[TETENAL]

http://service.spiegel.de/cache/inte...325239,00.html

Europeans may have trouble carving out a common foreign policy, but most agree on one thing: Bush must go. With US elections rapidly approaching, countless Europeans are fervently seeking to sway American voters. But can their efforts really make a difference?

[...]

One trend is clear: Europeans hate President George W. Bush. Moreover, they are appalled that a man many here see as responsible for much of the evil in the world has a good chance of being re-elected to the world's most powerful post next week. Most of all, however, Europeans are frustrated that, no matter how loudly they may groan, they can have no real influence on the outcome on Nov. 2.

[...]

The feeling in Europe is almost unanimous. In a September survey by the US-based Program on International Policy Attitudes, challenger John Kerry was the clear first choice in almost every European country. 74 percent of Germans prefer him compared to just 10 percent for Bush. In France it was 64 to 5 percent. Holland: 63 to 6. And in Britain, Washington's closest ally in the war in Iraq, support for Bush's election is a mere 16 percent compared to 47 for Kerry. Only in Poland, likewise fighting in Iraq, did people support Bush -- by a margin of 31 percent to 26 percent.

And while the war in Iraq -- a war seen here as the geopolitical version of a bull in a china shop -- is a big part of Europe's disgust with Bush, he was a controversial figure from the start. His pull-out from the Kyoto Protocol, his backing away from the International Criminal Court and one unilateralist move after another set Europeans against him from the start.

[...]

Bush also strikes a deeper European nerve. He says that transatlantic relations, and US-Germany relations in particular, have steadily improved since the 1950s. By the time the Clinton administration ended, that relationship had developed into a true world partnership. But Bush's apparent disdain for Europe and especially Donald Rumsfeld's referral to Germany and France as "old Europe" changed all that.

In the 1990s, we enjoyed having a relaxed and natural relationship of equals with the United States. [...] Bush has completely destroyed that. Rumsfeld has told us that we are no longer partners in leadership. The '90s were a Golden Age in German-American relations. That has been totally destroyed. We are now in the worst phase since the very end of World War II.

[...]

There have [...] been a number of practical attempts to influence the vote. "Vote 44," a project founded in Europe and dedicated to encouraging the 525,000 Americans it estimates are living here to vote Bush out of office, has bought television spots, hung posters in cities across the continent and handed out 70 million fliers in support of Kerry. "We Europeans have a social responsibility," Matt Lahitka, founder of Vote 44's German chapter told SPIEGEL INTERNATIONAL. "The whole world is disgusted by American politics -- the politics of ignorance, of anti-freedom and anti-United Nations. We want a change."

[Shaddim]

Wow, I'm stunned. Nay, I'm shocked.

Damn.


Wait a second. Let's see. Hmmm...


Nope, don't care.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Agree. Who cares what the Europeans think? OUR country, OUR election. Stay the f**k out of it.

[Joshua]

So?

[Twilly Spree]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Agree. Who cares what the Europeans think? OUR country, OUR election. Stay the f**k out of it.

Yep and we'll elect the right man won't we

[effgee]

On the elections ... agreed. I think it's perfectly fine for anyone, regardless of where they're from, to voice their opinion as long as they realize that actual interference should be a no-no.

Originally posted by TETENAL:
... In a September survey by the US-based Program on International Policy Attitudes, ...

As far as the big picture is concerned, somebody in the US obviously does care ... the survey was conducted by a US organization, after all.

[greenamp]

so

[Randman]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
But can their efforts really make a difference?

No, it can't. And to be honest, such comments are likely to swing a few undecideds to Bush's camp, the thinking goes: Who goes what the Germans and Surrender Monkeys in France think?
Just look at the responses here.

And I'm working abroad (SE Asia not Europe) so I'm not insulated by being in the continental 48.

My opinion is that a clear, calm recitation of the facts for and against each candidate would make a far greater impact that the BUSH IS EVIL AND MUST GO! comments that really seem knee-jerk and baseless.

