Conflicted Europe

[rumbleph1$h]

Conflicted Europe

To build confidence Europe needs to stand alone.

by Victor Davis Hanson

Tribune Media Services

October 3, 2005

After the 2000 elections, George W. Bush became president without a majority vote. Many Europeans snickered at the sorry spectacle of the world?s oldest continuous democracy devolving into Third-World election chaos. Few critics cared to hear about the nature of America?s two-century-old Electoral College.

But the same sort of electoral paralysis now holds Germany. Even though Angela Merkel?s Christian Democratic Union won a close popular vote over Gerhard Schroder?s Social Democratic Party Sept. 18, no one knows who will be the new chancellor.

Most Americans admire Europe?s cultivated lifestyle, public transportation and sophisticated take on world affairs. But they are puzzled as to why Europeans ? well before the election of Bush ? seemed to have defined themselves as the anti-United States.

Is it because they don?t need us anymore to keep Soviets from their borders? Have they forgotten American sacrifices in two European world wars?

Or is it that the European Union is doing no better than the United States and often a lot worse? That frustration might explain why Europe?s proud, cultured citizens seem so unhappy with ? or envious of ? us yokels.

The European social net was supposedly proof of European compassion in contrast to our cutthroat winner-take-all culture. But in Germany and France, there is essentially no economic growth, and unemployment has hovered around 10 percent. That doesn?t seem very humane.

Before World War II, the weak coalition governments of Germany?s Weimar Republic finally collapsed when 6 million Germans were out of work. Beware: At one point this year, unemployment in Germany reached the 5 million mark. And once again Germans eerily assign blame to someone else. This time the scapegoats are often American venture capitalists, George Bush or the bogeymen neo-conservatives.

After 9/11, many refined European civil libertarians winced at our Patriot Act. The United States ? true to its ?hang ?em high? heritage ? was descending into Texas-style justice, or so they believed. But after the Madrid and London bombings, and the spread of Islamic radicalism in general, proposed new European legislation goes far beyond the Patriot Act. Even naturalized European citizens could soon be summarily deported under mere suspicion of pro-terrorist speaking and writing.

Then there are the results of European insistence on multilateral solutions to international conflicts. Many Americans thought their approach was either a clever way of tying up the United States or an impractical way to confront bullies.

No matter. The U.S. assented and turned over the Iranian nuclear crisis to the Europeans. But so far that nuclear program is full-speed ahead in Tehran. Russia, India and China are Iran?s new apologists. France and Germany seem humiliated, as Iranian theocrats usually ignore their empty requests even for weak United Nations auditing.

More recently, Hurricane Katrina was often offered as proof of American environmental, class and racial chaos. Yet by any fair token, we are recovering pretty well. A mammoth hurricane overwhelmed a city below sea level, on a stormy coast, positioned on a huge river delta and beneath a vast lake. Yet in an August 2003 heat wave, 15,000 French citizens ? far more than were lost in New Orleans ? died, while a distracted nation hit the beaches for their promised state-subsidized vacations.

Military matters especially seem to bring out our differences. In Iraq, Americans are caricatured by Europeans as Neanderthals bashing heads in the Sunni Triangle while the refined British patrol without helmets or sunglasses in the calmer Shiite south. Yet Basra is becoming lawless due to the British?s laxity. Lately, an exasperated British military resorted to crashing a tank into an Iraqi detention center to try to rescue its own kidnapped soldiers.

In Afghanistan, NATO was asked to help out in the supposedly ?good war? to remove the Taliban and ensure democracy. But so far the levels of European troops there are disappointing. And most are prevented by their governments from even engaging terrorists outside of Kabul.

There are four general lessons here:

First, when Europe is occasionally forced to confront the same human and natural challenges that the United States regularly does, it fares no better and often far worse.

Second, European Big Government can be just as callous as American private enterprise and is often less efficient.

