[jojo gunne]

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

if only the u.s. would do the same thing.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:

The US was less hated at any point in its history than it is now.

That isn't actually true. [...] For example, when [Clinton] bombed Iraq in 1998. I recall seeing protests during those bombing campaigns

And these protest equal to hating the USA?

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
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).

Oh yeah, troops played a huge role in Desert Storm . The US didn't pay a cent for Desert Storm. In fact it's arguable that they made a profit out of it by selling arms to other countries.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The UN sanctions were backed up by US (and secondarily, British) firepower.

Not a single French plane in the sky? Oh, and remind me who imported the most oil under the OFFP. That's right the USA. Cheap oil didn't pay for the no fly zone enforcement?

Fine, then if the US didn't have an interest in paying to keep Iraq in check then why did they do it? Answer: because it was in your national interest to do it and you were prepared to pay for it just as you were prepared to spend $200Bn and 1,200 American lives to pursue your interests in Iraq in 2003. By contrast, you're working with an ever dwindling number of countries out there now because you didn't convince us.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Fine, then if the US didn't have an interest in paying to keep Iraq in check then why did they do it? Answer: because it was in your national interest to do it and you were prepared to pay for it just as you were prepared to spend $200Bn and 1,200 American lives to pursue your interests in Iraq in 2003. By contrast, you're working with an ever dwindling number of countries out there now because you didn't convince us.

In Desert Fox, you are correct. French aircraft did not participate. France opposed the Anglo-American operation, as did Russia and China.

I do wish you would make up your mind, by the way. One minute you are against the US acting its own interests through military enforcement. The next you tout US interests through military enforcement as the reason why UN sanctions are effective. Well, I suppose that it true up to a point. Because the US and UK ignored France, Russia and China in 1998, the UN gained a small bit of credibility. But the follow through in 1998 and afterwards was pretty pathetic, so any gain was lost. That's why the inspectors didn't go back for 4 years. Once again, they were let in again when the US troops you seem to think are irrelvant were on Saddam's border.

This is the basic contradiction of the multilateralist dream. You think that treaties, agreements, and press conferences lead to results. But the whole fairytale depends on the very raw power you despise.

[Asswip�]

To anyone living outside the US, I'm sorry our president is a complete ****ing loser. I'm almost embarrassed to be an American right now. Please remember that at least 50% of the people in the US are not in favor of our president. The other half are stupid ass republican- redneck- Jesus freaks.

[ThinkInsane]

Originally posted by Asswip�:
To anyone living outside the US, I'm sorry our president is a complete ****ing loser. I'm almost embarrassed to be an American right now. Please remember that at least 50% of the people in the US are not in favor of our president. The other half are stupid ass republican- redneck- Jesus freaks.

Great, a new alias to spread the same old ignorance. Why the new account? Or are you yet another person that feels the best place to argue politics is a mac forum? Seems odd that we get so many new members that only want to talk politics, not computers. Weird...

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
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?

You forgot the third option, that the large majority of voluntary ex-pat Americans I've met chooses:

Agree.

[Asswip�]

Wrong answer sport. -TI

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
You forgot the third option, that the large majority of voluntary ex-pat Americans I've met chooses:

Agree.

Of course some agree. But others (in my experience) just pretend to.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Asswip�:
Go blow it out your ass. I can post anything I want any time I want you piece of SH-it

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Of course some agree. But others (in my experience) just pretend to.

What makes you think they tell you the truth instead of the others?

[effgee]

Originally posted by Logic:
What makes you think they tell you the truth instead of the others?

... a just question, my li�ge.




After all, wasn't there a time when one would be chastized as "Un-American" for publicly critizing the odor if anyone in the Bush administration so much as "let (another) one slip".

[cold_reality]

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

Have all Europeans vote under absentee ballots...I mean the rest of the world is going to be part of the U.S. eventually anyway right?

[Joshua]

Europe's most widely circulated newspaper endorses Bush. You can read the original article in German here.

This is as meaningless as the numerous Kerry endorsements from Europe, but I find it surprising since our European friends here are so adamant that Bush is universally despised.

[effgee]

Originally posted by Joshua:
Europe's most widely circulated newspaper endorses Bush. You can read the original article in German here.

This is as meaningless as the numerous Kerry endorsements from Europe, but I find it surprising since our European friends here are so adamant that Bush is universally despised.

do you actually understand German? You do know what the "Bild Zeitung" is, correct?

