The alarming anti-Americanism in Europe

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-04-14 08:49pm

Let's not forget China's takeover of Tibet, or its half-century long support of North Korea and it's hideous, oppressive regime, or it's support of North Vietnam, which followed up its victory in the war by killing political opponents of the communist regime in carload lots.

There's blame enough to go around where nations and their foreign policy is concerned.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-14 08:51pm

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

Ruthless policy that is as bloody as anything we ever turned a blind eye to. Yet he's lecturing us. I have no intention of looking up every nation on Earth yet there are plenty of examples.

I simply pointed out that no nation has a clean slate in the recent past and juding America by the actions of men out of power for decades is ridiculous.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-14 08:55pm

Stormbringer wrote:I simply pointed out that no nation has a clean slate in the recent past and juding America by the actions of men out of power for decades is ridiculous.

Actually, you said that "almost any" nation has the same type of ruthless foreign policy exemplified by America in recent history, which basically means the Cold War. That is simply not true; the majority of the world's nations have not engaged in activities such as helping ruthless dictators overthrow democratic governments, for example.

Even if we were to accept that Russia's activities in Chechnya somehow constitute "foreign policy", the fact remains that you are simply ASSUMING now that every country, based on a handful of examples, must have similar foreign policy to the US, running around toppling governments and supporting insurrectionists, etc.

As for judging America by ancient history, 1980 is not ancient history. Most Americans have no problem admitting that their Cold War-era foreign policy was ruthless; why are you so adamant about this?

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-04-14 08:58pm

CIA and intel community planing WMD IOT prove a point... Some folks have been watching way too many conspiriacy movies or reading too many conspiracy novels. I'm afraid some of you have a very distorted view of the US intelligence community. Let me assure you that regardless of what you may have read or seen in movies, that is not the way the CIA or any of the US intelligence communities work. You'll have to take my word on it, else you can continue to live in conspiracy fantasy land.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-14 08:59pm

jegs2 wrote:CIA and intel community planing WMD IOT prove a point... Some folks have been watching way too many conspiriacy movies or reading too many conspiracy novels. I'm afraid some of you have a very distorted view of the US intelligence community. Let me assure you that regardless of what you may have read or seen in movies, that is not the way the CIA or any of the US intelligence communities work. You'll have to take my word on it, else you can continue to live in conspiracy fantasy land.

I think the number of people who seriously think the CIA would plant evidence is not as large as you think it is. At least not around here, anyway.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-14 09:05pm

Actually, you said that "almost any" nation has the same type of ruthless foreign policy exemplified by America in recent history, which basically means the Cold War. That is simply not true; the majority of the world's nations have not engaged in activities such as helping ruthless dictators overthrow democratic governments, for example.

I never claimed every nation has, but that's because Zanzibar or Algeria never had that sort of power and never will. Everyone of the first world nations has done so when they could.

Even if we were to accept that Russia's activities in Chechnya somehow constitute "foreign policy", the fact remains that you are simply ASSUMING now that every country, based on a handful of examples, must have similar foreign policy to the US, running around toppling governments and supporting insurrectionists, etc.

Because every nations which have been in the position of power that America is now have. From the Greeks and Romans, to the Portugese and Spanish to England, France, Germany, and Belgium, to the US and the Soviet Union ruthless foriegn policy has been a hallmark of national policy. More so when that nation is on top and must deal with rivals that would glady destroy it.

As for judging America by ancient history, 1980 is not ancient history. Most Americans have no problem admitting that their Cold War-era foreign policy was ruthless; why are you so adamant about this?

When did I say it wasn't ruthless? The problem I have is people regarding that as some aberation of history rather than business as usual for nations. S

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-14 09:07pm

Darth Wong wrote:I think the number of people who seriously think the CIA would plant evidence is not as large as you think it is. At least not around here, anyway.

Probably not. But I think the number that would believe it if they were told so is much higher than you believe. There's a fundamental distrust of the US these days, I can't say I blame them after our Cold War cover shenanigans.

Perinquus · Post by **Perinquus** » 2003-04-14 09:16pm

Stormbringer wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:I think the number of people who seriously think the CIA would plant evidence is not as large as you think it is. At least not around here, anyway.
Probably not. But I think the number that would believe it if they were told so is much higher than you believe. There's a fundamental distrust of the US these days, I can't say I blame them after our Cold War cover shenanigans.