Third, Europeans? anger at the United States reveals their own uncertainty about failing policies that have somehow produced too few jobs. More optimistic countries like India, China, Australia, Japan and many in Eastern Europe look to the future, not the past ? and don?t seem to scapegoat the United States for their own self-induced problems.

Fourth, to maintain our historical friendship ? and we must ? it is time to politely let Europeans regain their confidence by standing on their own. Let?s start by pulling our remaining troops out. A continent larger and more populous than our own after 60 years can tend to its own defense needs or lack there of ? as we Americans move on.

[Fred Derf Veteran]

Now that is a better article than the others of his. Of course he forgets that Europe was not anti-United States when Clinton was in power. The values of the Bush Administration are just out of step with just about everywhere else in the world except for places like Russia (somewhat ironically).

[raid517]

Man what is with all this anti-European BS recently? Do you guys ever take your noses out of the tabloids?

Sigh... It seems someone else got one of these stupid spam emails that have been going around recently and decided somewhere in the midst of their warped minds that it made sense to them.

But just to cover a couple of the main points, FYI Germany traditionally 'suffers' from hung parliaments - that is Parliaments where there is no clear winner, due to the fact that their voting system is different. They use PR rather than the 'first past the post/electoral college' system used in America. It is however no bad thing, as it is deliberately designed to be that way, as 'no clear winner' means that everyone is often forced to share power equally among all the various political parties. This means that everyone (even often very small parties) gets a say, with no one section of society wielding enough power to impose their views on any other section of society.

And Europe does not in any way define itself as Anti United States. I personally am a big fan of a lot of figures throughout American history - and Americans have contributed a lot over the years towards the fields of science and technology. Many of us do though define ourselves as distinctly 'anti-American Republican Christian right' - and the sooner that you guys can realise that these are by no means the same thing, the better off I think everyone will be.

Bush cut himself (and America) off from their friends in Europe in the run up to the Iraq war, by more or less declaring that the old partnership that had existed for the last 50+ year period throughout the entire duration of the cold war, was over and that America was now 'boss' and that it (and he) reserved the right to act alone without feeling any need to take into account the views and concerns of the international community. So if you declare to the world that you are prepared to act alone no matter what else anyone in the world might think, don't be surprised when the world pretty much just tells you to do exactly that, to just go off and act alone. After all why should you expect any help if nothing that anyone else does is likely to have an impact on any of the decisions that you make? If you want to act alone, then feel damned free. You can't have it both ways, you can't act alone AND expect help. That is just a plumb nonsensical way to do business.

It is worth I think remembering too that one of the major concerns voiced by many European countries at that time was that there was no WMDs in Iraq and that Iraq posed no significant threat to American security. Bush it seems believed differently. And, surprise surprise, guess who turned out to be right and who turned out to be wrong?

As for the economic situation in Germany, Germany is still the third richest economy on Earth. Their problems stem directly from the unification of East and West Germany in 1990 - where they basically had to take on board and pay for what was at that time a whole other country - which for the last 50+ years had utterly stagnated under Russian/communist rule. The underlying German economy remains strong however - while it is still predominately the old East Germany that continues to suffer most. There is an estimate that it may take as much as 25 years before the project of German reunification is fully completed and that it could be another generation or more before Germany as a single unified country fully recovers. Indeed it could be argued that the second world war only really ended for Germany on October 3, 1990.

As for the Iranian situation, I don't see America doing anything very much different. I mean what exactly is the plan? To start another war? To invade them like you did with Iraq? And just how popular I wonder do you think that will be?

At least most Iraqis were initially indifferent to the American invasion and were probably just glad to see the back of Saddam - but if you think there is resentment to the American presence in Iraq now, you have no conception concerning the extent that you would be despised if you tried to do a similar a similar thing in Iran. Unlike Iraq most Iranians (like many people in the Mid East) have very little love for America at all. Your interference would almost certainly not be welcomed. So really there isn't much option right now but to negotiate. Oh and BTW the negotiations may have been organised by the Europeans, but there are still plenty of US government officials taking part too - who are all probably just as desperate to strike a deal as is anyone else.