[itistoday]

All you fscks who say "so?" are the problem with America. This attitude will only win the downfall of the US as the number one world power. Great empires always fall. The US has lasted a shorter amount of time than most historical world powers, and when you create enemies abroad, you only quicken the downfall.

I liken you all to rebellious teenagers, pretty soon reality is going to hit you in the face, and it's gonna hurt.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by effgee:
do you actually understand German? You do know what the "Bild Zeitung" is, correct?

Nope. The link with the translation merely says it "has the widest circulation of any newspaper in Europe." If there's something that author left out, maybe you'd like to add it?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by nath:
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.

The facts prove that those valued and long standing European friends were working against their vulnerable and/or uncertain US friend by working against US/UN sanctions (Oil for Food scandal) all along.

The Europeans have gone for decades without footing the 'retail price' for national defense. They have been able to develop attitudes of 'holier than thou' pacifism and 'diplomacy can solve everything' ONLY because the dirty work, the heavy lifting of keeping the peace in Europe was being borne by the US.

Unfortunately, these attitudes persist even in the face of a fundamentalist Islamic terrorist movement that's DECIDEDLY DISINTERESTED IN DIPLOMACY. (Although it must be recognized that when European capitols have given in to terrorism or terrorist factions, they have bought themselves a bit of short term peace in exchange for allowing the enemy a strangle hold on their government or the buttons to push in the future when the terrorists want the government to do their bidding.)

When European diplomacy didn't work to stop the Muslims there from being "ethnic cleansed" off the Balkan map, it took guns and bullets to stop the killing and resore peace.

In Iraq, the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world (after Saudi Arabia) were made secure from a mad man, they were denied the terrorist OBL (whose stated hope/intent/desire is/was to drive the price of oil up to $200/bbl = $7 gal at the pump) and several other important US interests were addressed by our invasion.

This rise in oil prices, having oil controlled by militant Islamist governments or forces or a curtailment of oil production would seriously impact US growth and our economy. (And a wrecked US economy would wreak global havoc.)

Recent history in Africa shows what can happen were the US to simply leave (or to have left after Saddam was toppled) before making sure the country was ready to govern itself.

Of particular interest is the struggle in Algeria, granted independence in 1962 by the French. From 1965 until 1988 Algerians tried to modernize their country and give it an industrial economy. In 1991, free elections were held and the Islamic party won. But, they immediately sought to do away with the democratic system that brought them power and install a religious government (think Taliban or Iran) and the government rejected the vote. Today, a deadly civil war between Islamic militants and the government rages on.

In short, we will do what's best for us, first. If we can help you guys out and it's also in our interests to do so, we will.

[effgee]

Originally posted by Joshua:
Nope. The link with the translation merely says it "has the widest circulation of any newspaper in Europe." If there's something that author left out, maybe you'd like to add it?

First off - the "" was not directed at your post - just want to make that clear. It did look like I was making fun of you - that wasn't my intention at all. It just cracked me up to read about the "Bild Zeitung" here - of all places.

The "Bild Zeitung", while huge in terms of circulation, is known to be about as modern as Strom Thurmond and has the intellectual depth of a dingleberry - the daily "naked chick" (I think it's on the last page - any Krauts wanna correct me if I'm mistaken) is known to be especially popular.

They do have quite a bit of initial pull in forming public opinion as long as seemingly simple topics are concerned - but nearly everyone, from CEO to assembly line worker that I have ever met and talked to, takes the "Bild Zeitung" for what it really is - a tabloid somewhere in between the National Enquirer and the "Sun" in the UK.

[Joshua]

Originally posted by effgee:
First off - the "" was not directed at your post - just want to make that clear. It did look like I was making fun of you - that wasn't my intention at all. It just cracked me up to read about the "Bild Zeitung" here - of all places.

The "Bild Zeitung", while huge in terms of circulation, is known to be about as modern as Strom Thurmond and has the intellectual depth of a dingleberry - the daily "naked chick" (I think it's on the last page - any Krauts wanna correct me if I'm mistaken) is known to be especially popular.

They do have quite a bit of initial pull in forming public opinion as long as seemingly simple topics are concerned - but nearly everyone, from CEO to assembly line worker that I have ever met and talked to, takes the "Bild Zeitung" for what it really is - a tabloid somewhere in between the National Enquirer and the "Sun" in the UK.