FYI, a couple of weeks ago, I wrote a column for my newspaper asking people to write in and tell me which candidate they'd vote for and why. I also said I was leaning toward Bush because Kerry hadn't done enough in my mind to warrant voting for him, though I remained undecided.

More than 2/3 of the people who responded were for Kerry. They came from Britain, Germany, Australia, Singapore and other places. But of all of the comments "for Kerry", most were actually against Bush and only 1 actually talked about any of Kerry's policies.
In response, more than 90% of the Bush supporters cited numbers, facts and platform planks as the reasons to vote for Bush.

[nath]

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
Agree. Who cares what the Europeans think?

uh...

OUR country, OUR election. Stay the f**k out of it.

...well it looks like you care, unless the potty-mouth and foot-stamping CAPITALS are your idea of a calm and detached post.



There are 250,000 ex-pat US voters in the UK alone. Given the small margin that will apparently decide victory in this poll, what the Europeans think (and how the European media influences these voters) could well be decisive, whether you care or not.

[christ]

I don't care who you choose to run your country.

I do care, however, about the excursionist, imperialist policies that some of your politicians wish to adopt, and I would prefer that you keep your politician's antics (and your armies) to yourselves.

If you don't want anyone else to express an opinion on your politicians, keep them at home.

[Troll]

By the way, it's not just Europeans. The survey was conducted globally in 35 countries and only 4 supported Bush over Kerry. Here are some of the results.

Poll, of 34,330 people, was conducted mainly in July and August.

POLL RESULTS (KERRY-BUSH)
Norway: 74%-7%
Germany: 74%-10%
France: 64%-5%
Italy: 58%-14%
Spain: 45%-7%
UK: 47%-16%
Canada: 61%-16%
Mexico: 38%-18%
Brazil: 57%-14%
China: 52%-12%
Japan: 43%-32%
Indonesia: 57%-34%
India: 34%-33%
Philippines: 32%-57%
Nigeria: 33%-27%
Poland: 26%-31%
Thailand: 30%-33%

Source: GlobeScan Inc/University of Maryland PIPA

[djohnson]

Why should we care what Europe wants? Do they control us again? What a joke!

[effgee]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Why should we care what Europe wants? Do they control us again? What a joke!

Duh! Did you bother to actually read the last sentence of nath's post (3 posts above yours)? Ask yourself by how many votes you think Bush might win this election and then compare that number to the number of ex-pat voters in Europe (world) who are influenced by the European (world) media - frightening, isn't it?

You should care for the very reason he mentions. But then again, the less the more narrow-minded folks care, the better.

[Judge_Fire]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Why should we care what Europe wants? Do they control us again? What a joke!

I'd hate living across the street from you. "Why should I care about my neighbours in this community? What a joke!"

We all live on this planet together. Actions taken on one side easily have great effect on the other. Attempts to censor equal and open discussion on these actions reek of fascism.

You really can't see your society's rapid decline from within, can you?

J

[Randman]

Originally posted by Judge_Fire:
I'd hate living across the street from you. "Why should I care about my neighbours in this community? What a joke!"

That's a silly analogy. If I came over and told you that I don't like your wife and that you should divorce her, are you going to?

[nath]

Originally posted by djohnson:
Why should we care what Europe wants?

Because the Western European democracies have more in common with the US than most other countries in terms of the basic structure of their societies and their broad political outlook (i.e. the same reasons for which we have always been allies, with many mutual and historically beneficial results). We share many of the same aims and goals, and face many of the same challenges. The French guy who gave Powell the slapdown at the final Security Council debates before the war made some really good points along these lines. When someone is at their most vulnerable and/or uncertain (i.e. the US post 9/11) it makes sense to listen to the council of valued and long-standing friends, rather than throwing their attempts to reach out to you back in their faces in some kind of crazed frenzy.