Military matters especially seem to bring out our differences. In Iraq, Americans are caricatured by Europeans as Neanderthals bashing heads in the Sunni Triangle while the refined British patrol without helmets or sunglasses in the calmer Shiite south. Yet Basra is becoming lawless due to the British?s laxity. Lately, an exasperated British military resorted to crashing a tank into an Iraqi detention centre to try to rescue its own kidnapped soldiers.

Now that I do take exception to. You are even prepared to attack the few friends in Europe that you really do have? And for what? Just so you can score some points and display your hatred anything and anyone who isn't American? That was a story about about SAS reconnaissance team in in Basra. They got caught up in a demonstration and were handed to the local police - who then handed them (or sold them) to the local militia. A lot of the problems with the police in Basra (and elsewhere) comes from the official American policy of giving the old corrupt police force that were employed by Saddam Husein their jobs back. It might seem like a good short term solution, until you realise that most of these guys are Sunnis who on the whole utterly despise the predominantly Shia population that they are employed to police. The result is that these guys are just as corrupt as ever and prefer to take their orders from insurgents such as Mohamed Al-Sadr, rather from the government in Iraq - or indeed from the Americans. In any case the one bonus out of all of this is that all of the police who grabbed the SAS soldiers and all of the Insurgents who later held them and now all very, very dead, so at least we didn't wait to get a ransom, or for images of our soldiers being beheaded to appear on the internet before we went in and got them.

I could go on, but this is really just a bunch of pointless bigoted drivel - so there really probably isn't very much point.

But if you guys ever do want to pull your military out of our countries, then feel free. You are a lot less wanted there than you think. I mean I am sure that a lot of countries in Europe are grateful for the American contribution during WWII - but for crap's sake that was over 60 years ago now. Why are you still there? That is the problem with the American military, once they go somewhere it all initially seems great and people are grateful and they wave their little flags and are happy and so on - but then the Americans simply point blank refuse to ever leave. I don't think there is really any place the American military has gone and then voluntarily left. Indeed there are American military bases in virtually ever corner of the globe - so much so indeed that when you look at a map of them, it is very difficult to tell it apart from any map of the Roman empire. Even in my own country which is the UK, there are still something like 25 very large American military bases alone. But why are they here, I mean who on earth is going to invade the UK in 2005? So if you want to leave, then leave - although unless you are ever somehow made to leave, I doubt you ever will.

GJ

[Starcom826]

Man what is with all this anti-European BS recently? Do you guys ever take your noses out of the tabloids?

Sigh... It seems someone else got one of these stupid spam emails that have been going around recently and decided somewhere in the midst of their warped minds that it made sense to them.

Do I see a trend here? A yes, when someone posts something that you don't like, you write it off as a tabloid in order to discredit it. I don't know anything about this source so I won't comment on it, but what is the only thing that you trust? Stuff that spews exactly what you believe, or your government funded BBC?

And Europe does not in any way define itself as Anti United States. I personally am a big fan of a lot of figures throughout American history - and Americans have contributed a lot over the years towards the fields of science and technology. Many of us do though define ourselves as distinctly 'anti-American Republican Christian right' - and the sooner that you guys can realise that these are by no means the same thing, the better off I think everyone will be.

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, sounds like a duck, but doesn't call itself a duck... Not to say that it really is because when I went there, I didn't experience much anti-Americanism, but you can't blame people for considering Europe anti-American when its governments try to stifle American actions at every turn and its own people talk about how they are educated into believing that everything America gets is deserved.