Thanks for clearing that up. Any idea why they would endorse Bush, given that the majority of their readership apparently hates him so much?

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
That isn't actually true. [...] For example, when [Clinton] bombed Iraq in 1998. I recall seeing protests during those bombing campaigns

And these protest equal to hating the USA? [/QUOTE]

In the 1990's my sister lived in Germany with her German-born husband (who gained US citizenship in the 80's) and faced frequent displays of anti-Americanism. We were quite distressed at the news coming from Europe which was interpreted as being quite anti-American.

Should you do a google, you'd probably find a word or two about it.

[TETENAL]

Originally posted by Joshua:
Europe's most widely circulated newspaper endorses Bush. You can read the original article in German here.

This is as meaningless as the numerous Kerry endorsements from Europe, but I find it surprising since our European friends here are so adamant that Bush is universally despised.

Did you actually read why BILD endorses Bush? Let me quote from the article:

Under Bush the superpower USA will continue to carry the main burden of the "Holy War" that was unilaterally declared by islamistic fanatics � military, financially as well as the blood prize.

If you think that is crap, then yes, BILD is sh!t.

For everyone who understands German here are dozens of examples:
http://www.bildblog.de/

[effgee]

Originally posted by Joshua:
... Any idea why they would endorse Bush, ...

Yup! There's one, exactly one reason for that ... it's controversial as hell here and it'll sell a shitload of newspapers.

reason: "$$$"




Uh yeah, if you can read even a bit of German you should really check out Tet's "blidblog" link above - it's a riot.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by effgee:
The "Bild Zeitung", while huge in terms of circulation, is known to be about as modern as Strom Thurmond and has the intellectual depth of a dingleberry - the daily "naked chick" (I think it's on the last page - any Krauts wanna correct me if I'm mistaken) is known to be especially popular.

First page (but no genital nudity).

Last page is occasional paparazzi snapshots of naked celebrities in the gossip section.


My favorite Bild frontpage headline of all time (still have it, and I SWEAR I did not pay for that paper):

"Horror im Kaufhaus - AIDS-Kranker bei�t Kunden blutig!"

("Horror in Dept. Store - AIDS-Sick Man Bites Customer and Draws Blood!")

ca. 1993.

-s*

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by Logic:


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.

This is true NOW. But for more than 40 years US military might and dollars kept Europe (and Iceland) from Soviet domination.

Your attitude reminds me of a previous post:

"What about the dozens of examples of the US stepping in when no one else would or could or did?

What about when US lives were lost saving Muslims from ethnic cleansing?

Short memories and ingratitude goes a loooooong way toward making me feel all warm and fuzzy about helping anyone being oppressed in the future.

OMG turn to the UN or FRANCE when you have a famine, earthquake, genocide etc.

Your argument reminds me of that of a spoiled little brat who gets treated better than she deserves in the first place, then when the boyfriend, husband, daddy can't do EVERY SINGLE THING to make her little world perfect she criticizes him for not doing enough!"

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Did you actually read why BILD endorses Bush? Let me quote from the article: Under Bush the superpower USA will continue to carry the main burden of the "Holy War" that was unilaterally declared by islamistic fanatics � military, financially as well as the blood prize.

At least they see & understand the danger and that the US is making a sacrifice that benefits NOT JUST THE US!

Some folks can't even understand THAT much.

Mebbe the decades long European reliance on American protection made you not only resentful of US power and impotent to stand up to a threat but also unable to recognize that threat when it appears.

Or do most of you already suffer from the "Stockholm Syndrome?"

http://ask.yahoo.com/ask/20030324.html
Stockholm Syndrome describes the behavior of kidnap victims who, over time, become sympathetic to their captors. The name derives from a 1973 hostage incident in Stockholm, Sweden. At the end of six days of captivity in a bank, several kidnap victims actually resisted rescue attempts, and afterwards refused to testify against their captors

[jojo gunne]

Originally posted by TETENAL:
Did you actually read why BILD endorses Bush? Let me quote from the article:


Under Bush the superpower USA will continue to carry the main burden of the "Holy War" that was unilaterally declared by islamistic fanatics � military, financially as well as the blood prize.

yup...so true.