Noticeably in the numbers posted above, the closer each culture is to America, the stronger the backlash seems to be against the current administration's policies. Whether you care or not, I'd like to hear your thoughts on why that should be. Although if those thoughts amount to 'because you're all pinkos/pussies' then you could probably save yourself the bother, to be honest.

[effgee]

Originally posted by Randman:
That's a silly analogy. If I came over and told you that I don't like your wife and that you should divorce her, are you going to?

You mean like ... people should get rid of their head of state because their neighbor *cough* … USA … *cough* wants them to? That never happened before, I tell ya!

[Randman]

Bush is poor at pr and Iraq was a polarising issue.
But to be honest, I can understand non-Americans' views on the election very well living abroad.
But at the same time, I'd suggest that many of the people in other countries worry more about their backyard and improving their own country.
Look at Australia. Many people there don't like Bush and are against involvement in Iraq, but Johnny Howard was voted in for another term.

[Troll]

Originally posted by Randman:
But at the same time, I'd suggest that many of the people in other countries worry more about their backyard and improving their own country.

Whose backyard is Iraq? Maybe if you stayed out of other people's backyard, we wouldn't be interested in what you do at home.

[SimeyTheLimey]

I've lived as an ex-pat in Europe the last time when European opinion was utterly convinced that the US had a warmongering idiot for a president and when a good chunk of elite opinion saw the US as the main danger in the world. They were utterly wrong then, and I see no reason to defer now.

I find myself in surprising agreement with the BBC article mentioned earlier. I think it is quite balanced. Americans abroad include the military, students, and people abroad on business. It overall makes them hard to predict and quantify. I'd also add thought that there is no definitive list of who exactly these people are. It isn't as though the embassy in places like London keeps track of them. I don't know how anyone could poll them, for example.

The influence of European public opinion might not be what you think it is. The BBC article quotes both Democrats and Republicans agreeing that the British media is pro-Kerry. That's probably true, and it probably does have an effect. On the other hand, there is also the chilling effect of public opinion that the article also mentions. If you are an American abroad it is kind of like being a conservative on a liberal campus. It is easier to go along publicly than to make a scene. There were a lot of times in England when I would just ignore comments rather than get into yet another argument.

I'll also relate this anecdote. Virulent anti-Americanism can produce a backlash. My father is a true ex-pat American. He's in England because he prefers it to the US. He has lived there permanently for over 30 years. He is ardently pro-European Union, and particularly admires France, where he spends a good chunk of the year. In fact, he sometimes comes across as a bit embarrassed to be an American and I certainly have never seen him take America's side on any political dispute with European opinion.

However, about a year ago when Bush visited the UK and there was a lot of anti-American, anti-Bush sentiment in the UK media, he asked me to send him an American flag pin to wear on his suit "like the one the president wears." He wanted to literally show the flag at a time when he perceived his country was under attack. I was stunned because for my father, that's an extremely confrontational thing to do. But I know why he did it.

So basically I would suggest to Europeans to cool it a bit. You may be feeling that you are in a righteous backlash against the US. But backlashes can go both ways.

[effgee]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I've lived as an ex-pat in Europe the last time when European opinion was utterly convinced that the US had a warmongering idiot for a president and when a good chunk of elite opinion saw the US as the main danger in the world. They were utterly wrong then, and I see no reason to defer now. ...

I'm curious, not being confrontational - what time period are you refering to?

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
However, about a year ago when Bush visited the UK and there was a lot of anti-American, anti-Bush sentiment in the UK media, he asked me to send him an American flag pin to wear on his suit "like the one the president wears." He wanted to literally show the flag at a time when he perceived his country was under attack. I was stunned because for my father, that's an extremely confrontational thing to do. But I know why he did it.