Bush cut himself (and America) off from their friends in Europe in the run up to the Iraq war, by more or less declaring that the old partnership that had existed for the last 50+ year period throughout the entire duration of the cold war, was over and that America was now 'boss' and that it (and he) reserved the right to act alone without feeling any need to take into account the views and concerns of the international community. So if you declare to the world that you are prepared to act alone no matter what else anyone in the world might think, don't be surprised when the world pretty much just tells you to do exactly that, to just go off and act alone. After all why should you expect any help if nothing that anyone else does is likely to have an impact on any of the decisions that you make? If you want to act alone, then feel damned free. You can't have it both ways, you can't act alone AND expect help. That is just a plumb nonsensical way to do business.

Now this is just the way of thinking that others seem to suffer from. The idea that Bush cut America from its "friends." Bush tried to get support, he tried to get a U.N. resolution too, it just doesn't work when France says "we'll veto it no matter what you say in it." Now if he ASKS for help but says he will go it alone if he has to, and you REFUSE the help. That doesn't mean he cut himself from our "friends". That just means he appealed to our "friends" and they refused to help him, so he decided to go it alone. It's a real spin to say, "well we didn't want to help him, but we'll tell our people that he is actually the one who didn't want our help." It's just plain wrong. And then there's that spin into "America is acting like the boss." I'm sorry, we didn't tell anyone what to do, because if we could do that, they would be here wouldn't they. Asking != bossing people into. You can take into account the others' considerations and still arrive at a conclusion that does not coincide with their opinion. This has just been a remarkable media/propaganda campaign to demonize Bush and the United States. Yes he did go it alone. Yes he did invade Iraq. No he did not boss people into invading Iraq (then we wouldn't be worrying about getting other nations into Iraq). No he did not cut himself off from Europe.

It is worth I think remembering too that one of the major concerns voiced by many European countries at that time was that there was no WMDs in Iraq and that Iraq posed no significant threat to American security. Bush it seems believed differently. And, surprise surprise, guess who turned out to be right and who turned out to be wrong?

That's not quite true either. That's the "hindsight is 20/20" view. This is Bush's speech to the UN presenting the issues he had with Iraq. http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...20020912-1.html There is essentially an entire list of grievances he has against Iraq. Not just WMDs in Iraq and "threat to American security." It is again media spin that has tried to paint those as the exclusive reasons he used to go to war. Besides, European reluctance to invade, or at least what your leaders told us, wasn't really based on that. They at the time urged more time to work it out, and the need of UN approval, which France steadfastly refused to grant.

As for the Iranian situation, I don't see America doing anything very much different. I mean what exactly is the plan? To start another war? To invade them like you did with Iraq? And just how popular I wonder do you think that will be?

At least most Iraqis were initially indifferent to the American invasion and were probably just glad to see the back of Saddam - but if you think there is resentment to the American presence in Iraq now, you have no conception concerning the extent that you would be despised if you tried to do a similar a similar thing in Iran. Unlike Iraq most Iranians (like many people in the Mid East) have very little love for America at all. Your interference would almost certainly not be welcomed. So really there isn't much option right now but to negotiate. Oh and BTW the negotiations may have been organised by the Europeans, but there are still plenty of US government officials taking part too - who are all probably just as desperate to strike a deal as is anyone else.

What is America doing differently? For one, it can't afford to start another war, and its trying to get Iran to relinquish its nuclear program along with Birtain, Germany, and France. And so far, even if you don't like it, its not working. If they don't listen, what are you going to do about it? You seem to think that is a real chance that Bush will invade Iran, and if you think so, you are WOEFULLY mistaken.

But if you guys ever do want to pull your military out of our countries, then feel free. You are a lot less wanted there than you think. I mean I am sure that a lot of countries in Europe are grateful for the American contribution during WWII - but for crap's sake that was over 60 years ago now. Why are you still there? That is the problem with the American military, once they go somewhere it all initially seems great and people are grateful and they wave their little flags and are happy and so on - but then the Americans simply point blank refuse to ever leave. I don't think there is really any place the American military has gone and then voluntarily left. Indeed there are American military bases in virtually ever corner of the globe - so much so indeed that when you look at a map of them, it is very difficult to tell it apart from any map of the Roman empire. Even in my own country which is the UK, there are still something like 25 very large American military bases alone. But why are they here, I mean who on earth is going to invade the UK in 2005? So if you want to leave, then leave - although unless you are ever somehow made to leave, I doubt you ever will.