I have a problem with this as well. We were no angels during the Cold War, by any stretch of the imagination. But we also did not have gulags, nor did we invade and crush our neighbors as Czechoslovakia and Hungary were invaded and oppressed when there were anti-communiist movements there. We also did not have to build a wall around the "workers' paradise, and patrol it with armed guards to keep the workers from running away.

I think people have a tendency to forget who the real villains were.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-04-14 10:24pm

Colonel Olrik wrote:In Portugal, it's even worse. Our Constitution forbids sending criminals to countries where the jail time may be above 25 years, the maximum jail time in Portugal. That has caused us conflicts with many other E.U countries, including Spain and France.

And the damned criminals have noticed this, and now try to run to Portugal before being caught.

That's a really fucking stupid gov't position.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-04-14 10:27pm

Colonel Olrik wrote:I'm against the death penalty, but I agree that in certain cases a life time sentence is needed, possibly with the possibility of leaving sooner depending on his behaviour.

In some cases?

So you don't want serial rapists and murderers automatically being put away forever?

Personally I think Death Row types should be sent to a penal colony where they are forced to do labor in Alaska.

But that's just me.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-04-14 10:31pm

Colonel Olrik wrote:
Peringuus wrote: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.

That's because it opens the possibility of a EU military power bloc.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2003-04-14 10:35pm

Darth Wong wrote: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?

I think the idea of appealing to the UN as if it is somesort of enlightened moral authority is completely rediculous.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2003-04-14 10:45pm

Illuminatus Primus wrote:
Darth Wong wrote: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?
I think the idea of appealing to the UN as if it is somesort of enlightened moral authority is completely rediculous.

That's nice. What does it have to do with following the rules that the United States agreed to follow?

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-04-14 10:46pm

Durandal wrote:That's nice. What does it have to do with following the rules that the United States agreed to follow?

The point is why is the US condemned for doing what a number of countries have done?

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-04-14 11:28pm

Who is to say the US is wrong -- the UN? Would they put forth a motion to condemn acts of the US? The US could veto anything it doesn't like that the UN attempts. So....... The US is always right.

jegs2 · Post by **jegs2** » 2003-04-14 11:32pm

jegs2 wrote:Who is to say the US is wrong -- the UN? Would they put forth a motion to condemn acts of the US? The US could veto anything it doesn't like that the UN attempts. So....... The US is always right.

Just for fun, let's watch the scenario:

The Security Council proposes a resolution condemning actions by the United States! All in favor:

Russia: Aye!

China: Aye!

United States: Veto!

France: Wait! Damn.

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2003-04-15 12:44am

The point is why is the US condemned for doing what a number of countries have done?

The answer to that is as simple as it is obvious. The U.S. is on the top rung of the ladder in terms of the power structure of the world, and nobody likes the guy on the top. Only the naive would believe in the concept of a truly multipolar world as an end result. Hell, Jesus had enemies, nobody likes a saint, nobody likes the top dog, the head of the class, etc. (no, before dumb people jump to conclusions, I'm not implying the U.S. govt. is a saint)

It's only the natural order of things. People can bitch and whine and complain all they want about U.S. unilateralism, ruthless foreign policy, etc, etc. The truth of the matter is that there is not a single nation out there that doesn't look out for itself first and foremost.

So, it's anti-U.S., so what? It was anti-British, anti-French, etc, etc at various points of time. If the U.S. doesn't want to be the butt of condemnation and various bitching and moaning, well, it's simple, let someone else be the top dog. Then you wouldn't see most of the posts on this board about the U.S. and it's policies and how unwise it is. It'd be about someone else.

0.1 · Post by **0.1** » 2003-04-15 12:52am

That's nice. What does it have to do with following the rules that the United States agreed to follow?

What a pity that the rules keep changing.

Iraq: multilateralism, multilateralism, UN is the legitimate authority for everything, war, legitimate government, etc, etc.

North Korea: well... that's a U.S. problem. (so says the Chinese, and the Russians, they need to agree to direct talks and not whine about the need for multilateral talks)

No, what were those rules again exactly? And the real funny part is, this isn't even a contradiction that happens successively in time, it's one that is occurring nearly simultaneously.

And speaking of legitimate government, what ever happened to the legitimate government of Samolia... oh wait, the U.S. pulled out, no U.S. muscle, no legitimacy. How odd, where were the French, the Germans, the Russians, during that episode I wonder. Oh, that's right, no economic interest there for those guys except the RPGs and the Kalashnikovs. Too bad MP5s are too expensive for the locals.