[nath]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
Unfortunately, these attitudes persist even in the face of a fundamentalist Islamic terrorist movement that's DECIDEDLY DISINTERESTED IN DIPLOMACY. (Although it must be recognized that when European capitols have given in to terrorism or terrorist factions, they have bought themselves a bit of short term peace in exchange for allowing the enemy a strangle hold on their government or the buttons to push in the future when the terrorists want the government to do their bidding.)

Actually we have a lot more experience fighting terrorism than anyone in the US. Funnily enough, most of it was being funded out of Boston and New York. Like the most extreme Islamic organisations, there are elements of the Republican movement that give themselves a hard-on by bellowing 'no surrender'. They'll still be saying the same thing in 30 years, the only difference being that popular support for their ways and means has been drained due to negotiation. Exactly the same thing would happen in relation to Islamic fundamentalism and Palestine if the US would only engage with the process and stop defending the indefensible.

When European diplomacy didn't work to stop the Muslims there from being "ethnic cleansed" off the Balkan map, it took guns and bullets to stop the killing and resore peace.

Agreed. And a shameful episode for Europe in that we couldn't sort out our own back yard. Yet whenever moves are made to coordinate European military efforts or integrate defensive capabilities (let alone create a single European military organisation), the US defence and diplomatic establishment has a complete spaz. It will suffer no rival.

In short, we will do what's best for us, first.

That's about the size of it. I happen to think that this administration's interpretation of what's best for the US will in the long term cause serious damage to both US interests and the way you are perceived in the world.

[vmpaul]

I thought Thomas Friedman (NYT) made some good points about the overseas perspective in his column today:

I have been struck by how many foreign dignitaries have begged me lately for news that Bush will lose. This Bush team has made itself so radioactive it glows in the dark. When the world liked Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan, America had more power in the world. When much of the world detests George Bush, America has less power. People do not want to be seen standing next to us. It doesn't mean we should run our foreign policy as a popularity contest, but it does mean that leading is not just about making decisions - it's also the ability to communicate, follow through and persuade.

If the Bush team wins re-election, unless it undergoes a policy lobotomy and changes course and tone, the breach between America and the rest of the world will only get larger. But all Mr. Bush and Dick Cheney have told us during this campaign is that they have made no mistakes and see no reason to change.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I thought Thomas Friedman (NYT) made some good points about the overseas perspective in his column today:

I respect Friedman's writings. I don't always agree with him but he's quite talented.

What comes to mind, immediately, is that while we may risk alienating Europe (and all that entails) with Bush, Kerry has not convinced me that his approach (indeed, his character) wouldn't lead to irrepairable damage at the hands of our foes.

The difference being, we can more easily recover from the former.

[nath]

Originally posted by aberdeenwriter:
What comes to mind, immediately, is that while we may risk alienating Europe (and all that entails) with Bush, Kerry has not convinced me that his approach (indeed, his character) wouldn't lead to irrepairable damage at the hands of our foes.

oooh, not those evil foes!!

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by nath:
Actually we have a lot more experience fighting terrorism than anyone in the US. Funnily enough, most of it was being funded out of Boston and New York. Like the most extreme Islamic organisations, there are elements of the Republican movement that give themselves a hard-on by bellowing 'no surrender'. They'll still be saying the same thing in 30 years, the only difference being that popular support for their ways and means has been drained due to negotiation. Exactly the same thing would happen in relation to Islamic fundamentalism and Palestine if the US would only engage with the process and stop defending the indefensible.

Agreed. And a shameful episode for Europe in that we couldn't sort out our own back yard. Yet whenever moves are made to coordinate European military efforts or integrate defensive capabilities (let alone create a single European military organisation), the US defence and diplomatic establishment has a complete spaz. It will suffer no rival.

That's about the size of it. I happen to think that this administration's interpretation of what's best for the US will in the long term cause serious damage to both US interests and the way you are perceived in the world.

The European approach to terrorism has existed how long? The fact that your war against terrorism hasn't yet made us all safe means that we will have to conduct the WOT as best suits us.

I can imagine NO American president's first or lasting strategy
against terrorism to be to wait for it to dry up from lack of funding.

Neither would we wait for a determined enemy (like Saddam, for example) to decide whether he was going to play any more games with our potential well being.

There's a significant difference between the mindsets, European and American. Here's an article which discusses the differences and why they exist, (with regard to Iraq, terrorism and national defense) better than any I've read.