GJ

Now this is what really gets me. "but for crap's sake that was over 60 years ago." So is a lot of other crap that the U.S. gets faulted for, such as Hiroshima, Israel, etc. etc. Time and history are not exclusive. And guess what, those countries that we have occupied, we have voluntarily left. Germany, South Korea, and Japan are like that, with the exception of those military bases you mention which your governments have agreements with us to allow and still want to preserve everyday. If they actually didn't want them there and raised the issue, we would have no reason to stay. Why? It serves us no purpose. It just syphons even more money overseas with absoultely no return. It could theoretically entangle us in foreign wars.

[raid517]

Do I see a trend here? A yes, when someone posts something that you don't like, you write it off as a tabloid in order to discredit it. I don't know anything about this source so I won't comment on it, but what is the only thing that you trust? Stuff that spews exactly what you believe, or your government funded BBC?

I quite like the BBC to be honest, although I read several newspapers such as the Guardian, the Independent and the Observer maybe every other day on my way to work. I also have satellite TV which gives me access to almost every major news channel in the world, and I watch them all regularly, so I am more than capable of forming my own opinions thank you very much.

And the BBC isn't government funded - it is though public funded, which is a very different thing. It has an independent charter and an independent board of governors (a bit like the board of directors of any big company) who are legally mandated to be independent of government and who are required by law to always present the fairest and most balance perspective in the news and world events possible. How many other news organisations in the world do you know of where the board of directors could be sacked, or even possibly put in prison for favouring a particular government or for not telling the truth? The BBC have a unique status in the world of news reporting, and whether you agree with what they have to say or not, they are still the most widely and most regularly accessed news service on the planet.

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, sounds like a duck, but doesn't call itself a duck... Not to say that it really is because when I went there, I didn't experience much anti-Americanism,

Lol you see what happens when you travel? You see what happens when you actually meet people from other countries. We are hardly the backwards ogres that you make us out to be. Just because we may not like this particular regime that you have currently elected to run your country does not mean by definition that we hate America, or that we hate all Americans. Heck I've even met some moderate republicans that I quite like (although I have still been tempted at times to slap them about the head a bit when they started to talk about politics)

but you can't blame people for considering Europe anti-American when its governments try to stifle American actions at every turn and its own people talk about how they are educated into believing that everything America gets is deserved.

I think you are mistaking Europe with the middle East. In case you are unaware though, I think you should know Tehran and Riyadh really aren't cities located South Western France (or even in Germany) they are in fact located in a completely different region that is not even a little bit close to Europe. So almost all of the so called anti American rhetoric that is supposed to come out of Europe, in actual fact really most often comes out of America itself - particularly in the context where Americans use it to bash other countries - or indeed as an overall put down for anyone who happens to have the misfortune (in your minds) of not being 100% American.

Now this is just the way of thinking that others seem to suffer from. The idea that Bush cut America from its "friends." Bush tried to get support, he tried to get a U.N. resolution too, it just doesn't work when France says "we'll veto it no matter what you say in it." Now if he ASKS for help but says he will go it alone if he has to, and you REFUSE the help. That doesn't mean he cut himself from our "friends". That just means he appealed to our "friends" and they refused to help him, so he decided to go it alone. It's a real spin to say, "well we didn't want to help him, but we'll tell our people that he is actually the one who didn't want our help." It's just plain wrong. And then there's that spin into "America is acting like the boss." I'm sorry, we didn't tell anyone what to do, because if we could do that, they would be here wouldn't they. Asking != bossing people into. You can take into account the others' considerations and still arrive at a conclusion that does not coincide with their opinion. This has just been a remarkable media/propaganda campaign to demonise Bush and the United States. Yes he did go it alone. Yes he did invade Iraq. No he did not boss people into invading Iraq (then we wouldn't be worrying about getting other nations into Iraq). No he did not cut himself off from Europe.

