.

And those in the transnational progressivist movement seem to be concentrating what we think of as a disproportionate amount of their scrutiny and ire and pressure on the United States. It's because they recognize that American liberal democracy is the greatest rival they face.

They refer to us as a "rogue nation" and "the world's greatest terrorist" and "the biggest threat to the world" because from their point of view we actually are. We're the biggest roadblock in the way to establishment of the international transnational system they want to establish. We're the only ones who have been standing up and saying "No", and unfortunately we're strong enough and influential enough so that our "No" carries what they think of as undue, disproportionate and undeserving weight.

I find myself feeling the urge to quote nearly the entire article inline here. It's that good and that important. It is actually a summary of a longer article and as such is short, pithy, and loaded with significance. All I can say is that I strongly believe that this article should get as wide of play as possible.

Still, I'd like to summarize a few key points. I've pointed out here many times that the basic idea of the American experiment is that the individual citizen is the foundation of the state, that all power resides with the collective citizenry, and that they grant to the government limited power to govern. Our system relies on citizens having as much access to information as possible, on them feeling free to discuss all issues with each other, and with them feeling free to tell their elected representatives what they think without fear of persecution and with a reasonable basis to expect that they can influence the course of events, and that this same degree of participation and influence be spread as widely as possible. That's why I feel so strongly about the First Amendment; it is the core of what we as Americans are. Knowledge is power, and the First Amendment sanctifies the broadest possible access to information for every citizen.

The key concepts of transnational progressivism are:

Groups are what matter, not people. You are "Black" or "Christian" or "Mexican" or "Afghan" or "Sunni", you are not yourself. You also don't get to choose your group; it's inherent in what you were when you were born. Someone else will categorize you into your group, and you will become a number, a body to count to decide how important that group is. And your group won't change during your lifetime.

The goal of fairness is equality of result, not equality of opportunity. It isn't important to let individuals fulfill their potential and express their dreams, what's important is to make groups have power and representation in all things proportional to their numbers in the population. Fairness is for groups, not for individuals. The ideally fair system is based on quotas, not on merit, because that permits proper precise allocation of results.

Being a victim is politically significant. It's not merely a plea for help or something to be pitied; it's actually a status that grants extra political power. "Victimhood" isn't a cult, it's a valid political evaluation. Groups which are victims should be granted disproportionately more influence and representation, at the expense of the historic "dominant" culture.

Assimilation is evil. Immigrants must remain what they were before they arrived here, and should be treated that way. Our system must adapt to them, rather than expecting them to adapt to us (even if they want to). The migration of people across national borders is a way to ultimately erase the significance of those borders by diluting national identity in the destination country.

An ideal democracy is a coalition where political power is allocated among groups in proportion to their numbers. It has nothing to do with voting or with individual citizens expressing opinions, and in fact it doesn't require elections at all. A "winner take all" system, or one ruled by a majority, is profoundly repugnant because it disenfranchise minority groups of all kinds and deprives them of their proper share of power.

National identity is evil. We should try to think of ourselves as citizens of the world, not as citizens of the nations in which we live, and we should try to minimize the effects of national interests, especially our own if we live in powerful nations.

For these people, there truly is a growing international governance, a growing international law, and they truly think it's binding, or that it should be. It isn't, as I portrayed it, simply an informal system of non-binding gentlemen's agreements of local and limited significance, and it equally isn't a formal charter created by any kind of overt democratic process. It is a work-in-progress being created by the intellectual elite to describe how they think the world should be run, and its foundation of legitimacy is its morality and in the positive results it will bring. It has no mandate from the people of the world because it doesn't need one, because the people of the world don't know what's good for them. It must be created because it's the right thing to do; we must be bound by it because refusing to be bound by it is evil and selfish.

Nationalism is the enemy because nationalism is seen as the ultimate source of most of the woes which afflict humanity. Nationalism has been responsible for most wars; nationalism is responsible for economic imbalance and world poverty; and nationalism isn't necessary any longer and needs to be replaced by an international system.

The aspect of all this that I find the most offensive, and quite frankly the most terrifying, is that it truly is based on antidemocratic principles, on the idea of an informed elite running things, on the idea that the common cannot and should not be permitted to decide for themselves what they do or how their nation should be run, except in unimportant ways. The article points out that this is in fact how the EC currently operates, and that partisans of it consider one of its virtues to be precisely the fact that it is politically insulated from the will of European voters.

 

[Annie]

Link above:

The EU is a large supranational macro-organization that embodies transnational progressivism. Its governmental structure is post-democratic. Power in the EU principally resides in the European Commission (EC) and to a lesser extent the European Court of Justice (ECJ). The EC, the EU's executive body, initiates legislative action, implements common policy, and controls a large bureaucracy. It is composed of a rotating presidency and nineteen commissioners chosen by the member-states and approved by the European Parliament. It is unelected and, for the most part, unaccountable.