Please excuse me for a cut & paste reply, but it is much more eloquent and more completely instructive than I would be.

http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/bush/kagan.htm

The psychology of power and weakness

Today�s transatlantic problem, in short, is not a George Bush problem. It is a power problem. American military strength has produced a propensity to use that strength. Europe�s military weakness has produced a perfectly understandable aversion to the exercise of military power. Indeed, it has produced a powerful European interest in inhabiting a world where strength doesn�t matter, where international law and international institutions predominate, where unilateral action by powerful nations is forbidden, where all nations regardless of their strength have equal rights and are equally protected by commonly agreed-upon international rules of behavior. Europeans have a deep interest in devaluing and eventually eradicating the brutal laws of an anarchic, Hobbesian world where power is the ultimate determinant of national security and success.

This is no reproach. It is what weaker powers have wanted from time immemorial. It was what Americans wanted in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, when the brutality of a European system of power politics run by the global giants of France, Britain, and Russia left Americans constantly vulnerable to imperial thrashing. It was what the other small powers of Europe wanted in those years, too, only to be sneered at by Bourbon kings and other powerful monarchs, who spoke instead of raison d��tat. The great proponent of international law on the high seas in the eighteenth century was the United States; the great opponent was Britain�s navy, the �Mistress of the Seas.� In an anarchic world, small powers always fear they will be victims. Great powers, on the other hand, often fear rules that may constrain them more than they fear the anarchy in which their power brings security and prosperity.


The entire article is too lengthy to post here but is QUITE interesting and I'd welcome your opinion of it.

[aberdeenwriter]

Originally posted by nath:
oooh, not those evil foes!!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
I thought Thomas Friedman (NYT) made some good points about the overseas perspective in his column today:

Liberals seem to have taken lately invoking Reagan, and it is quite odd. Friedmen ought to acknowledge the fact that the world did not in fact like Reagan while he was president. The European reaction to him was pretty much identical to their reaction to W. Latin Americans definiately didn't like Reagan. That had a lot to do with why Kerry at the time called Reagan's presidency an era of darkness (and a lot of other bad things).

What Reagan had going for him was at the time there were some like-minded leaders in the world. Thatcher was in Britain, Kohl was in Germany, Craxi was in Italy, Lubbers was in the Netherlands, Nakasone was in Japan and so on. The left in Europe was out there marching in the streets protesting Reagan, and baying the same tripe they are baying now. They called him all the things they now call Bush. In fact, most of the things that they call Bush are just resurrected and warned up anti-Reagan lines. Reagan was to them a "cowboy," he was too dumb to be president, he was a "warmonger," he scared people, he was oppressing the Third World, etc. etc. But he had responsible leaders to work with. And the left hated them for it. Blair is called a poodle by The Guardian, but that term was used before about Thatcher and her relationship wth Reagan.

So much as I like a lot of what Friedman writes, he is wrong about this. Reagan wasn't popular in the world, and yet he was still able to accomplish important things because in the end he was right, and world opinion was wrong. it was only in at most the last year of his presidency that world opinion realized that perhaps it had been wrong about him. And only since his death that Liberals have suddenly decided to rewrite their own history with respect to him.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
The European reaction to him was pretty much identical to their reaction to W.

No it's not. There has never ever, in the history of the world been so much disdain shown for a President of the USA. Never. That is confirmed by survey after survey and it's confirmed by the fact that the biggest protests the world has ever seen took place against Bush's policies.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
No it's not. There has never ever, in the history of the world been so much disdain shown for a President of the USA. Never. That is confirmed by survey after survey and it's confirmed by the fact that the biggest protests the world has ever seen took place against Bush's policies.

Some pretty darn big protests occurred in 1982 and 1983 when Reagan was president too. Were you in Europe at the time? Do you recall the demonstrations against Cruise and Pershing? The numbers on the streets were in the millions.

Friedman is flat out wrong. Reagan was not popular in Western Europe.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Some pretty darn big protests occurred in 1982 and 1983 when Reagan was president too. Were you in Europe at the time? Do you recall the demonstrations against Cruise and Pershing? The numbers on the streets were in the millions.

Friedman is flat out wrong. Reagan was not popular in Western Europe.