Well you have your spin and I'll have mine. Essentially though it was never a mystery to anyone in Europe (or the rest of the world) what Bush intended to do. Long before the process even got near the UN it was obvious to everyone that Bush was really spoiling for a war in Iraq. I mean no one that I know of was sitting around thinking, 'Erm I wonder what George Bush really wants to do in Iraq?' And even when he did go to the UN it wasn't exactly a suspense thriller either, no one was hanging on with baited breath on the edge of their seats wondering what Mr Bush was going to do next. Everybody knew from the outset what Bush intended to do - and indeed at one point he was even quite happy to not even bother going back to the UN and to bypass it completely and it was only due to Tony Blair that he paid any attention to the UN at all. Even then everybody had the impression from the very beginning (I mean we all remember the rhetoric about how useless the UN was, how it should be consigned to history, how the US 'shouldn't need to ask permission in order to defend itself' (as though anyone seriously believed even then that there was anything America really needed to defend itself from in Iraq), how if we weren't for you were were against you (which incidentally did seem like bullying, because it felt like Bush was trying to twist everyone's arms) and how there was a distinct whiff that those countries that didn't help might be made to pay economically at a later date.

I can't be assed digging out all of the quotes and examples of this at that time - as it is already a subject that has been flogged to death and which is now pretty much a dead issue, but if you are really determined to pick it up again, I guess I could point you to some links of my old threads at that time which include all of the references and sources you could ever possibly hope for.

As for the war 'not being about WMDs' that is just a bunch of revisionist nonsense. I live on the same planet as you and I watch the news and read the same newspapers too (well given recent evidence perhaps that isn't strictly true) and for the several months preceding the war, every news paper story I read about and every news report I watched on every single news channel, always at some point (and often several times over) mentioned WMDs. At no point was freedom or democracy for the Iraqis ever put at the front of that. Indeed if it had been, I think it is highly likely that Bush would have got a lot more support than he did. But is was the WMDs thing that really screwed it up for Bush, because he pushed it so hard and a lot of people had a very hard time believing it. - and as a result his credibility on the world stage (especially when nothing was found) did suffer.

What is America doing differently? For one, it can't afford to start another war, and its trying to get Iran to relinquish its nuclear program along with Britain, Germany, and France. And so far, even if you don't like it, its not working. If they don't listen, what are you going to do about it? You seem to think that is a real chance that Bush will invade Iran, and if you think so, you are WOEFULLY mistaken.

Well the first part of that statement is positive I think - but that is only because America has leaned a hard lesson, in that it can't just be gung ho and storm into wars without thinking them through. Unless the population really is only your side, history shows that it is almost impossible to maintain an occupation or to suppress an insurgency indefinitely. There comes a point (and one that has already been reached in my view) where the cost simply outweighs the benefit. I don't think America could invade Iran - as this would almost undoubtedly bring the whole Mid East down on their heads, so they would have to be pretty crazy to contemplate it. But I don't like what Iran is doing any more than anyone else, although given that a war is impractical I don't quite know what to do about it. I guess if the worst came to the worst and they wouldn't give it up or negotiate, then we could always just go back to doing what we used to do in the 1990's which is just bomb it.

And guess what, those countries that we have occupied, we have voluntarily left. Germany, South Korea, and Japan are like that, with the exception of those military bases you mention which your governments have agreements with us to allow and still want to preserve everyday. If they actually didn't want them there and raised the issue, we would have no reason to stay. Why? It serves us no purpose. It just syphons even more money overseas with absolutely no return. It could theoretically entangle us in foreign wars.

Well as I said, leave. Feel free to go any time. The fact is though that America has never left any country that it's military force's have 'visited.' There are more American forces in the UK even now that there was even during the hottest periods of the cold war. far from leaving anywhere, America is actually expanding and increasing the number of her bases. Take a look here for some interesting details.