A white paper issued by the EC suggests that this unaccountability is one reason for its success:"[the] "essential source of the success of European integration is that [it] is_independent from national, sectoral, or other influences."

Thus freed from the partisan and selfish demands of voters, it is able to do what is needed even if few like it or would support it. The elite which run the EC know what is required and this system gives them the power to implement it without approval from voters who might not agree.

European socialism is part of this concept. High taxes are good, not merely a necessary evil in the service of a socialist state but a positive goal. Money should be taken away from the herd of cattle and administered instead by the state, because the cattle are stupid and will waste it if permitted to keep it and make up their own minds as to how to spend it. Money is power, and people shouldn't be powerful because they may misuse that power. Better to let the elite make those decisions, at the level of government or the EU. Distribution of wealth is good not only because it helps the poor, but also because it removes unnecessary wealth from those who are better off, who don't need it anyway and would only waste it.

And though they do not say so, they actively oppose the primacy of the US Constitution on America. From their point of view, such a national charter as foundation of national law and governance is obsolete, and should be faded out gradually in favor of something they feel is better, which amounts to a world government by an unelected elite who are not answerable to the masses for what they do. Nationalism as such is the foe they see themselves fighting against; it is what they are primarily attempting to abolish. Their dream is to eliminate war by eliminating all grievances which can lead to war, by eliminating borders, eliminating competition, and giving everyone (every group, that is) some say in the overall governance. Once they have a stake in things, they will no longer want to destroy it by fighting against it, and in any case simply recognizing them and rewarding them will substantially defuse their belligerence.

A "patriot" is someone who clings to the outmoded principle of loyalty to their own nation; such people are unsophisticated atavisms and represent the tip of the old nationalistic way which has to be destroyed before the transnational system can truly be established. "Jingoistic patriot" is redundant because all patriotism is automatically jingoistic. Referring to someone as a "patriot" is like calling them a "racist"; a "patriot" is, in a sense, a "nationist", one who discriminates against other nations on behalf of his own just as a racist discriminates against other races on behalf of his own. Such people are evil, and anyone who says he loves his own country must necessarily hate all the others.

This explains the European attitude towards the conflict in Israel. They see the establishment of a Palestinian state as an entitlement unrelated to any other issues. They see the end of the conflict there as being impossible until the Palestinians are granted political power proportionate to their numbers, with an added bonus for having been victims. But in fact, ending the conflict isn't even the most important thing. The Palestinian state isn't seen as a means to peace, but as an end in itself, something that the Palestinians deserve unconditionally. That's because the progressivists think all disenfranchised groups are entitled to some sort of political empowerment; it's an inherent part of their world view. And the unwillingness of Israel to grant the Palestinians such a state, and the support of the US given to Israel which helps prevent that, are indeed seen by them as extremely serious crimes against international law, which are not justified by the unimportant details relating to any particular low level terrorist war which might just happen to be taking place in the area. Israel and the US are putting their own selfish national interests ahead of the internationalist agenda, and the US is so powerful and influential that a Palestinian state can't be established as long as we resist it. Therefore we are engaged in disenfranchisement of the Palestinians through force, which is a crime essentially identical to genocide.

Occasionally you see a leftist use the term "genocide" in some fashion which looks odd in that it doesn't seem to refer to anyone being killed. They're not kidding; they see no difference between disenfranchising someone and killing them, between disenfranchising an entire people and committing genocide.

And they would grant Arafat full right to lead the Palestinians, even though any idea of his selection democratically is a sad fiction, because democracy doesn't matter. "Groups" should be led by unelected elites anyway, so Arafat no more requires a democratic franchise from the Palestinians than the EC does from Europeans. A leader is someone with vision and influence; he doesn't need a mandate.

In one of my comments about the issue of international law, I pointed out that it was fundamentally undemocratic, that it did not have what we in the US consider the essential aspect of consent of the governed. It turns out that to the transnational progressivists, this is not a bug but a feature. They do not think that law or the enforcement of it should be responsive to the governed, because they do not trust the governed. The whole point is to use the law and its enforcement to force the common folk to behave the way they should.

I also suffered a strong feeling of deja vu when I read this article, because I instantly recognized the real basis of the politics of my new-found friend Demosthenes, and his insistence on the primacy of international law and the requirement that the US ask for international permission (which would not be granted) before making any kind of military move against the nations which threaten us. This article describes the true argument between us, and explains why we disagree so fundamentally. I do not grant any of the fundamental assumptions underlying transnational progressivism, and so our disagreements have rapidly foundered on unstated axioms. (And now I know what his are, and I'll be able to deal with them much better.)

Kagan's article and Mead's article were important because they explain to Europeans why America has been doing what it has. This article is equally important because it will explain to Americans the real reason why Europeans have been doing what they have, and why in the aftermath of last September's attack they still spent more time criticizing us and attempting to impede us than they did our enemies. They fear us more than they fear our enemies.

