US-Euro Dialouge

[Azeron]

http://www.nationalreview.com/hanson/hanson090602.asp

September 6, 2002 9:00 a.m.
The European Dialogue
Are we friends, allies, or neither?

Europeans: Your proposed "adventure" in Iraq not only poses all sorts of practical problems for us, your allies, but also challenges the very reason d'etre of international accords. All these protocols, to the chagrin of the world, you have, in essence, violated time and again — whether at Durban, the ICC, or your rejection of an entire series of U.N. mandates.

Americans: We gave up the idea a long time ago that our sworn-treaty allies would remember Argonne, the Bulge, the Berlin Airlift, or the specter of the Warsaw Pact. And we cannot think of too many times the tragedy of people dying prompted real risks on your part or any of your other organizations. Instead, just look at the present nature of the U.N. There are few liberal republics on the Security Council. Libya is the proposed head of a Commission on Human Rights, and the body has a poor collective record of stopping atrocity from Bosnia to Rwanda — all coupled with shrill denunciation of the only democracy in the Middle East.

Europeans: One might say that the U.N. is at times both impotent and hypocritical without undermining its very charter or condoning, as it were, unilateral action that destabilizes international equilibrium. There is a complexity here that seems to escape you — or at least some of you.

Americans: So show us where and how we have destabilized anything — unless you believe that Kuwait, Panama, Grenada, and Kosovo are better places before than after the use of American force. Please demonstrate to us how theoretically outlawing racism at Durban or keeping obsolete agreements with a defunct Soviet Union helps world peace and security. In reference to your own behavior, we wouldn't allow an ex-Communist thug in Cuba to butcher 200,000 with impunity for eight years, before asking you to come over here to stop the bloodletting, a few hours from Miami. Perhaps you would say that our differing ideas of right and wrong — arising from our different histories and national characters — explain our present estrangement.

Europeans: No doubt. But surely unilateralism and feelings of exceptionalism don't help the relationship. But the issue is not theatrics of the American kind, but how to resolve difference.

Americans: You could be more multi- and we less uni- if you chose to defend yourselves and our mutual interests. You have more people and capital than we do. Yet you spend less than a third of our own outlays on defense. Is it idealism or plain old weakness that has turned you into knee-jerk supporters of dubious international accords bandied about by some really awful states?

Europeans: That is currently a popular, but simplistic American slur against us. We are closer to problems over here and have seen firsthand the wages of nationalism and its incumbent terrors. If we arm, you say we are returning to the world of Napoleon and Hitler; if we don't, we are seen as weak or cowardly. And what you call self-centered social programs at the expense of defense we feel is an evolutionary process — a European way — that looks first to mediation rather than crude force. And our preference for dialogue requires an informed, humane, and educated citizenry as part of the equation. Navel rings and Big Macs don't produce the type of sophisticated citizen who looks askance at simpleminded brute force.

Americans: NATO seems pretty brutal to us. Or at least you preferred it should be that "way" in the past with your continent facing Russian tanks. Perhaps you will embrace those views again should al Qaeda as promised obliterate the Vatican and you find your planes and carriers inadequate to sustain extended operations abroad against the network of your enemies. Maybe the "European way" will guarantee the world a steady supply of oil, corral North Korea and Iran, convince the Russians to integrate with the West, ensure that European states don't go nuclear, or demonstrate to the Germans and Japanese that there is no reason to rearm.

Europeans: Again, we tend to avoid hypotheticals and simplistic answers, but strive to use our economic and cultural power in more subtle ways to influence — but not to repel — moderates and neutrals. It is a holistic process. And it must be careful, judicious, and nuanced. Could you accept that the new anti-Americanism — quite a global phenomenon actually — is more than just your fondness for imperial overreach, but reflects a worldwide worry that America also has a habit of spreading an intrusive and often-crass culture?

Americans: Can you people at least decide whether as Leftists you object to our military power or as rightists you find our democratic culture reflective of a mongrel nation — one that subverts your ingrained hierarchy and accepted protocol? So what are you guys anyway, Marxists or reactionary snobs — or both? In fact, we are a revolutionary society of precisely the type Europeans on the barricade once demonstrated for — before returning in failure to their lounges.