While I certainly can't speak for the situation in the UK, I can tell you for sure that there's no majority worth mentioning here in Germany that could be considered "anti-US" by any stretch of the imagination. "Anti-Bush"? Absolutely. But >90% of the folks I talk to every day (many of them my clients who work in industries that are well known to be very conservative - bankers, for example) make a real effort to point out that they have no problem with the US per se - they do however, disagree passionately with its current administration.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So basically I would suggest to Europeans to cool it a bit. You may be feeling that you are in a righteous backlash against the US. But backlashes can go both ways.

You mean like "freedom fries", "pouring french wine out on the street" and "boycotting all European products"?

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I've lived as an ex-pat in Europe the last time when European opinion was utterly convinced that the US had a warmongering idiot for a president and when a good chunk of elite opinion saw the US as the main danger in the world. They were utterly wrong then, and I see no reason to defer now.

Actually you were utterly wrong then, as well as now. I believe it was the previous warmongering idiot that we have to thank for selling chemical and biological weapons to Iraq in the first place? That's just one particularly noxious example from an extensive list of Reaganite foreign policy balls-ups that we are all reaping the whirlwind from today.

Edit:

However, about a year ago when Bush visited the UK and there was a lot of anti-American, anti-Bush sentiment in the UK media, he asked me to send him an American flag pin to wear on his suit "like the one the president wears." He wanted to literally show the flag at a time when he perceived his country was under attack. I was stunned because for my father, that's an extremely confrontational thing to do. But I know why he did it.

I don't remember much anti-American sentiment. For example, nearly all of the posters at the anti-war march were specifically anti-Bush. I think your dad was making the rather common (albeit dumb) mistake of confusing President and country.

[nath]

Originally posted by effgee:

You mean like "freedom fries", "pouring french wine out on the street" and "boycotting all European products"?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by nath:
Actually you were utterly wrong then, as well as now. I believe it was the previous warmongering idiot that we have to thank for selling chemical and biological weapons to Iraq in the first place? That's just one particularly noxious example from an extensive list of Reaganite foreign policy balls-ups that we are all reaping the whirlwind from today.

I think you should do a little research on Iraq's WMD program. Some of it can indeed be traced to US private companies (which nobody denies), but an awful lot of it came from Europe. West Germany, France, and the UK are particularly high on the list. Higher in fact than the US.

But this is in any case an excellent example of the anti-American attitudes that piss many Americans off. If you are an ex-pat you meet it every day and every day you have the quandary: confront it, or stay quiet?

[nath]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think you should do a little research on Iraq's WMD program. Some of it can indeed be traced to US private companies (which nobody denies), but an awful lot of it came from Europe. West Germany, France, and the UK are particularly high on the list. Higher in fact than the US.

But this is in any case an excellent example of the anti-American attitudes that piss many Americans off. If you are an ex-pat you meet it every day and every day you have the quandary: confront it, or stay quiet?

Nobody's saying the US was alone in encouraging Saddam - you were saying people were wrong to criticise Reagan for being a warmonger and I pointed out one reason (from many) as to why he was a warmonger.

I will be sitting with my ex-pat friends next Tuesday night praying for your souls, all the same.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think you should do a little research on Iraq's WMD program. Some of it can indeed be traced to US private companies (which nobody denies), but an awful lot of it came from Europe. West Germany, France, and the UK are particularly high on the list. Higher in fact than the US.

But this is in any case an excellent example of the anti-American attitudes that piss many Americans off. If you are an ex-pat you meet it every day and every day you have the quandary: confront it, or stay quiet?

*coug* Osama bin Laden *cough*

I think that if Americans want to vote based on what foreigners think, then they're the idiots. Knowing that you're more than moderately intelligent, I doubt your father is going to vote for Bush just because it will pee off the people he thinks are anti-Bush.

Americans don't need an excuse to vote against Bush. He's given you enough excuses. One of the considerations should be that your leader is despised in the world. That isn't a reason not to vote for him but the repurcussions of that are indeed reason not to vote for him - at a time when you really, really need the world to help you fight terrorism, America's image in the world is at an all time low and very few are willing to assist you in doing anything.