The article asks whether liberal democracy, as practiced in the US, can compete against transnational progressivism, or even survive in parallel with it. I believe that it can triumph, because ultimately the only way the progressivists can defeat us is by convincing us to give away the store. By the nature of their philosophy they do not engage in military conquest, and no means of coercion less than that which is available to them can force us to give them what they want, as long as we stay strong and aware and don't get conned.

I wrote yesterday at great length about how a modern military and a modern information economy rely heavily on the empowerment of individuals at every level of the structure, and how that is our (American) advantage against the theocratic nations and the last remaining dictatorships of the world. The easy way to tell the true power of an army is to see how much authority and power it gives to its sergeants. The more they are trusted and the more authority they have, the better the army and the more dangerous it will be in war. (This article is apropos. I knew that the situation in the Arab military structures was poor, but I didn't realize just how shitty it really is. Against us on a non-nuclear battlefield, they don't have a prayer.)

Our reliance on the individual is also our best strength against this new threat, and it is in fact our willingness to rely on the individual which makes us their worst ideological threat. By its nature this new political philosophy is elitist; by its nature it seeks to deprive the commons of the ability to inform themselves about issues, to consider those issues, and then to actively participate in the political process. When one of their intellectuals proposed establishment of a parallel Internet which gave governments the power to control access by their citizens to information that the government considered appropriate, he was quite serious.

Thus, in the same way but to a lesser extent than nations such as Saudi Arabia, this movement seeks to make the commons passive, to make them not think but rather to follow orders, to live but not decide. But this means that they will waste the vast majority of their human capital; it means that their small elite will be competing against the intellectual power of our entire nation. They think they can win because from their point of view most of our people are a burden, and reliance on them weakens us. I'm very certain, on the other hand, that our reliance on the commons is our greatest strength. I'm very certain that they're wrong and I'm sure that the power of our massed intellectual might can bury them economically.

In the same way but to a lesser extent as nations like Saudi Arabia, their political philosophy will weaken the ability of their workers to compete in the information age, and this already manifests in the significant difference in per capita GDP between the US and Europe, much of which can be shown to be a function of substantially lower productivity by their citizens.

It's already happening. The Europeans are already lobotomizing themselves, and you can already see the result of it. In February, a poster on the site Libertarian Samizdata asked the interesting question: Can anybody think of any historically-significant cultural or technological innovation to have emerged from Continental Western Europe since World War II?

Alas, because of the legendary Blogger archive bug, my link to the original post no longer works, and I can't find it. (Update: the Samizdata folk have kindly provided this new one.) But my response to that challenge is here. This new article actually makes clear that the idea of transnational progressivism itself primarily derives from Europe, so that actually answers their original question. But when I originally considered the question as an engineer, I was astonished to realize that the Europeans had contributed a fair amount to the refinement and enhancement of new technologies, but were very very poor at actually creating really new things. When you ask what kinds of really major innovations have come out of the US in the last fifty years, the answers flow easily: the transistor, integrated circuits, the laser, the computer, the Internet, modern plastics, the cell phone, television, the LED, fiberoptics, ultrasound and MRI, many completely new kinds of drugs, CAD, and a lot of other things in many areas.

I sat and thought hard, and eventually only came up with a small number of things, and all of them came from one company in the Netherlands. Europeans have gone to sleep; they're technologically parasitic on us for advancement. European technology is one big me-too.

As long as we can stay true to ourselves, then I think that we will win, because a strong economy which is technologically advanced is our best weapon in this struggle. In the long run, we have to maintain the empowerment of the individual and our identity and indepencence as a nation, and as we do and as that remains the key to our strength, their system will crumble and collapse just as international Communism did, and for the same reason: it just can't compete in the ways that will truly matter, and eventually it will become abundantly obvious to everyone that our system works better (just as was the case with Communism).

They already can't compete. To the extent that Europe has already adopted the kinds of programs and policies advocated by this new philosophy they have already crippled themselves diplomatically, militarily and economically. They're already falling behind in all three ways, and the gap between them and us is increasing in all three ways. I see nothing to reverse this trend except their ability to sweet talk us into giving up.

So though some will characterize it that way, it isn't raving paranoia to believe that many of the international processes in which we refuse to participate (such as the ICC and Kyoto), and for which we've been roundly criticized, truly are deliberately designed to harm us. It is their long term goal to make our governmental system fade into irrelevancy by small steps. And they recognize the importance of destroying our economy, because our economic might is part of what makes us formidable.

This article provides a big answer. Now I know why they hate us.

But I have no doubt that Demosthenes and Hesiod and others like them will now proclaim that I've gone completely off the deep end.

Update: Our best weapon against progressivists in the world is to outcompete them. Our best weapon against progressivists inside our own nation is now and always has been the horselaugh, which has already helped largely defeat "Political Correctness". Most of the policies they propose are clearly preposterous on the face of it, and in general as long as we stay aware, they'll continue to act ineptly, and when they actually do acquire some measure of temporal power they'll continuee to use it in ways which make clear their incompetence.

Update 20020815: More here.