Europeans: We have heard it all before. We need not bring up stereotypes of the past when our present differences can be bridged with more American understanding of our own predicaments and less cowboyism on your part.

Americans: We sort of like John Wayne and Clint Eastwood. Cowboy is an interesting choice of words. We hear such rhetoric often and it is instructive because it emphasizes our quite differing pasts. With the marshal a three-day-ride away on the frontier perhaps we do define justice by deeds rather than words — Kosovo is a good example. As a castoff people, we were supposed to fail, rather than create this enormously successful country. In that sense, as you would agree, we are a complete repudiation of Europe's allegiance to ancestry, pedigree, inherited capital, and class.

Europeans: Manifest Destiny, E pluribus unum, "your tired and poor" — we know it all well, the fons et origo of the world's blessings and so on. Recall that we are talking of tactics among friends in dealing rationally with common enemies, not philosophical issues of Locke versus Rousseau that have no relevance in the present crises other than to inflame and incite. What we need is joint consultation to tackle these growing problems in the Middle East and to pose a united front, along with the United Nations, in changing the behavior, albeit incrementally, of Iraq.

Americans: We wish it were only a matter of tactics or increments when 3,000 of our own were blown apart and a lunatic seems intent on acquiring gas and nukes. From your own past rhetoric it seems that you would prefer us to remove a democratically elected Sharon rather than a murderous tyrant like Hussein. And you seem less bothered by EU money in the hands of West Bank bombers than American aid supporting elected government.

Europeans: Don't put words in our mouths. You don't know what we will do in the end, although you seem to demand open-ended commitments in lieu of ongoing joint consultations. Beware of European public opinion that such mischaracterization and rhetoric incite. Have you looked lately at America's standing in our EU polls?

Americans: Yes, we are almost as disliked over there as you are over here — but not quite. In fact, if your elites are way out in front of your own people, our own policy-makers have not caught up with American public opinion. Your real problem is not that you are angry with us, but that Americans are finally becoming very angry with you. One Le Monde or Guardian rant may escape our notice in Billings or El Paso — but not a hundred each month. You talk to the wrong people in America — the very few in our media, universities, and government who worry that Boston and New York are not quite Paris and London. Most of us others could care less that Kansas City and San Jose are not quite Boston and New York. So be careful of getting what you wish for.

Europeans: Is that a threat as it were? Or simply more of the veiled bullying that this administration seems so comfortable with? Our bases, moral support, and covert help are, in fact, essential for your projection of power in this war against terror — though predictably underscored by both Washington and your popular press.

Americans: Maybe, but take note about the present "adventure." Should you chose to stay home and ridicule — though, of course, enjoying the benefits of a scattered al Qaeda and the demise of a killer-regime in Iraq — you will find your, not our, NATO an artifact, a nuanced organization that issues lectures and impotent mandates while innocents die under its nose, rather than sending out planes and divisions — something, in other words, very much like the United Nations.

Europeans: So that is the choice? Or, as you say, "My way or the highway"? Is that the sort of justice and sophistication we are now to expect from hyperpuissance?

Americans: We seem not to be talking of justice, when the world seems to care little about the presence of a madman who has a preference for extermination or thinks blowing up women and children by intent in Israel is the same as hunting down their killers. It is high time to confess that alliances are not theoretical constructs anyway. We think you are more ready to express NATO support for a Spanish frigate on a barren Moroccan island than to invoke Article V after 9/11. But as we said earlier, our problem is not enduring the coffeehouse fillips of French intellectuals, but trying to convince skeptical families in Indiana and Arizona why we must defend your soil with our lives and money over a decade after the cold war, when you seem so obviously displeased with us.

Europeans: If you insist on such reductionist thinking, at least don't confuse deliberate choices with intrinsic inability. That we have decided not to put our teen-agers on carriers and to divert their tuition money to F-18s does not mean that we lack either the resources or ability to arm as you.