Reagan was not popular in Europe. That doesn't change the fact that the biggest protests that have ever occurred in Europe for any reason whatsoever, occurred in protest to George Bush's policies. The only protest that has ever been bigger in any European country was the poll tax protest in Britain. The protests against Reagan's policies paled in comparison. The simple fact is that the United States reputation in the world dropped soon after Bush was elected and it has plummeted since Bush invaded Iraq. It has never, ever been as low as it is now. Which is not to say that you care...

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Reagan was not popular in Europe. That doesn't change the fact that the biggest protests that have ever occurred in Europe for any reason whatsoever, occurred in protest to George Bush's policies. The only protest that has ever been bigger in any European country was the poll tax protest in Britain. The protests against Reagan's policies paled in comparison. The simple fact is that the United States reputation in the world dropped soon after Bush was elected and it has plummeted since Bush invaded Iraq. It has never, ever been as low as it is now. Which is not to say that you care...

Friedman's point was that Reagan was successful because he (supposedly unlike Bush) was popular in Europe. But Reagan wasn't popular in Europe. He was deeply unpopular.

The specifics of how many showed up for such-and-such protest are pretty irrelevant beyond the basic similarity that both presidents were disliked enough that they could get millions out on the European streets to protests them, and both of them were stereotyped in very much the same way as dumb ideological warmongers, cowboys, dangerous to Europe and the world, and so on.

To someone old enough to compare the treatment of Bush with the treatment of Reagan, it looks a lot like deja vu all over again. No doubt people who lived in Europe in 1968 also think back to the riots in front of the American Embassy in London and also see that there is a pattern here. It kind of undermines your assertions that there is anything unique about Europe's dislike for this president, especially when they got it so wrong with Reagan.


I'm just surprised to see people like Friedman, who should know better, saying stupid counterfactual things like Reagan was popular with Europeans when he was president. But then again, I heard Fareed Zakaria (who I generally respect) yesterday blaming the lack of success of Eurodisney on anti-Americanism caused by Bush. I was in Europe when Eurodisney was opened in the early 90s when Clinton was riding high in Europe. Eurodisney was a flop right from the beginning!

[ebuddy]

originally posted by an imperialist of another nation; I liken you all to rebellious teenagers, pretty soon reality is going to hit you in the face, and it's gonna hurt.

Notice to all Americans, why resolve is critical at this time. I dare say reality has already hit this man in the face.

[typoon]

I frankly don't care what the Europens think about President Bush. They didn't like President Reagan either when he was building up arms and before the Soviet Union And the "Iron Curtain" came down. He stood fast and prevailed. Now President Reagan is credited with ENDING the cold war. President Bush has taken on these terrorist Head on with thie "war on terror" and though more needs to be done he is in a similar situation that President Reagan was. Europeans hate him but in the end everyone will be made safer because of him.

Bush is taking the fight to them. That is something we NEED to Do. These Scumbags need to be Killed before they kill us. We DO need to do more but this is only the begining.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I heard Fareed Zakaria (who I generally respect) yesterday blaming the lack of success of Eurodisney on anti-Americanism caused by Bush. I was in Europe when Eurodisney was opened in the early 90s when Clinton was riding high in Europe. Eurodisney was a flop right from the beginning!

<eddie izzard>You know, we have these already. And they are not made of plastic! </eddie izzard>

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
<eddie izzard>You know, we have these already. And they are not made of plastic! </eddie izzard>

True!

However, it probably still beats Phantasialand

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Liberals seem to have taken lately invoking Reagan, and it is quite odd. Friedmen ought to acknowledge the fact that the world did not in fact like Reagan while he was president. The European reaction to him was pretty much identical to their reaction to W. Latin Americans definiately didn't like Reagan. That had a lot to do with why Kerry at the time called Reagan's presidency an era of darkness (and a lot of other bad things).

What Reagan had going for him was at the time there were some like-minded leaders in the world. Thatcher was in Britain, Kohl was in Germany, Craxi was in Italy, Lubbers was in the Netherlands, Nakasone was in Japan and so on. The left in Europe was out there marching in the streets protesting Reagan, and baying the same tripe they are baying now. They called him all the things they now call Bush. In fact, most of the things that they call Bush are just resurrected and warned up anti-Reagan lines. Reagan was to them a "cowboy," he was too dumb to be president, he was a "warmonger," he scared people, he was oppressing the Third World, etc. etc. But he had responsible leaders to work with. And the left hated them for it. Blair is called a poodle by The Guardian, but that term was used before about Thatcher and her relationship wth Reagan.