 

[Annie]

dang whoever got me re-reading den Beste. Many of the links still work:

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/02/Clashofcultures.shtml

Stardate 20030211.0959

(On Screen): Having made the case that French and German opposition to the US is motivated by a desire to dominate the EU, or by fear of damaging revelations coming out of post-war Iraq, there is an entirely different way of looking at it: it's a clash of cultures. It's a great big miscalculation. It was never intended to become this serious but it got out of hand because everyone trapped themselves.

You can have cases where the cultures of nations are tuned just exactly right so that each side, for the best of intentions, does exactly the wrong thing. American and Japanese soldiers fought a particularly brutal and unforgiving war in the Pacific for exactly this reason. The Americans were largely motivated by the Jacksonian attitude described by Mead:

Jacksonian America has clear ideas about how wars should be fought, how enemies should be treated, and what should happen when the wars are over. It recognizes two kinds of enemies and two kinds of fighting: honorable enemies fight a clean fight and are entitled to be opposed in the same way; dishonorable enemies fight dirty wars and in that case all rules are off.

An honorable enemy is one who declares war before beginning combat; fights according to recognized rules of war, honoring such traditions as the flag of truce; treats civilians in occupied territory with due consideration; and—a crucial point—refrains from the mistreatment of prisoners of war. Those who surrender should be treated with generosity. Adversaries who honor the code will benefit from its protections, while those who want a dirty fight will get one.

So the breakdown began with the sneak attack on Pearl Harbor. The bumbling Japanese ambassador in Washington was sent an enciphered message which contained the English text of a message he was to deliver to the US government, and with a clear statement that it absolutely must be delivered before a certain time on a certain date. But he didn't manage to get it typed up on time, and delivered it late.

Which meant that he delivered what amounted to Japan's declaration of war several hours after the attack began. For Jacksonians, that's the worst kind of treachery; it indicates an enemy with no honor.

The individual soldiers fighting against the Japanese also saw what seemed to American eyes to be dishonorable behavior. For instance, Japanese soldiers would pretend to surrender but would conceal weapons (often they held grenades with the pins pulled) and would try to kill the American soldiers who tried to accept their surrender.

Worst of all was the Japanese treatment of allied soldiers who had surrendered to them. The British and Australian troops from Singapore, for example, were sent to work camps where conditions were beastly. A lot of allied troops ended up in Burma working on a railroad through the jungle. This episode is dramatized in the movie "Bridge on the River Kwai" but that account is fictionalized in several ways. But though it may seem as if the conditions suffered by the British troops in that film were terrible, the reality was far worse.

And the Bataan Death March loomed large in the minds of American soldiers. The Battling Bastards of Bataan had fought a hopeless battle against great odds but had lasted for months, even with no hope at all of succor, and eventually did surrender to the Japanese. They were then forced to march a hundred kilometers to a POW camp. Men who fell would be shot or bayoneted; other men who tried to help them risked death themselves. Some of the prisoners were killed just because the Japanese guards felt like killing someone. 70,000 men began the trip, but only 54,000 arrived at the far end.

Through American eyes, this is sheer barbarity. It is the act of people who have no honor. The Jacksonian impulse is to be strong against opposition, but magnanimous to the defeated. To mistreat prisoners in this way is unforgivable, and given the Japanese predilection for Banzai charges at the end rather than surrender, it soon became standard policy to assume that nearly every Japanese soldier on any given island would have to be killed. Few were actually taken prisoner.

But the reality is that the Japanese did have their own honor code. It was very strong. It was not the Bushido, contrary to what some may think, and the history behind how it was developed and how it became a guiding force which could lead to such atrocities as the Bataan Death March and the Rape of Nanking is an interesting and complicated story best explained in the book Soldiers of the Sun.

In brief, when Japan was forcibly opened to the world by the visit of Commodore Perry, this began a process which finally led to the collapse of the Tokugawa Shogunate and the Meiji Restoration. The reformers needed to create an army which did not rely on the Samurai, but which needed to be disciplined and powerful, so they dipped into the Bushido and extracted some but not all of it, and added some new ingredients. The Bushido had only applied to the Saumurai; this new doctrine would apply to everyone in Japan. All would see themselves as serving the Emperor, and their greatest goal in life was to die for him. Duty is a heavy weight, but death is light as a feather. When there was a counterrevolution by some Samurai against the new regime, the new army faced its first test, and passed it by defeating the rebels.

Part of this philosophy was the basic idea of death before dishonor. Surrender became completely unforgivable; a man who faced only surrender or death should choose death. Anyone who surrenders has no honor and is undeserving of any consideration as a warrior, for if he had retained any honor he would have killed himself once things became hopeless rather than permit himself to be captured.

The Meiji Restoration was about 1870. By WWII these ideas had been indoctrinated into the Japanese people for 70 years, and it was this which caused the soldiers of Japan to abuse the Battling Bastards. Once they laid down their arms, in the Japanese mind they ceased to be entitled to any respect at all. They had become sub-human; they had dishonored themselves; killing them was a favor because it meant they no longer had to live with their shame.