Vote for him and you endorse the rolling back of civil liberties including an anti-gay amendment to the Constitution, you endorse the Iraq war, his dropping of the ball on homeland security, his currying favour with coroporates. Those are all things the rest of the world doesn't like ... well all of us except Filipinos, Poles and Nigerians.

[Shaddim]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I think you should do a little research on Iraq's WMD program. Some of it can indeed be traced to US private companies (which nobody denies), but an awful lot of it came from Europe. West Germany, France, and the UK are particularly high on the list. Higher in fact than the US.

But this is in any case an excellent example of the anti-American attitudes that piss many Americans off. If you are an ex-pat you meet it every day and every day you have the quandary: confront it, or stay quiet?

I remember hearing a pair of French gentlemen (they were French, not Canadian) complaining to a group of Israelis about Israel having nukes. The irony left me laughing so hard I almost broke into tears.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Vote for him and you endorse the rolling back of civil liberties including an anti-gay amendment to the Constitution, you endorse the Iraq war, his dropping of the ball on homeland security, his currying favour with coroporates. Those are all things the rest of the world doesn't like ... well all of us except Filipinos, Poles and Nigerians.

Don't tell me what my vote means. That's for me to decide.

[eklipse]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Don't tell me what my vote means. That's for me to decide.

That's right, keep thinking happy thoughts!

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Don't tell me what my vote means. That's for me to decide.

I was talking about the Europeans among the 35,000 people that voted in the study. I was explaining why they didn't vote for Bush.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
I was talking about the Europeans among the 35,000 people that voted in the study. I was explaining why they didn't vote for Bush.

They can't vote for Bush. Or against Bush. And that's the point.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by effgee:
While I certainly can't speak for the situation in the UK, I can tell you for sure that there's no majority worth mentioning here in Germany that could be considered "anti-US" by any stretch of the imagination. "Anti-Bush"? Absolutely. But >90% of the folks I talk to every day (many of them my clients who work in industries that are well known to be very conservative - bankers, for example) make a real effort to point out that they have no problem with the US per se - they do however, disagree passionately with its current administration.

This has been said dozens of times before, but it's an important point that's often missed, so it's worth repeating. The vast majority of Europeans have no problem with America. It's the current administration that is disliked.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
This has been said dozens of times before, but it's an important point that's often missed, so it's worth repeating. The vast majority of Europeans have no problem with America. It's the current administration that is disliked.

What it actually boils down to is that many Europeans have no problem with America, provided America conforms to what they want America to do and be. It's when America insists on behaving too much like America that they get upset.

It's very easy to say that you like something only when it suits you. But it isn't the same thing as saying you have no problem with America. Of course you do. Presidents like Bush and Reagan represent a significant percentage, maybe even a majority, of what makes America, America. Those presidents are popular with many Americans and what makes them tick is reflected in significant American traits. When you say you hate them, it is the country that elected them you are hating, not just the man.

[effgee]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What it actually boils down to is that many Europeans have no problem with America, provided America conforms to what they want America to do and be. It's when America insists on behaving too much like America that they get upset. ...

Best post of the day™!!

It's like switching the first and last letter in "ABBA"

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by effgee:
Best post of the day™!!

It's like switching the first and last letter in "ABBA"

It's nothing but the truth. Basically, this country has a variety of traits. Some of which are fairly compatible with European sensibilities, and other ones which aren't. You like it when you see the former, don't like it when you see the latter. But both are part of what we are, and it isn't for you to tell us otherwise.

You can see the pattern if you think back over the last 40 years or so. You like American presidents who are somewhat deferential toward Europe, and (in your eyes) "sophisticated." Examples are Clinton, George HW Bush, Carter, (to some extent) Ford, (to some extent Nixon), Kennedy.

You dislike presidents who are not deferential toward Europe, strike you as unsophisticated (often a matter of style, but it can also be substantial disagreement). You particularly seem to dislike bluntness and any overt religiosity or patriotism (all three of which tend to be liked by American voters). Examples include GW Bush, Reagan, (to some extent) Nixon, Johnson.

