The alarming anti-Americanism in Europe

[Darth Wong]

People don't like the idea of a hegemon. They do not hate America the country or Americans as people so much as they hate the concept of Unilateral American Globocop.

Yet they want that American Globocop to take care of their problems. Any one notice the hypocrisy of that?

What hypocrisy? When America acts as part of the UN, it is not being Unilateral American Globocop, is it?

I can understand that but the knee jerk manner they fear us taking any action on our own is ridiculous. They fear any American action for no good reason. And yet they in many cases want America to act in actions they want. Hypocrisy and foolishness at best.

It is not hypocrisy to simultaneously want America to be a contributing member of the UN and not want America to stalk off on its own and do whatever suits them.

Why do you think that's hypocritical? Is it hypocritical to want a member of a society to follow that society's rules while simultaneously expecting that person not to make up his own rules?

[Darth Wong]

Americans are nice people with a history of ruthless foreign policy.

Which could be said of almost any modern first world nation if not worse. It hardly make America unique.

How many ruthless dictators have been put into power by intervention from other first-world nations?

[Perinquus]

People don't like the idea of a hegemon. They do not hate America the country or Americans as people so much as they hate the concept of Unilateral American Globocop.

I'd agree. With the exception that the people who are the hegemon don't mind so much. I don't really want to see America as the world policeman either. What's so ironic is that the president all these critics loved so much (Clinton) was more of a danger in that regard than the supposed cowboy we have now is. At least Bush justifies intervention by claiming our national interests are at stake. There were no national interests of the U.S. at stake in Somalia or Kosovo, there we were acting like the world policeman. I think nations should act out of enlightened self interest. America should only use force when American interests are at stake. Otherwise, we have to be rather arbitrarily selective in which causes we champion, which makes us look like hypocrites as well as the "globocop".

EDIT: to clarify, people are afraid of America turning into that mythical character known as the benevolent dictator, because nobody trusts a benevolent dictator to remain benevolent. Hence the fear of American power. Do you see why protestations of benevolence don't make a dent in their fears?

Then people in other countries should encourage their governments to maintain their own strength to balance off U.S. power. This does not have to mean opposing the U.S. at every turn either. Europe, for example, could spend more on defense, and raise a military strong enough to look after their own interests, in their own spheres of influence. Then Europeans could deal with problems like Bosnia without Uncle Sam having to flex his muscles. This more powerful Europe could also then actually help us in opposing our common enemies, like Islamic terrorists.

The problem in Europe is that they seem to oppose direct action for almost anything anymore. They are incapable of projecting military power, and they resent us doing so.

[Alex Moon]

Just out of curiosity, if France can't extridite people to countries if they're facing the death penalty, does this mean that Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein could show up in Paris and be protected?

[Darth Wong]

Just out of curiosity, if France can't extridite people to countries if they're facing the death penalty, does this mean that Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein could show up in Paris and be protected?

Life in prison would be worse than death for people like that. They think they're going to be slam-fucking 72 nubile virgins in Heaven for all eternity, remember?

[Colonel Olrik]

Just out of curiosity, if France can't extridite people to countries if they're facing the death penalty, does this mean that Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein could show up in Paris and be protected?

No, he would be judged in France, most likely extradicted to the International Court. I don't know why the other criminal wasn't judged, but there has got to be more to the story.

[Spyder]

Yet they want that American Globocop to take care of their problems. Any one notice the hypocrisy of that?

This makes me curious. If the US did pull out of the middle east, would the EU be against that?

[Joe]

Quite frankly I wouldn't mind seeing OBL in a French prison. French prisons are fucking brutal.

[Stormbringer]

What hypocrisy? When America acts as part of the UN, it is not being Unilateral American Globocop, is it?

No, we're being European Nanny America. I find it ridiculous that they expect America to help them when they want or need it yet get mad at us when we pursue a policy of our own.

It is not hypocrisy to simultaneously want America to be a contributing member of the UN and not want America to stalk off on its own and do whatever suits them.

No, but it is ridiculous that they condemn America for pursuing it's interests outside of the UN for their own selfish interests. They scream at America for imperialism yet do the very same thing they decry us for.

Why do you think that's hypocritical? Is it hypocritical to want a member of a society to follow that society's rules while simultaneously expecting that person not to make up his own rules?

It's hypocritical of them to hold the enforcement of the rules of their society for their own selfish interests yet blame us for trying to enforce them with out their support.

[Alex Moon]

Just out of curiosity, if France can't extridite people to countries if they're facing the death penalty, does this mean that Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein could show up in Paris and be protected?

Life in prison would be worse than death for people like that. They think they're going to be slam-fucking 72 nubile virgins in Heaven for all eternity, remember?

Yup. Personally I would like to go to bed at night knowing that old Osama is being assraped every night by some 250 pound biker named Bubba.

I was just using the Death Penalty for the sake of the question.

[Stormbringer]

How many ruthless dictators have been put into power by intervention from other first-world nations?

Quite a few by the Soviet Union. Quite a few were allowed to grab off former colonies as well. Hell, many of the colonial governers of the European's nation's would be brutal dictators as well.

[Colonel Olrik]

Yup. Personally I would like to go to bed at night knowing that old Osama is being assraped every night by some 250 pound biker named Bubba.

I was just using the Death Penalty for the sake of the question.

Milosevic would have a field day with him.

[Perinquus]

You cannot garantee me that all death sentences will be given to the right man. It is possible to correct a life time sentence injustice, it's impossible to give an innocent dead man his life.

Today's forensic techniques allow you to eliminate almost all doubt. And the death penalty should be limited to certain types of offenses, and subject to strict judicial review. Within those parameters, it is possible to use it fairly, and have it function effectively as a deterrent.