So much as I like a lot of what Friedman writes, he is wrong about this. Reagan wasn't popular in the world, and yet he was still able to accomplish important things because in the end he was right, and world opinion was wrong. it was only in at most the last year of his presidency that world opinion realized that perhaps it had been wrong about him. And only since his death that Liberals have suddenly decided to rewrite their own history with respect to him.

You're making the distinction that supports his point. I agree that Reagan was unpopular to the people of Europe. At the same time he was working with leaders who were sympathetic politically and appeared to get along with him personally. Therefore he was effective. Can the same be said of George Bush? I don't think so.

You can't deny that American - European relations are at a low point. Considering that you're blindly loyal to this Administration, I'm sure you'd place the entire blame on the Europeans. Fine, that's not the point.

Friedman's second point is that unless there's some rapprochement on the part of Bush/Cheney things are not likely to improve in the near future. Considering they've been reluctant to second-guess ANY of their foreign policy decisions, no matter how miserable a failure they've been, I think we can safely assume they'll behave the same way in a 2nd term. Therefore relations will not improve or could decline. Which depending on your view could be good or bad. Seems like common sense to me.

[effgee]

Originally posted by typoon:
... Bush is taking the fight to them. That is something we NEED to Do. These Scumbags need to be Killed before they kill us. We DO need to do more but this is only the begining.

Curious - who is "them"?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
You're making the distinction that supports his point. I agree that Reagan was unpopular to the people of Europe. At the same time he was working with leaders who were sympathetic politically and appeared to get along with him personally. Therefore he was effective. Can the same be said of George Bush? I don't think so.

So what you are saying is that if countries in Europe elect left wing leaders, the US must follow suit and elect a liberal president. But if Europe elects conservatives, it's then OK for the US to elect a conservative?

Does that make any sense? Why not say that Germany shoudn't have reelected Schroeder because Schroeder would have to work with Bush?

In any case, the divide doesn't make any sense historically. When Reagan took office in 1981, Thatcher was already elected, but the conservative Kohl of Germany was not. Kohl wasn't elected until 1982. In France, Mitterand, a Socialist, was elected the same year as Reagan took office. It was only later that Mitterand moderated his policies.

Conversely, today you have a number of leaders in Europe who get on quite well with Bush. Blair and Burlosconi are two. The Polish president Kwasniewski is another. Bush gets on well with Putin, and in fact, Putin basically endorsed him the other day. Or for that matter, if Kerry is elected, he would have to work with John Howard, who was just reelected in Australia and when Germany goes to the polls next time, it is very unlikely that their current SPD/Green party government will be reelected. So either way, your thesis is wrong.

But it is mostly wrong simply because it doesn't follow that one country must elect leaders of the political stripe of other countries. When the rest of Europe and the US was turning to the right in the early 80s, France was perfectly entitled to vote for a Socialist and thus turn to the left. And the same applies in reverse now. The people of each democratic country have the right to elect whatever leader they think best represents them. Their friends and allies do not have even a moral veto on that right.

[typoon]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So what you are saying is that if countries in Europe elect left wing leaders, the US must follow suit and elect a liberal president. But if Europe elects conservatives, it's then OK for the US to elect a conservative?

Does that make any sense? Why not say that Germany shoudn't have reelected Schroeder because Schroeder would have to work with Bush?

In any case, the divide doesn't make any sense historically. When Reagan took office in 1981, Thatcher was already elected, but the conservative Kohl of Germany was not. Kohl wasn't elected until 1982. In France, Mitterand, a Socialist, was elected the same year as Reagan took office. It was only later that Mitterand moderated his policies.

Conversely, today you have a number of leaders in Europe who get on quite well with Bush. Blair and Burlosconi are two. The Polish president Kwasniewski is another. Bush gets on well with Putin, and in fact, Putin basically endorsed him the other day. Or for that matter, if Kerry is elected, he would have to work with John Howard, who was just reelected in Australia and when Germany goes to the polls next time, it is very unlikely that their current SPD/Green party government will be reelected. So either way, your thesis is wrong.