The standout lovefest presidents were Clinton and Kennedy. The standout hatefest presidents were Johnson, Reagan, and GW Bush. It's a pattern.

So basically, if we oblige you by electing one of the presidents you like, then you get to say you like America and its president. But if we dissappoint you by electing one of the presidents you dislike, then you slam the president as an idiot, warmonger, bumpkin, etc., while mysteriously forgetting that the country you profess not to have a problem with periodically elects such presidents you find outrageous for a good reason. That reason is that those presidents to a large extent represents this country. If you can't stand that fact, then it is this country you are objecting to, not just its leaders.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
What it actually boils down to is that many Europeans have no problem with America, provided America conforms to what they want America to do and be. It's when America insists on behaving too much like America that they get upset.

And what this boils down to is that for you a conservative government is everything there is to America to be American. For me America is much more than that. Its science, its technology, its life-style, its culture, its fashion, its food. Some of these things I like, some I admire, some I love – like this computer I'm typing this text. I can love America even if I disagree with some of these aspects – like the current foreign politics.

Presidents like Bush and Reagan represent a significant percentage, maybe even a majority, of what makes America, America. Those presidents are popular with many Americans and what makes them tick is reflected in significant American traits. When you say you hate them, it is the country that elected them you are hating, not just the man.

I "hate" Bush, but I don't hate the people who voted for him. Just like I loved Clinton didn't mean I loved those who voted for him. I can well distinguish between the elected representatives and the people.

And by the way, as far as I can remember, more people voted for Gore than for Bush. So even by your narrow standards, I should be allowed to like America.

[Troll]

There Simey goes off on his anti-Europe rant. Once again ignoring the reality that ... IT'S NOT ONLY EUROPE THAT HATES BUSH. The whole friggin world hates Bush.

You don't want to admit that because it blows a hole in your "You only like us if we're deferential" theory. Botswana doesn't expect you to be deferential, Egypt doesn't expect you to be deferential. But they do expect you to play the game by the rules. They do expect you to stop showing them the finger on global issues like proliferation of landmines, chemical and nuclear weapons, the environment. They do expect you to start trading fairly. Most of all, they expect you not to go charging all over the planet pre-emptively invading countries, toppling governments and killing innocent people for no reason other than your own grandiose ideas of empire.

The rest of the world doesn't expect you to kneel down before them. They expect you to treat them as equals. They expect you to climb out of your ivory tower, to get off your "We can do whatever the f*ck we want because we are the sole superpower" pedestal and start participating as equals in the international system.

[effgee]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
It's nothing but the truth. ...

Simey - it's funny because it's true and because it goes both ways.

That's how it works with partners - we don't always like what they do and sometimes we could (metaphorically speaking) kill them for what we perceive as dumb. Doesn't mean you hate your buddy because he got drunk and made a fool out of himself at the party last night - and he didn't hate you when you did something stupid in the past.

It's a two-way street - and what cracks me up is that almost everything that's been said in this thread - on both sides of the proverbial fence - applies equally to all parties involved.

That's why it's funny.

[Randman]

I don't care for Jack Chirac. And I know many people who agree. Why don't the French kick him out of office? Do a recall?

[Troll]

Originally posted by Randman:
I don't care for Jack Chirac. And I know many people who agree. Why don't the French kick him out of office? Do a recall?

Great idea, let's go back to the last set of elections and vote for the other guy - the neo Nazi Le Pen.

A lot French people don't like Chirac either although he has redeemed himself of late. That has nothing to do with this thread though. It's the people in all of these countries all over the world that don't like Bush and his policies.

P.S. It's Jacques Chirac not Jack.

[Spliffdaddy]

When the Europeans disapprove - you know you're doing the right thing.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
They do expect you to stop showing them the finger on global issues like proliferation of landmines,

The US does not export landmines, and you know it. There has been a unilateral moritorium on exports since 1992.