Similarly, the reasons to commit murder are not all equal. If a person commit manslaugher of his family due to a profound desequilibrium in his mind, and feels sorrow for it, there's no reason why he will repeat murder, or why he can't be allowed to live imprisioned, repenting for his actions, doing something useful for the community.
A case is a case, you can't see in someone's future and be sure that he'll never repent, and change is ways.

See above. And crimes carry a "debt to society". Just because he's sorry for it later does not excuse the offense, nor should it be allowed to mitigate the penalty proscribed by law.

A person in jail can harm nobody. At most, he costs money to maintain. In this case, that cannot be the criterium. You cannot say that he suffers less passing a life in jail than being put to death, or that he'll never change.

A person in jail can harm nobody? Man, what have you been smoking? Do you have any idea how many people are murdered inside prisons? Do you have any idea what kind of gang activity goes on in prisons, or how many rapes and beatings take place there? These people are vicious predators. They don't stop being predators once you lock them up, they just establish a pecking order inside the slammer.

[Spyder]

How many ruthless dictators have been put into power by intervention from other first-world nations?

Quite a few by the Soviet Union. Quite a few were allowed to grab off former colonies as well. Hell, many of the colonial governers of the European's nation's would be brutal dictators as well.

You're justifying it because the Soviet Union did it?

[Colonel Olrik]

This more powerful Europe could also then actually help us in opposing our common enemies, like Islamic terrorists.

The problem in Europe is that they seem to oppose direct action for almost anything anymore. They are incapable of projecting military power, and they resent us doing so.

It's happening as we speak.

Funny, though. One of the strongest opponents to an armed E.U is precisely the U.S. The rapid mobilization force would probably be operational by now if the E.U didn't have to walk on its tiptoes for fear of offending their NATO partner.

[Darth Wong]

How many ruthless dictators have been put into power by intervention from other first-world nations?

Quite a few by the Soviet Union. Quite a few were allowed to grab off former colonies as well. Hell, many of the colonial governers of the European's nation's would be brutal dictators as well.

You're justifying it because the Soviet Union did it?

He's saying that every first-world nation does it, and then uses the former Soviet Union as an example to prove his point

[Andrew J.]

My theory is that it's because America is very conservative (especially now, with Bush as President) compared with mostly liberal Western Europe.

[Stormbringer]

You're justifying it because the Soviet Union did it?

No, I'm not. I'm saying that if we were to hold every last thing a nation we'd still be blaming Spain for the massacre of the Aztecs or the British for oppressing India or the Soviets in Eastern Europe.

I saying Europe is being hypocritcal when they act like their shit doesn't stink. They've got as many imperfect actions, hell some are still heavily engaged in them, yet they act like they never did that.

[Colonel Olrik]

A person in jail can harm nobody? Man, what have you been smoking? Do you have any idea how many people are murdered inside prisons? Do you have any idea what kind of gang activity goes on in prisons, or how many rapes and beatings take place there? These people are vicious predators. They don't stop being predators once you lock them up, they just establish a pecking order inside the slammer.

Oops, I meant in the outside. Inside the jails, people sometimes die. Although I believe it's more common in the U.S, together with more gangs, guns and a more violent culture.

[Stormbringer]

He's saying that every first-world nation does it, and then uses the former Soviet Union as an example to prove his point

I'm saying Europe is in no position to claim a squeeky clean record. If they have to insist that every nation that wants to do something has to have a perfect moral record then they should sit down and shut up as well.

[Darth Wong]

He's saying that every first-world nation does it, and then uses the former Soviet Union as an example to prove his point

I'm saying Europe is in no position to claim a squeeky clean record.

Acts undertaken by long-dead men are not a reflection upon the present. The architects of the ruthless foreign policy undertaken by the US over the last half-century, however, are still very much alive and in many cases, still in positions of power. It's not the same thing.

As I said, Americans are nice people with a history of ruthless foreign policy.

[Stormbringer]

Acts undertaken by long-dead men are not a reflection upon the present. The architects of the ruthless foreign policy undertaken by the US over the last half-century, however, are still very much alive and in many cases, still in positions of power. It's not the same thing.

Not entirely true. The same is true of Russia and France, and many are alive if out of power in Germany. They've done as much bloody handed oppression as the US and in many cases those that helped with it are still alive and in power.

[Darth Wong]

Not entirely true. The same is true of Russia and France, and many are alive if out of power in Germany. They've done as much bloody handed oppression as the US and in many cases those that helped with it are still alive and in power.

None of which helps your original claim that virtually ANY first-world nation can be regarded thusly. If you must resort to the detritus of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union to bolster the point, then it is incorrect.

[Stormbringer]

None of which helps your original claim that virtually ANY first-world nation can be regarded thusly. If you must resort to the detritus of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union to bolster the point, then it is incorrect.

I'm hardly refering to dredges of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. I would like to point out Chechnya as wonderful example of bloody and tyranical enforcement by the current leader of Russia.

France's operations in the Ivory Coast were likewise not considered in the UN. There's Chirac.

[Darth Wong]

None of which helps your original claim that virtually ANY first-world nation can be regarded thusly. If you must resort to the detritus of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union to bolster the point, then it is incorrect.

I'm hardly refering to dredges of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. I would like to point out Chechnya as wonderful example of bloody and tyranical enforcement by the current leader of Russia.

France's operations in the Ivory Coast were likewise not considered in the UN. There's Chirac.

I still don't see how France and Russia constitute "almost any modern first world nation". And Russia's activities in Chechnya were domestic. They didn't go invading anybody else's country when they did that.