Americans: Well you may be right. After all, your own Napoleon said that will is three-to-one over the materiel when war starts. So if the diplomacy of the EU is ever ignored by your less mature enemies, perhaps in the future European courage, rather than carriers and jets, will still see you through.

Europeans: Eh? What do you mean by this "you" rather than "us"?

[Enforcer Talen]

quite interesting.

[Nick]

Pretty fair characterisation, I'd say. . .

Plenty of logical fallacies on both sides, just like the real world

[Admiral Piett]

Mr Azeron the problem is that at the moment the EU is not a single block.The european militaries are still national based.And each european nation cannot simply afford to purchase a decent amount of power projection tools (fleet carriers,heavy bombers,loads of smart munitions etc) without bankrupting herself in the process.Only an unified military that would avoid duplication could accomplish that.And an unified military requires an unified government.And an unified government would mean that the EU would be finally a superpower theoretically capable of challanging the US supremacy.
And as a such we would probably be considered from the day one the new "evil empire" that must be destroyed at any cost.

[Colonel Olrik]

And as a such we would probably be considered from the day one the new "evil empire" that must be destroyed at any cost.

Brr.. Europe again letting loose the dogs of war.. Terrifying thought.. We certainly could build up enough military power to face anyone, but I don't think that's the only option.
It's just necessary to have a credible defensive force (which in a way already happens, no one but the U.S [main allies] could provoke a war with Europe) and an agile intervention force with the means to fight medium disputes alone (when happening in Europe's backyard) or with the U.S.
This way, we should be no threath to other major powers, maintaining and reforcing alliances with them, and have an active voice in the World.

[Azeron]

You know admiral Piett,

If Europe (not england) had shown a modicum of actual concern for the deaths of our people on 9/11, and lived up to your treaty commitment to fight with us to the death as comrades in arms, whether it was one carrier or 1 division, America would think differently about Europe. We would be talking about the great Atlantic community rallying to turn back the ravages of terrorism which graps hundreds of millions of innocent people in the middle east alone.

What do we get instead? A bunch of pansies who look like they were only interested in NATO and the rest to get whatever they could and leave us bloodied when the going gets tough.

The US with our "cowboy culture" can't even begin to conceive what your motives are. You are certainly not our friends or allies.

[Admiral Piett]

I do not know how you define concern.Because from what I have seen here people have been genuinely concerned by what happened in the US.We have sent some military forces,I hope you are aware of it.Of course they are only symbolical or little more than symbolical contributions,but that is all what we can do with national armies.A single european nation cannot afford to develop and purchase in substantial quantitatives Nimitz style aircraft carriers,long range heavy bombers,loads of hi tech weapons and so on.Even british contributions have been quite limited exactly for this reason.
The UK has the highest level of military expenditure in Europe,yet they have
just a dozen of cruise missiles in their inventory.National armies may have decent (in some cases first class) tanks and tactical aircrafts,but when it comes to power projection tools they obviously suck.
Then you(for you I mean Azeron) are going around proclaiming that only US national interests matter and the rest of the world,EU included, can basically shoot itself.Yet we are supposed to help you,but we cannot say anything about what you do because you have (insert random name of uber weapon system) and so you can do what you like.Incidentally it happens that in a war against terrorists who may live in Germany or in Italy the collaboration of the european police and intelligence forces is more important than the number of CVBGs you can deploy,but obviously you do not want to admit it.

[Gambler]

You know admiral Piett,

If Europe (not england) had shown a modicum of actual concern for the deaths of our people on 9/11, and lived up to your treaty commitment to fight with us to the death as comrades in arms, whether it was one carrier or 1 division, America would think differently about Europe. We would be talking about the great Atlantic community rallying to turn back the ravages of terrorism which graps hundreds of millions of innocent people in the middle east alone.

What do we get instead? A bunch of pansies who look like they were only interested in NATO and the rest to get whatever they could and leave us bloodied when the going gets tough.

The US with our "cowboy culture" can't even begin to conceive what your motives are. You are certainly not our friends or allies.