Thus each side felt it was honorable and faced a deeply dishonorable enemy. Each side's actions caused ferocious response by the other side. And the war in the Pacific was particularly savage, a clash not only of arms and national cultures, but of men and individual ideas of honor. "The only good Jap is a dead Jap" was an expression of Jacksonian revulsion to what was perceived as Japanese lack of honor. The Japanese seemed to want a dirty fight, and the Americans gave it to them.

Not that I'm suggesting that this could somehow have been straightened out by a good long heart-to-heart discussion between the sides; Pomo I ain't. Once war began, it was inevitable that it would spiral downward into savagery.

With respect to the diplomatic conflict now between France/Germany and the US, are we seeing an equivalent case where the cultural axioms of the nations involved are so deeply in conflict that neither side actually understands how what it is doing is perceived by the other side? And if that's the case, then have the steps which have lead us to the potential destruction of the UN, and NATO, and maybe even the EU been a series of horrendous accidents? That may be part of what's been happening.

This article from the Wapo describes how anti-Americanism is becoming more widespread and pervasive in Europe. Polls have shown that opposition to the US in Germany may approach 90%, and it's nearly as high in France and some other countries on the Continent. In such an environment, it's natural that politicians would want to try to ride that kind of wave to take power, or to hold it.

What is the source of it? Opinions vary, and it may come from many sources. Lee Harris says that a lot of it comes from neo-Marxism. Marx preached (ahem) that there was an inevitable course of economic history, where socialism would inevitably replace capitalism as the masses got tired of being exploited, but in America it hasn't happened, and it keeps not happening, and modern Marxists see the US economy as a repudiation of principles they hold to be absolute. So deep down they are rooting for the US to be hurt because only then can the Marxist Millenium (in a real sense it's a secular version of the Christian Millenium) take place and create the world socialist post-national utopia Marx promised them all would come, someday.

Kagan says that much of it comes from a rising perception by Europeans that they no longer matter. After 600 years of Europe being the center of the world, and Europe's leaders being the movers and shakers, suddenly they've realized that Europe has become a backwater, and they damned well don't like it. The Wapo's article says:

"The Americans are pushing their weight around and doing it with rhetoric that may go down well in some parts of the U.S. but rubs us the wrong way all of the time," said Christoph Bertram, research director of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs. "And the fact we're aware of our continuing dependence on the U.S. doesn't help. It's American power, but also the rhetoric of American power that has exacerbated the sense of weakness, alienation and uneasiness that we see all over Europe."

Fonte says that we're actually seeing the beginnings of a new Cold War, between the basic American ideal of nationalism, populism, capitalism and representative democracy and a newly emerging concept of world governance he refers to as "Transnational Progressivism".

But one thing which is emerging is that Europeans are more cynical about public statements and often don't take them seriously. They posture and lie routinely and don't think that this is particularly noteworthy. And the basic source of confusion may well be that Americans are actually listening to what they say, and actually taking them seriously, and actually assuming that the Europeans are telling the truth.

 

[Annie]

Interesting times:

Thus where the Europeans expect the Americans to largely ignore their criticisms, instead the Americans are reacting to them. Public postures for purposes of pandering to the home folks are actually being listened to in Washington, which is reacting with anger and rising suspicion.

Nor is this necessarily totally wrong. Some of the criticism truly has been nothing more than posturing, but much of it has been sincere in a "ha ha only serious" kind of way. But where this kind of chiding is maybe seen by the Europeans as a subtle way to hint that the Americans should maybe consider modifying their attitudes, the Americans are interpreting it as betrayal, alienation, active opposition. Increasing the severity of the chiding seems to cause no modification of American policy, which is puzzling; can't they see that they're committing a faux pas? We're just trying to cue them in that their fly is open, and instead they're in fighting stance and threatening to rearrange our faces. What is this?

There have been cases where a loving family dog will eventually bite a kid hard enough to hurt him. This was puzzling for a long time, but now it's been analyzed. Adult dogs will put up with a lot from puppies, but if eventually the adult decides the puppy has gone too far, the adult will grab the puppy in its jaws and squeeze, just a little. It's a message; it's doggish for "Knock it off!"

In such a case, a puppy will stop struggling and go limp; that's how it indicates that it's gotten the message. If it doesn't, the dog will bite a bit harder, until the puppy does go limp. After a beat, the dog will release the puppy, who will then go about its business.

When a young child (say, 2 years old) is "playing" with the family dog, the dog will put up with a lot of abuse. But human children that age can be very abusive without realizing what they're doing (we've all seen it) and sometimes the dog decides that enough is enough, and will grab the child's arm with its jaws, and squeeze just a bit.

But a child's reaction to this is to try to pull free, and to the dog that means that the child hasn't gotten the message. And the dog squeezes more, and the child struggles harder, and eventually the dog bites hard enough to break skin. It's just a tragic misunderstanding. (It sometimes costs the dog its life, being euthanized afterwards.)