XPViking · Post by **XPViking** » 2003-04-15 01:34am

0.1 wrote:It's only the natural order of things. People can bitch and whine and complain all they want about U.S. unilateralism, ruthless foreign policy, etc, etc. The truth of the matter is that there is not a single nation out there that doesn't look out for itself first and foremost

So now we're back to the "everyone else does it so it's okay" line. Gotcha.

XPViking

Post by **Edi** » 2003-04-15 03:01am

Stormbringer wrote:I never claimed every nation has, but that's because Zanzibar or Algeria never had that sort of power and never will. Everyone of the first world nations has done so when they could.

Don't trip over yourself backpedaling, Stormy. You made a sweeping blanket statement about almost any first-world nation doing so whenever they could, then you're using the Soviet Union and China, a third world nation (albeit a powerful one) as examples. Now you're using Algeria and Zanzibar, more third world nations, to make a bleedingly obvious point. Why not try India and Pakistan if you're going to persist on that track, those two actually have some muscles (including nuclear ones) to flex.

You bitch and moan about France's actions in Ivory Coast, but afaik the French troops are there at the request of IC governement! Kind of cuts the legs right out from under your argument. What about Spain, Portugal, Italy, Finland, Sweden, Germany, Norway, Iceland, most of the rest of western Europe (I'm talking about post WW2 here), Canada and Israel? Oh yeah, Israel fits nicely as an example to what you're talking about, but none of the others do! France and Britain took long enough to let go of their colonies, but those were gone by the 1970s, after which they have hardly engaged in such antics as the 1973 caper in Chile that ended with Allende dead and Pinochet in power, to say nothing of all the other things on US record post-WW2. You just don't fucking have a case.

Stormbringer wrote:Because every nations which have been in the position of power that America is now have. From the Greeks and Romans, to the Portugese and Spanish to England, France, Germany, and Belgium, to the US and the Soviet Union ruthless foriegn policy has been a hallmark of national policy. More so when that nation is on top and must deal with rivals that would glady destroy it.

We're talking recent history here, not the Romans of Caesar's time. Post WW2, the list of nations eligible for your case has shrunken dramatically, especially among first world nations that you initially made the argument about.

Stormbringer wrote:When did I say it wasn't ruthless? The problem I have is people regarding that as some aberation of history rather than business as usual for nations. S

Thing is, people over here are starting to regard it more in the light that pursuing their nation's interests, even ruthlessly, is acceptable, with the provision that it not unduly compromise the interests of others if there is another way around it. We are slowly starting to find a new, less cyclopean view of things, which in my opinion is a good thing, so why should we not put voice to it?

Edi

Post by **Edi** » 2003-04-15 03:08am

Illuminatus Primus wrote:That's because it opens the possibility of a EU military power bloc.

If the US is opposed to the creation of a military power bloc that can adequately look after its military interests over here and in the rest of the world, and Americans agree with this, then every single on of them here who does not support that statement should make it very clear when they start bitching about EU needing US military help in its backyard. Otherwise they should just shut the fuck up and pay the bill if they're opposed to us doing it for fear of having a military rival.

Edi

Post by **AdmiralKanos** » 2003-04-15 03:35am

jegs2 wrote:Just for fun, let's watch the scenario:

The Security Council proposes a resolution condemning actions by the United States! All in favor:

Russia: Aye!

China: Aye!

United States: Veto!

France: Wait! Damn.

Yes, that sounds about right. The US has used the veto more than anyone else AFAIK.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2003-04-15 03:45am

AdmiralKanos wrote: Yes, that sounds about right. The US has used the veto more than anyone else AFAIK.

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetotab.htm

USSR/Russia 121 vetos, USA 76.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-04-15 03:58am

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:
AdmiralKanos wrote: Yes, that sounds about right. The US has used the veto more than anyone else AFAIK.
http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/data/vetotab.htm

USSR/Russia 121 vetos, USA 76.

Oh good, you didn't use it as much as Reagan's "Evil Empire". The fact remains that bitching about France's use of the veto is silly when it comes from a prolific user of that veto, even if there was one even worse.

LordShaithis · Post by **LordShaithis** » 2003-04-15 05:16am

We had to use the veto all those times, to supress motions to reveal evidence of the REVENGE CONCENTRATION CAMPS we had after WW2. Duh.