This is only more bullshit of yours Azeron, not only american lives were lost on 11.9 as far as I know almost 100 people from each european nation died in the WTC, that is 100 germans, 100 italians, 100 french, 100 british, etc. You don't live in Europe so you don't know how the people reactet after 11.9 ( yes I am sure he has some personal story here that he will tell us sooner or later but I am sure he has no statistical evidence). As far as I know the US has retired most of their troops from Kosovo because they needed them in Afghanistan with what troops were they replace? Right with european ones. We also send troops to Afghanistan and ships to patrol that area so stop telling lies. As Admiral Piett pointet out we have different armies not a single big one and less money to spend for military purposes.

[Evil Jerk]

You know admiral Piett,

If Europe (not england) had shown a modicum of actual concern for the deaths of our people on 9/11, and lived up to your treaty commitment to fight with us to the death as comrades in arms, whether it was one carrier or 1 division, America would think differently about Europe. We would be talking about the great Atlantic community rallying to turn back the ravages of terrorism which graps hundreds of millions of innocent people in the middle east alone.

What do we get instead? A bunch of pansies who look like they were only interested in NATO and the rest to get whatever they could and leave us bloodied when the going gets tough.

The US with our "cowboy culture" can't even begin to conceive what your motives are. You are certainly not our friends or allies.

What? Not happy that the rest of Europe isn't the US's poodle like the UK is?
The rest of the world has no obligation to be at your beck and call just because you say so.

[Tsyroc]

You know admiral Piett,

If Europe (not england) had shown a modicum of actual concern for the deaths of our people on 9/11, and lived up to your treaty commitment to fight with us to the death as comrades in arms, whether it was one carrier or 1 division, America would think differently about Europe. We would be talking about the great Atlantic community rallying to turn back the ravages of terrorism which graps hundreds of millions of innocent people in the middle east alone.

What do we get instead? A bunch of pansies who look like they were only interested in NATO and the rest to get whatever they could and leave us bloodied when the going gets tough.

The US with our "cowboy culture" can't even begin to conceive what your motives are. You are certainly not our friends or allies.

What? Not happy that the rest of Europe isn't the US's poodle like the UK is?
The rest of the world has no obligation to be at your beck and call just because you say so.

Actually I'm kind of glad they're not otherwise we'd be doing even more dumbass shit than we already do. Seen any duly elected goverments that need overthrown because their too "pink" for American interests?

[weemadando]

You know Azeron, you're called the village idiot for a very good reason.

[Antediluvian]

Is anybody else tired of Asseron trying to atagonize everyone who isn't from the US that posts here and even his fellow countrymen/women that don't agree with him?

[Asst. Asst. Lt. Cmdr. Smi]

Now, Asseron, we have no need to deabte, but that was interesting, a conversation in which both sides used every logical fallacy conceivable.

[Wicked Pilot]

This is just more flame bait from Azeron.

Take Joker's advice: "Don't listen to any of Azeron's bullshit. He thinks he's John Wayne."

[Nick]

This is just more flame bait from Azeron.

Take Joker's advice: "Don't listen to any of Azeron's bullshit. He thinks he's John Wayne."

Nah, Azeron just thinks if you don't agree with some aspect of his lame right-wing nutjob arguments, why then you must be diametrically opposed to his point of view.

Anyway. . .

http://www.iserv.net/~ige/rj/terror1.html

I don't agree with everything this guy says, but it casts things in an interesting light, doesn't it?

The terrorists attacks were horrific, certainly. But can you imagine the effect if the USA were to put the same effort into combatting global poverty that it is currently putting into combatting terrorism? And who knows? In the process, it just might defuse some of that festering hatred which is the root cause of terrorism.

[Admiral Piett]

[/quote]

Nah, Azeron just thinks if you don't agree with some aspect of his lame right-wing nutjob arguments, why then you must be diametrically opposed to his point of view.

Anyway. . .

http://www.iserv.net/~ige/rj/terror1.html

I don't agree with everything this guy says, but it casts things in an interesting light, doesn't it?