I think that Europeans don't realize that Americans are a plain speaking people, not given to easy hypocrisy. And in particular, for the Jacksonian core the idea of honor is a strong one. Jacksonians do not abide trash-talk. Mead says:

Jacksonian honor must be acknowledged by the outside world. One is entitled to, and demands, the appropriate respect: recognition of rights and just claims, acknowledgment of one’s personal dignity. Many Americans will still fight, sometimes with weapons, when they feel they have not been treated with the proper respect. But even among the less violent, Americans stand on their dignity and rights.

And so it is that Americans reacted to the initial European chiding not as an opportunity to figure out that there was a disagreement, but as an assault on American honor.

It doesn't help any that Europeans don't really understand the depth of hatred and determination that the September, 2001 attack raised in us, not least of which because from a Jacksonian point of view it was an attack without a declaration of war, targeted at civilians, using just about the most brutal means available. It is just about the epitome of "dirty war", and we won't hold back. This is not something we're going to forget; it isn't something we're just going to let pass. So when we're told that we are overreacting and need to tone it down, our response is "Tell that to the firemen who died in the WTC" (if the response doesn't end up involving a lot of vulgar invective).

But on a more basic level, to a large number of Americans, friends don't talk like that. If someone says horrible things about you, in public, then they're no longer a friend, especially if they do so in a crisis. In a period in which we fully expected our friends to rally to us and support us, what we are seeing instead is what looks like active opposition. Europeans may think this is nearly meaningless banter. Americans see it as deep betrayal. Which is why this comment from the Wapo article is so disturbing:

This suggests to some that the ties that bind are still much stronger than the sources of division. "There are issues where we disagree, and Iraq is certainly one," says Buetikofer, the spokesman for the Greens. "But Americans should not misunderstand the criticism when they hear it. People may criticize, they may even use words that can sound offensive, but it does not mean they want to break the friendship with the United States."

That's the problem; to Americans, someone who talks like that is indicating that they are no longer friendly, because friends are respectful. Sure, we kid each other mercilessly, but that's not the same. We don't kid a man whose wife just died in a car accident, or whose child was just murdered. We don't try to tell him how he was partly responsible. We rally to his side, and support him. From an American point of view, that is how friends behave. Nothing else is acceptable.

In a crisis, a friend says, "Well, you've got quite a situation here. What can I do to help?" And then he rolls up his sleeves. But he doesn't get down on his knees. He doesn't surrender his honor by helping; he fulfills his honor by helping. We don't expect the Europeans to become American toadies, but we damned well did expect them to join with us.

I keep getting letters from Europeans who tell me that they think that the government of France expects to be able to change sides at the last instant, and that the French expect to be welcomed by us when it happens. The idea is that they're moving the De Gaulle to the Gulf region because at the last instant they're going to offer to help us in the war, and we'll be glad to have them and incorporate the De Gaulle into our fleets and start giving them missions to fly. They may even offer troops and we'll accept the offer. That's apparently what they think. I'm afraid they're in for a rude surprise.

Apparently this is actually serious. They really think this is how we'd react if they somehow change their position at the last instant. If so, they have deeply misunderstood the American character. There's no way that will happen. The damage is now too deep.

And in fact, it may well be that the reason this situation spiraled out of control, and that the reason that NATO is now imperiled, and the UN probably rendered useless, and America actively hostile, and even the EU process itself in deep trouble, is a matter of signals and reactions being misunderstood by everyone, leading to a spiraling catastrophe like the loving family dog which bites its favorite kid.

I don't know that it really explains everything. Perhaps, according to this idea, by the time it reached the point that real damage was being done it was too late to back out. Any politician who began to work on damage control would have been committing electoral suicide, so they continued to muddle on in hopes of something correcting the situation, as it became worse and worse and worse.

I think that this is probably some of what has happened. I don't find the idea completely convincing in terms of being the total explanation. I really do think that France and Germany have something to hide. But it's important at all time to keep in mind the basic principle that we should never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity. It may well be that much of the crisis we face is simply due to collective stupidity and lack of knowledge.

Nor should anyone take comfort in the idea that "it's all just a big misunderstanding". The last nation with which we had a misunderstanding this deep was Imperial Japan.

Update: In The Guardian, as part of an argument that the inspections should be given more time to work, Mark Tran says:

Now, the Bush administration must be wondering if it can even carry a second UN resolution to confer legitimacy on its campaign.

In the worst case scenario, France would dare to exercise its veto and present the US with the awful predicament of having to override the nearest thing there is to a world cabinet.

"Legitimacy"? "Awful predicament"? Apparently the UN and its power to bless looms very large to Tran. He completely miscalculates the Bush administration's attitude towards the UN; kissing it off is far from an "awful predicament". There could have been problems associated with it, but those have all been solved now that we're sure that Turkey and Kuwait and Qatar are going to be on board with or without a further UNSC resolution.