That's one of the problems for the US. So much of what you seem to hate about us is fantasy, quite unconnected to the facts. So how do you deal with a myth?

One way might be isolationism. Leave you alone to sink or swim. The problem is that isn't really practical in an interdependent world that depends so much on American power.

For example, yesterday, you touted the effectiveness of UN sanctions, writing:

Originally posted by Troll:
if the IAEA comes back and finds the tags are gone, then they stick a few thousand cruise missiles up your arse.

I asked you whose cruise missiles those were, and of course you didn't answer. You know the answer: they are American. Whether you like it or not, we are the global policemen. Those multilateral solutuons you tout are underwritten by the US taxpayer.

So because so much of the world depends on the US so much, you tend to offload all problems onto it whether or not the US actually is responsible. And then to top it off, you blame us for not doing what you want us to do, and get upset when we mention our own interests. That's why the US is constantly whipsawed between being blamed for acting too much, and blamed for acting too little.

[effgee]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
... The problem is that isn't really practical in an interdependent world ...

And especially so since the rest of the world finances the "world police" to a very, very large degree. Half of the US budget deficit in 2003 is owned by the central banks of three asian countries alone.

Hypothetically speaking - if they decided tomorrow to cancel your lifeline (which they never will, hence the term "interdependent") - your troops in Iraq would be eating sand and pushing their tanks to the frontlines in no time - regardless of how much you pay in taxes.

If you talk about an interdependent world and putting fantasies to rest you may as well include your own.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by effgee:
And especially so since the rest of the world finances the "world police" to a very, very large degree. Half of the US budget deficit in 2003 is owned by the central banks of three asian countries alone.

Hypothetically speaking - if they decided tomorrow to cancel your lifeline (which they never will, hence the term "interdependent") - your troops in Iraq would be eating sand and pushing their tanks to the frontlines in no time - regardless of how much you pay in taxes.

If you talk about an interdependent world and putting fantasies to rest you may as well include your own.

Do you know the phrase, "the bank is too big to fail"? That pretty much applies to the US. If foreign investors all decided to call in their debt, they would suffer right alongside the US, and probably worse. So it isn't going to happen.

[effgee]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Do you know the phrase, "the bank is too big to fail"? That pretty much applies to the US. If foreign investors all decided to call in their debt, they would suffer right alongside the US, and probably worse. So it isn't going to happen.

You're right. For now. Assuming circumstances won't change. History has taught us that others have assumed the same before - and failed.

I'm sure the representatives of the caravan-rubbish-crew will follow with their mindless drivel in no time but take a minute and imagine the following hypothetical scenario:

After an initial worldwide crisis - which ending of the story is more likely to work out for foreign investors - that the US can exist without the rest of the world or vice versa?

Just think about it for a second or two.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
One way might be isolationism. Leave you alone to sink or swim. The problem is that isn't really practical in an interdependent world that depends so much on American power.

It's only nations like Iceland(small, no military etc etc) that need any kind of foreign power to help them. No one depends on American power and the few who do were forced to do that due to American pressure.

For example, yesterday, you touted the effectiveness of UN sanctions, writing:



I asked you whose cruise missiles those were, and of course you didn't answer. You know the answer: they are American. Whether you like it or not, we are the global policemen. Those multilateral solutuons you tout are underwritten by the US taxpayer.

I answered that. And it being paid by US taxpayers is complete and utter BS.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by effgee:
You're right. For now.

I'm sure the representatives of the caravan-rubbish-crew will follow with their mindless drivel in no time but take a minute and imagine the following hypothetical scenario:

After an initial worldwide crisis - which ending of the story is more likely to work out for foreign investors - that the US can exist without the rest of the world or vice versa?

Just think about it for a second or two.