But it is mostly wrong simply because it doesn't follow that one country must elect leaders of the political stripe of other countries. When the rest of Europe and the US was turning to the right in the early 80s, France was perfectly entitled to vote for a Socialist and thus turn to the left. And the same applies in reverse now. The people of each democratic country have the right to elect whatever leader they think best represents them. Their friends and allies do not have even a moral veto on that right.

Isn't it similar to WW2 in Britan? When Churchill was elected? The rest of the world was appeasing Germany and the other Axis powers. It was people like Chuchill who went against the popular idea of the time and for that reason and a few others England didn't get taken by the Germans.

[Troll]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
To someone old enough to compare the treatment of Bush with the treatment of Reagan, it looks a lot like deja vu all over again. No doubt people who lived in Europe in 1968 also think back to the riots in front of the American Embassy in London and also see that there is a pattern here. It kind of undermines your assertions that there is anything unique about Europe's dislike for this president, especially when they got it so wrong with Reagan.

I'm old enough to compare too and I lived in Europe both when Reagan was president and again now when Bush is President. I can tell you, and this is backed up surveys, that Bush is a whole different ball game. There is far, far more resistance to Bush and his policies in Europe now than there ever was to Reagan.

Besides, why you think Reagan was right, or that Europeans think Reagan was right, is beyond me. Page after page was written in Europe at the time of his death reminding people how European theorists reckon he drew out the Cold War and made a whole host of other mistakes.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by typoon:
Isn't it similar to WW2 in Britan? When Churchill was elected? The rest of the world was appeasing Germany and the other Axis powers. It was people like Chuchill who went against the popular idea of the time and for that reason and a few others England didn't get taken by the Germans.

Um, no, sorry. Britain elected Chaimberlain, who was an appeaser. Chaimberlain took the country into the War. After the disastrous Norwegian campaign, Chaimberlain resigned and the parties formed a national government with both parties represented. The King named Churchill to be Prime Minister. Churchill first ran for election as Prime Minister in 1945, and he lost. Badly. But he was elected again in 1951.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
So what you are saying is that if countries in Europe elect left wing leaders, the US must follow suit and elect a liberal president. But if Europe elects conservatives, it's then OK for the US to elect a conservative?

Does that make any sense? Why not say that Germany shoudn't have reelected Schroeder because Schroeder would have to work with Bush?

In any case, the divide doesn't make any sense historically. When Reagan took office in 1981, Thatcher was already elected, but the conservative Kohl of Germany was not. Kohl wasn't elected until 1982. In France, Mitterand, a Socialist, was elected the same year as Reagan took office. It was only later that Mitterand moderated his policies.

Conversely, today you have a number of leaders in Europe who get on quite well with Bush. Blair and Burlosconi are two. The Polish president Kwasniewski is another. Bush gets on well with Putin, and in fact, Putin basically endorsed him the other day. Or for that matter, if Kerry is elected, he would have to work with John Howard, who was just reelected in Australia and when Germany goes to the polls next time, it is very unlikely that their current SPD/Green party government will be reelected. So either way, your thesis is wrong.

But it is mostly wrong simply because it doesn't follow that one country must elect leaders of the political stripe of other countries. When the rest of Europe and the US was turning to the right in the early 80s, France was perfectly entitled to vote for a Socialist and thus turn to the left. And the same applies in reverse now. The people of each democratic country have the right to elect whatever leader they think best represents them. Their friends and allies do not have even a moral veto on that right.

Oh, I forgot to mention Poland. How cute.

I'm not suggesting anything. What does it matter when they were elected? They were the leaders at the time overlapping Reagan's terms. The point still stands - Clinton and Reagan were well received in Europe. Reagan much less so among the populous, better received among the leaders. Therefore they were more effective. That doesn't seem logical to you? What, are you going to argue that leaders who are hated and distrusted are more effective dealing with their peers? I know you're a reflexive contrarian, but give it a rest. It's cartoonish (to use your term).

So, Bush gets along with Blair and Burlosconi. Oops forgot about Poland again. So, you're position is that American-European relations are good? If you can't even concede the degradation of relations between the two continents then it's useless to discuss anything with you.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Troll:
Besides, why you think Reagan was right, or that Europeans think Reagan was right, is beyond me. Page after page was written in Europe at the time of his death reminding people how European theorists reckon he drew out the Cold War and made a whole host of other mistakes.

My point exactly.