This is another example of the kind of fundamental difference in attitudes we're looking at. To Tran and those who agree with him, the UN is actually the beginning of a world government. To us, it's a talking society which has mostly outlived its usefulness.

Update: IndustrialBlog comments.

Update: Methuselah's Daughter comments.
Sambal comments.
Christian sends this link to an editorial from the UK which clearly proves that the writer doesn't have the slightest idea what the attack of September, 2001, really meant to us.

Update 20030212: I'm trying. I really am. I want to give the Germans and French the benefit of the doubt, and to assume that they are stupid rather than devious. But I can't believe that the situation would have reached the point it has if all that was going on was miscommunication. Probably some of what has happened is due to the effect described above, but I really do think there's something else, something much less palatable.

The governments of France and Germany must know that Americans are starting to wonder whether they're trying to prevent revelation of collaboration. They have to know that because it was on the WSJ's web site on Monday. Why aren't they saying anything about this? If they really were innocent you'd think they'd have issued denials and demanded retractions and apologies.

Hell, Schröder's done that simply because someone claimed he was dying his hair to cover up the gray. For that he gets huffy, but publicly-expresses suspicions that the Germans have engaged in wholesale treachery is ignored?

Update: Steve Green comments.

 

[CSM]

WOW! Really awesome stuff! I have to admit that Harma's post has ultimately fostered something worthwhile. This is probably the most important stuff I have read since being on this board (my opinion only folks.)

 

[CSM]

To CSM:
....

I believe however, that by agressively invading Iraq, which has been proclaimed illegal under international law, the USA has shown the world the finger one too many times.

The USA has previously denied the credibility of the International Court in The Hague.

The USA has vetoed roughly 35 United Nations resolutions regarding the illegality of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.

The USA has refused to sign the Kyoto treaties which were designed to try and collectively bring pollution down to more acceptable levels and so on. Obivously, the USA is not the only nation with veto power to shred some descent UN resolutions. But it has been using it’s veto more and more.

This means the USA has been sending signals to the rest of the world, indeed before G. W. Bush came into office, that America intends to stand alone in the world and it does not wish to cooperate – this is seen by many as a statement of superiority. Thus, the USA itself is trumpeting the image that it is somehow “better”.

We both agree this is unacceptable.

....

This may be the instance where we disagree most. I do not view the invasion of Iraq as illegal (I would appreciate a link to the proclamation that it was illegal under international law, if you have it). This point has been argued many times by myself and others.

I also believe that the US should NOT recognize the International Court.

I recognize Israel's right to exist; believe that Israel has a right to defend itself and that many many countries (including a few European nations) would like to see the Israelis wiped out and replaced with Palestinians.

The Kyoto treaty is (in my opinion) blatantly unfair to the US and should not be signed by our government. I almost believe that the Kyoto Treaty was designed to punish the US for being econmically powerful.

The several articles posted above certainly have given me some insight into why Europeans think the way they do. I hope you read them and maybe get some insight into why some Americans think the way we do.

 

[Harmageddon]

CSM, I'll read all of it and I can assure you of a reply.

Thanks to theButlerDidIt and Kathianne for posting these articles.

Although I probably do not agree with everything, I've partly read Kagan's piece and he makes several interesting assumptions. For now, I've got much to do for my studies, which have been getting not near enough attention as of late. Therefore my reply may take several days.

Enjoy the holiday

 

[padisha emperor]

What are the Dutch known for, carving shoes out of wood, ancient windmills, One decent painter(Rembrandt) that would have rathered live in America if given the chance, liberal prostitution laws, liberal drug laws, murder, and an economy the size of Rhode Island. . . . wow, get me a ticket as long as it's not on an Airbus.
Actually it is quite obvious, to Americans that travel a lot, why the rest of the world dislikes us but dream of coming here. While you have a lot of really old buildings and sit back and coast on what your ancestors accomplished, you produce very little compared to the young European established country of America.
It takes multiple European countries to copy badly(Airbus) what one American company has been doing for many years(Boeing). Europe's space agency has contributed very little to the International Space Station and what it has brought doesn't work worth a crap.
What relief has "the world" contributed to the victims of poor planning in New Orleans? I remember reading that France was sending some moth eaten cots, and Britain was sending meals that weren't edible. What did the Dutch contribute, warm air? New Orleans is and has been a disaster waiting to happen, it was Euros that settled it and decided that building below sea level was a good idea, I believe you may know more about that since flooding is a major concern in Nederland. The Hurricane wasn't the problem for New Orleans, graft, corruption, greed was and still is the problem with New Orleans. Hurricanes happen every year, not a lot that can be done about them. If the same storm would have hit in Europe I would imagine there would have been deaths in the 10s of thousands. After all, Europe lost over 20,000 a few summers ago because the temperature reached 90 degrees. . . . it will be 98 here today, as it has been all summer. . . 0 lives will be lost.
I would love to continue but I need to go, I'm photographing 2 golf courses today and will probably play 9 holes in between. Later twat.