The terrorists attacks were horrific, certainly. But can you imagine the effect if the USA were to put the same effort into combatting global poverty that it is currently putting into combatting terrorism? And who knows? In the process, it just might defuse some of that festering hatred which is the root cause of terrorism.[/quote]

Some points.

Unfortunately combatting poverty is not all that easy.For example one would think that funding third world countries would help them.In practice usually these funds help only the local èlites who keep the money for themselves.Something can be made but do not believe that helping third world countries is an easy process.
As far as defuzing terrorism I think that the impact of the poverty factor is minimal.Frankly I tend to exclude that Osama & Co are on the warpath for the sake of the "poor exploited third world people".The people of the third world probably do not care about terrorism.And Al Quaeda does not care about them.Note that these terrorists come from the wealthy but politically troubled Saudi Arabia.Personally I bet that if you brought the third world to western standard but leaving the political situation of some countries(Saudi Arabia and others) unchanged you would get exactly the same amount of terrorism.
Palestinian terrorism comes from disperation but Al Quaeda is an entirely different animal,with different backgrounds and motivations.
I tend to exclude that US interventions have made a true difference in the third world from an economical point of view.Simply we would have a few more failed "socialist" economies instead of non functional/failed capitalist economies,the current third world standard economy.Little difference from this point of view.
Then they may send Kissinger to the same cell of Milosevic.Better,they can send both in front of the same firing squad and do not think that this would make me feel sad.
I do not share US obsession for cars.I do not have a car,I do not want one
and I like trains.But attributing the boom of private transports uniquely to a big businness conspirations is ridiculous.People want cars,this is all.Idem for tobacco:people smoke even in Italy,where tobacco advertising is forbidden and cigarettes are a state monopoly.
What the writer of the article seems to advocate is basically that the US should become some sort of planned economy where people get their "world compatible" rations of resources.However no one has the palest idea of how practically such an economy could be made to work.Besides
while reducing drastically consumes would reduce pollution it is not like third world people cannot use resources only because we use them.If the western countries had not used middle east oil it would be simply still buried there unused.Idem for the others resources.
In short,mr Nick,you have probably found only mr Azeron leftist equivalent.

[Nick]

In short,mr Nick,you have probably found only mr Azeron leftist equivalent.

Yeah, I know. The guy I linked is somewhat of an extremist (I actually only skimmed the article - but of what I read, his cause and effect are as badly screwed up as Azeron's. Particularly when he started raving on like an anti-capitalist loon. Moron.). However, compared to the number of people who have died of preventable causes today, 3000-5000 is a small number. That doesn't lessen the tragedy for those who knew the people that died (then or now), nor does it lessen the guilt for those who are directly responsible for those deaths. (Unfortunately, indirect responisbility does lessen feelings of responsibility, since, after all, 'it's not my fault!')

However, the fact remains that poverty is a far greater killer than any terrorist organisation. The problems with tackling it are manyfold - and, obviously, most of its victims don't vote in US elections. Many of your comments are spot on - the political problems in many third world countries make it impossible for the aid to reach the people that need it.

*shrug* It's not an easy problem, and I certainly don't pretend to have any answers. That doesn't make the problem go away, though.

[Colonel Olrik]

THE PRESIDENT: It's my honor to welcome Prime Minister Durao of Portugal to the Oval Office. He's one of the bright young leaders on the international stage. And it's a conversation I've been looking forward to having with Jose.

He comes at a very interesting time. It's a time where the world is discussing the present and the future. Today -- tomorrow we'll be reliving a horrible reminder of what is possible in the 21st century -- that is, no country is immune from attack.

We will discuss today our mutual desire to fight terror. And I appreciate the government of Portugal for its strong support in the war against terror. We will also discuss future threats that we face, all of us face -- the dire possibilities that outlaw regimes will develop weapons of mass destruction and use them with terrorist organizations, or use them on their own, against countries which love freedom, countries such as Portugal.

Had to post this

OOPS, did he mention we were close allies?