As I said, in 2005 the UK is perfectly capable of looking after itself so what is the point of having all of these bases here (and elsewhere) unless it is intended to be some kind of defacto and permanent occupation? You keep saying the Europeans are ungrateful. But ungrateful for what exactly. Do we need to be grateful forever and allow you to occupy our countries permanently?

GJ

[Vykranth]

To be honest, I think this article is poorly written and is missing several sides in its arguments

Now debunk time ...

by Victor Davis Hanson

Tribune Media Services

October 3, 2005

After the 2000 elections, George W. Bush became president without a majority vote. Many Europeans snickered at the sorry spectacle of the world?s oldest continuous democracy devolving into Third-World election chaos. Few critics cared to hear about the nature of America?s two-century-old Electoral College.

But the same sort of electoral paralysis now holds Germany. Even though Angela Merkel?s Christian Democratic Union won a close popular vote over Gerhard Schroder?s Social Democratic Party Sept. 18, no one knows who will be the new chancellor.

Not exactly, Germany is currently paralyzed because no political alliances can be found to have a majority in the parlament. In 2000, many Europeans snickered at the media-judicial circus with the recounts going on Florida

The parlament election in Germany did not end in a recount frenzy with suspicions of fraud or plain wackyness.

In 2000, Europeans were explained that famous Electoral system where citizens votes for a college of great electors in a state in one turn and the full college vote for one of the candidates who got the majority. Which means that there are important states to win (California, Florida, Texas) and less important states

If someone can explain the advantages of this system over the two-turn direct vote used in France, I'll be really happy. First turn of elections with several candidates, second turn with the two who arrived with the biggest scores.

1. Most Americans admire Europe?s cultivated lifestyle, public transportation and sophisticated take on world affairs. But they are puzzled as to why Europeans ? well before the election of Bush ? seemed to have defined themselves as the anti-United States.

Is it because they don?t need us anymore to keep Soviets from their borders?

2. Have they forgotten American sacrifices in two European world wars?

1. Is it because the US does not need Europe as a battlefield for the cold war versus the Soviets now that the cold war is over?

2. No, we have not. Contrary to what the US propaganda we had in 2003 may let you believe.

Or is it that the European Union is doing no better than the United States and often a lot worse? That frustration might explain why Europe?s proud, cultured citizens seem so unhappy with ? or envious of ? us yokels.

The European social net was supposedly proof of European compassion in contrast to our cutthroat winner-take-all culture. But in Germany and France, there is essentially no economic growth, and unemployment has hovered around 10 percent. That doesn?t seem very humane.

Can someone point me the relationship between social net and economic growth?

It's true that in France and Germany, there is no econimic growth in 2005 and unemployment is high but it's because France and Germany have a lot of troubles reforming themselves.

Before World War II, the weak coalition governments of Germany?s Weimar Republic finally collapsed when 6 million Germans were out of work. Beware: At one point this year, unemployment in Germany reached the 5 million mark. And once again Germans eerily assign blame to someone else. This time the scapegoats are often American venture capitalists, George Bush or the bogeymen neo-conservatives.

Incomplete: in the 30s, 6 million Germans were suddenly out of work after the black Thursday of 1929 where the economy completely collapsed.

The Weimar Republic collapsed also because there was at the time not only social unrest but nationalism in Germany which was against the Weimar Republic after the Versailles Treaty in 1919. France, the UK, the US, the winners of WWI completely did not let Germany have a say in the Versailles' diktat as it was refered to.

After 9/11, many refined European civil libertarians winced at our Patriot Act. The United States ? true to its ?hang ?em high? heritage ? was descending into Texas-style justice, or so they believed. But after the Madrid and London bombings, and the spread of Islamic radicalism in general, proposed new European legislation goes far beyond the Patriot Act. Even naturalized European citizens could soon be summarily deported under mere suspicion of pro-terrorist speaking and writing.