I don't think it would work out better for foreign investors in the long run. What you are basically postulating is the end of the international financial system, returning each country (or nearby group of neighboring countries) into autarkies. Because every countries economy to a greater or lesser extent on trade, the result would be devastating. At a minimum, worldwide famine, and probably war.

However, the major industrialized economies would pick up again. Those with fairly robust and productive economies would probably pick up soonest. The US has a diversified economy, substantial natural resources including domestic energy, large agricultural sector capable of self-sufficiency, and a sophisticated and educated workforce, a common language and integrated financial and legal system, and one functioning government. Those are the very advantages that made the US powerful in the first place, and they aren't shared by many (or really any) of our competitors.

We are talking here about far-fetched hypotheticals because this isn't in anyone's interests. But if you collapsed the US economy, and with it the world economy, the US would still recover before others. You can't alter the fundemental fact that it is the economy around which the others revolve.

[effgee]

My point wasn't an accidental collapse of the world economy - but a hypothetical scenario where the rest of the world has grown tired of the biggest leech on the block bullying the others around.

Do you really believe that rumors, like the one where the Euro supposedly replaces the Dollar in the worldwide trade for crude, would have even surfaced if this wasn't already a thought construct people would (if not really seriously) kick around in their heads? And don't get me wrong - I'm by no means saying that such a development is right around the corner - that would be preposterous (see below). But can you imagine what this would do to the economy in the US? Would such a thought have crossed anyone's mind only 10, 20 years ago?

All I'm saying is that cooperation will always prevail over confrontation (regardless of what the juvenile backwood-dung-kickers in either of our countries believe) and that in the last four years the US administration has begun steering a course that might win the RNC an election or two but it can not succeed in the long run - it's simply not possible. Which leads me to my afterthought re: "the bank is too big to fail"

1. The US is no longer "the bank" - it's the debitor.
2. You know there have been "banks" much, much larger than yours throughout history ...the Chinese didn't know what the Alexander the Great knew didn't know what the Romans knew didn't know what the Ottomans knew didn't know what the Spaniards knew didn't know what the British knew didn't know what the Austrians knew didn't know what the Germans knew ... what makes you think you know that others didn't/don't/won't know? That's preposterous.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I asked you whose cruise missiles those were, and of course you didn't answer.

Actually I did. Desert Storm was bankrolled by everyone except the US. Japan paid for most of those cruise missiles.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So because so much of the world depends on the US so much, you tend to offload all problems onto it whether or not the US actually is responsible. And then to top it off, you blame us for not doing what you want us to do, and get upset when we mention our own interests. That's why the US is constantly whipsawed between being blamed for acting too much, and blamed for acting too little.

That argument is a bit tired now. Aren't you sick of playing the victim?

The US was less hated at any point in its history than it is now. Clinton knew how to pursue US interests without pissing the rest of the world off. The incompetent clown you have in the White House right now doesn't. Making the rest of the world feel like they're part of the process doesn't mean you have to be hamstrung. Besides which, in the case of Iraq, the rest of the world was right!!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
The US was less hated at any point in its history than it is now. Clinton knew how to pursue US interests without pissing the rest of the world off.

That isn't actually true. Clinton had his moments of significant disagreement with our European "allies" -- for example, when he bombed Iraq in 1998. I recall seeing protests during those bombing campaigns -- short and ineffective as they were.

However, Clinton basically benefitted from his small ambitions. When doing something is what pisses people off, it helps to be inclined to do very little.

And by the way, the Gulf War cruise missiles were still US Cruise Missiles -- even if Japan paid for some of them in lieu of sending troops (recall the percentage of oil that Japan imports from the Middle East).

After the Gulf War (which is the period of sanctions you referred to), those cruise missiles you rely on were owned, operated, and paid for by the US. The UN had nothing to do with it. So your boast that the UN sanctions in the 1990s were backed up by firepower needs a qualification. The UN sanctions were backed up by US (and secondarily, British) firepower. However, when we used it in 1998, France and Russia both objected.