About Airbus/Boeing : pitiful, you seem to be jealous. Because Airbus is not a bad copy of Boeing, it's BETTER than Boeing. Airbus sales for planes than Boeing. Boeing is trying to not be dropped, but Airbus, younger than its opponent, is taking the bigger part of the cake.

About N-O and Europe's help : the next time, we'll follow you mind and don't send anything.

Only for France : Marine Nationale's ships ; doctors, engineers, military from the Troupes de Marine's forces, plus other things.... France is realy attached to New Orleans.

And at the beginning, Bush refused the offer of France for the Help to N-O....so....

And add to this the help from the others european countries....
You're wrong.


About Netherlands : it's not becasue you don't know them and don't like this country that you have to be so unpleasant.
Economy : of course Netherlands has not the biggest economy of the world, but it is not a piece of shit as you mean, Netherlands were foundator of EU with Belgium, Luxembourg, Italy Germany and France.
Society : very advanced society, with pleasant peoples, very nice and gentle, with no conservative attitudes, then, an advanced society.
Arts : you only know Rembrandt ? And Vermeer, Van Goyen, Van Gogh,, JongKind, Van de Velde.......The dutch and flemish painters were at the XVIIth considered as the best of Europe, and bring revolution in painting with their light effects.
Amsterdam is a really ice city, you'll see some marvels here.
Politic : a small republic in the middle of an Europe with powerful monarchies - France, Spain, England - , and it survived all the same.
De Ruyters, the damour amiral....Netherlands had a colonial Empire, an excellent navy in the XVII-XVIIIth century, maybe best than the english one, and an awesome trade.

Don't judge a country with its sieze, it's the most stupid thing you can do.
the bigger doesn't always win.

And this is one of the things we, Europeans, reproach to some of Americans : arrogance, because the USA are the mightiest. No respect to other countries.
You prooved it just here.

 

[padisha emperor]

War in Irak 2003 : CSM, you can say everything you want, this american intervention was totally illegal.

There are rules, and international laws. USA didn't respect them.

USA signed the UNO Charta. This is a part of the international laws. And USA didn't respect it.

Maybe you make a confusion between legality and legitimity. For you this was a legitim intervention, wasn't it ? This point is discutable, but here, i only put your point of view.
But on the law point of vew, about the legality, it was against the rules. It was totally illegal.

UNO Charta : article 2-6 : even the non-member States can't use the war, the threat, or even the force.
And the article 2-4 : war, threat and forces are forbidden.

Ans there are other sources of laws.

And USA didn't sign the Ottawa convention, 1997, about the antipersonnal mines. Why ?

 

[sitarro]

About Airbus/Boeing : pitiful, you seem to be jealous. Because Airbus is not a bad copy of Boeing, it's BETTER than Boeing. Airbus sales for planes than Boeing. Boeing is trying to not be dropped, but Airbus, younger than its opponent, is taking the bigger part of the cake.

Well Padish, I come from a family of pilots. . . My Father was a pilot for 50 years, My 3 brothers are all Captains with a major airline, all love the Boeing aircraft that they fly. None would want to fly the an Airbus, one flew an A300 when he first started with the airline and has described it as low tech shit, cheap and poorly constructed. They are expert pilots not me, I just have my private pilot license. I have seen Airbuses fly into the wood and crash at the Paris Airshow, and I see that at least 8 that we know of have had severe nose wheel problems. The one that crashed in New York shortly after September 11,2001 had the rudder pulled off the aircraft by the pilot and copilot stepping on the rudder pedal at the same time, great design! The fact that France is paying airlines to fly their Airbuses might have something to do with their popularity, ya think? How about that incredibly assinine design, the A380, how insane to build an aircraft that will hold 800 people? That won't be a target for every towel wearing asswipe on the planet will it? How many hours will it take to board and deplane that monstrosety, how many airports will be able to handle that thing on it's taxi ways and concourses? It makes as much sense as the ill fated Concord.

About N-O and Europe's help : the next time, we'll follow you mind and don't send anything.

I have an idea for you, why doesn't France buy Louisiana back from us? It needs a little fixing up so I am sure you can get a good deal.

And this is one of the things we, Europeans, reproach to some of Americans : arrogance, because the USA are the mightiest. No respect to other countries.
You prooved it just here.

I can understand that because all of you Euros are the epitome of humble and never show any arrogance whatsoever. I stand corrected, please accept my most humble apologies.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I think We all agree there needs to some sort of global security force. The U.S. is it. The U.N. fails repeatedly. It's too corrupt. Until then, someone needs to do what has to be done. The real truth is many europeans WANT theocratic regimes to get nukes. Their senseless hatred of America runs so deep they will sleep with any enemy, self preservation be damned.

 

[Nuc]

The real truth is many europeans WANT theocratic regimes to get nukes.

And then there are those Americans who want our nuclear power to become a theocracy.