Many refined European civil libertarians winced at the European versions of the Patriot Act. Equivalents to the ACLU are ready to plead their case to the consitutional courts.

Then there are the results of European insistence on multilateral solutions to international conflicts. Many Americans thought their approach was either a clever way of tying up the United States or an impractical way to confront bullies.

No matter. The U.S. assented and turned over the Iranian nuclear crisis to the Europeans. But so far that nuclear program is full-speed ahead in Tehran. Russia, India and China are Iran?s new apologists. France and Germany seem humiliated, as Iranian theocrats usually ignore their empty requests even for weak United Nations auditing.

More recently, Hurricane Katrina was often offered as proof of American environmental, class and racial chaos. Yet by any fair token, we are recovering pretty well. A mammoth hurricane overwhelmed a city below sea level, on a stormy coast, positioned on a huge river delta and beneath a vast lake. Yet in an August 2003 heat wave, 15,000 French citizens ? far more than were lost in New Orleans ? died, while a distracted nation hit the beaches for their promised state-subsidized vacations.

Yes, because the French government and health structures were completely incompetent and useless. We had a full inquiry after that. The Health minister lost his job and the health services have been corrected.

What about FEMA and the current point-the-finger game going on in the US?

Military matters especially seem to bring out our differences. In Iraq, Americans are caricatured by Europeans as Neanderthals bashing heads in the Sunni Triangle while the refined British patrol without helmets or sunglasses in the calmer Shiite south. Yet Basra is becoming lawless due to the British?s laxity. Lately, an exasperated British military resorted to crashing a tank into an Iraqi detention center to try to rescue its own kidnapped soldiers.

I want to see the source of "In Iraq, Americans are caricatured by Europeans as Neanderthals bashing heads in the Sunni Triangle"

In Afghanistan, NATO was asked to help out in the supposedly ?good war? to remove the Taliban and ensure democracy. But so far the levels of European troops there are disappointing. And most are prevented by their governments from even engaging terrorists outside of Kabul.

NATO has 11000 troops in Afghanistan, the US has 19000.

The reason is simple: European armies are small and except the UK, France, Germany, Italy and Spain, not many EU countries can send troops 6000 kilometres away.

There are four general lessons here:

First, when Europe is occasionally forced to confront the same human and natural challenges that the United States regularly does, it fares no better and often far worse.

Second, European Big Government can be just as callous as American private enterprise and is often less efficient.

Third, Europeans? anger at the United States reveals their own uncertainty about failing policies that have somehow produced too few jobs. More optimistic countries like India, China, Australia, Japan and many in Eastern Europe look to the future, not the past ? and don?t seem to scapegoat the United States for their own self-induced problems.

Fourth, to maintain our historical friendship ? and we must ? it is time to politely let Europeans regain their confidence by standing on their own. Let?s start by pulling our remaining troops out. A continent larger and more populous than our own after 60 years can tend to its own defense needs or lack there of ? as we Americans move on.

Well, I do not think the current US forces stationned are used to ensure peace inside Europe (the KFOR maybe) but are instead used to advance the goals of the US foreign policy in the Middle East.

I would say that the UK, French, German, Italian and Spain armies are ready to fly on their own in 2005.

There is a big missConstructionrticle: we are still referring as European Construction: it's a 'in-progress' thing. It is a community of sovereign states which have been battling hard with each others several times in the last century: yes, there are heaps of problems. It started in 1957, in 2005, it's still not completed because there are plenty of things to adapt with 25 countries.

Edited October 4, 2005 by fred666

[vincent]

rumpleph1sh never posts the link to the source on where he gets these articles...

[Fred Derf Veteran]

rumpleph1sh never posts the link to the source on where he gets these articles...

586621007[/snapback]

Take your pick:

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews.../printstory.jsp

http://www.tms.tribune.com/htmlmail/commen.../0929hanson.htm

http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/...-headlines-oped