Europe-US Split ... Ramifications May Last For Years - Page 6

notyoueither · March 11, 2003, 04:37

No ****. One wonders if any of those interviewed in France are aware of the choices France had in 1936, and '37, and '38. Maybe they think that things ran the proper course...

It reinforces my view that the gulf is great, and growing.

HershOstropoler · March 11, 2003, 04:50

"One wonders if any of those interviewed in France are aware of the choices France had in 1936, and '37, and '38."

One wonders if some people are aware of the difference between Iraq and Germany...

notyoueither · March 11, 2003, 04:53

No, HS, one doesn't wonder about the consequences of facing a problem sooner rather than later, assuming one pays any attention to such equations in the first place.

HershOstropoler · March 11, 2003, 05:09

"one doesn't wonder about the consequences of facing a problem sooner rather than later"

??

You mean: do everything soon, don't care about the con sequences?

notyoueither · March 11, 2003, 05:21

I doubt anyone is doing 'everything' soon. In this case the US administration sees a threat they wish to address sooner rather than later. Why are some parts of Europe in a better position to say?

Maybe the Yanks should wait until Saddam is in the position of Kim? That would be good. Then they couldn't do anything without having nukes going off. That would be great! I'm sure a lot of people would be satisfied then.

Or, the US could continue to spend billions on keeping a lid on Saddam. I guess it doesn't matter much either way in the view from central Europe. You aren't paying to keep a lid on Saddam, and it won't be your young men and women who have to go and clean it up if it all goes terribly wrong. It's pretty easy to know what's best when you have nothing on the line but some arm chair morality and a few oil development contracts. Isn't it?

SpencerH · March 11, 2003, 08:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

We are agreed. I wouldn't mind a friendly separation though

Well I am partial to Brie, especially baked Brie.

OliverFA · March 11, 2003, 08:30

Please. please, please don't say that there is a split between US and Europe. This is plain false, and it's the same that say that France and Germany are the only European countries that care. The majority of Europe (including the eastern countries former soviet satellites and the german voters that had made Schroeder lose the two last regional elections) believe that war is the less bad solution. I'm tired of arrogant people trying to speak on behalf of we all Europeans with no right. Last time I checked not Chirak nor Schroeder were Spain or Europe presidents, so they have no right to speak on behalf of my country. Last time I checked Aznar was Spain president backed with more than 10 million votes. The same for Blair, Berlusconi and Bush.

A lie doesn't become a truth just because you say it again and again, or just because you say it louder.

SpencerH · March 11, 2003, 08:32

I think a real difference in this issue is the importance each side of the pond gives the UN. In most of Europe (at least where I've lived) many people think of the UN as a defacto 'world government' with real authority and importance. In the US the UN is not seen that way at all and some people would have us pull out of the UN altogether. I think thats why we see european people saying over and over that we have to act through the UN. Their position is not pro-Iraq or anti-US, they simply see the UN as the appropriate venue for deciding these issues.

That doesnt change the fact that the French and German governments are using this moment for their own agenda.

The Viceroy · March 11, 2003, 08:53

There is no split between the US and Europe, there is a split between New Europe, and old Europe.

I was once a supporter of the EU, a strong advocate of UK entry to the Euro, and I hoped that we would oneday be as economically strong as the US..

First we had the French picking which EU rules apply to them and which ones don't (BEEF BAN), then they decide that Iraq is so much in the interest of France, that they need to Veto US action, when it clearly isn't. Then they threaten member countries to the EU about their pro-american stance, then they destroy NATO by refusing to allow help to a member nation ..

Now, NATO is a dead duck, the UN irrelevant, and my faith in the EU destroyed.

Such has been my personal distaste at what has transpired over the last few months/years, that I now advocate UK leaving the EU, and seeking an alliance with the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and other like minded countries who have shown that in your hour of need, they are willing to act to help.

Maybe im alone in these thoughts here in the UK, maybe im not .. But 1 more pro EU citizen of the UK, is now openly advocating a union else where...

Dauphin · March 11, 2003, 08:58

Have you forgotten why we joined the EEC?

Humphrey: "Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last 500 years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now when it's worked so well?"

PM: "That's all ancient history, surely."

Humphrey: "Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole EEC up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing: set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch. The Foreign Office is terribly pleased, it's just like old times."

The US has joined our cause, and we should remain the man on the inside.

OliverFA · March 11, 2003, 09:00

Quote:

Originally posted by The Viceroy
There is no split between the US and Europe, there is a split between New Europe, and old Europe.

Your words summarize my opinions, Viceroy

I also was and entusiast suporter of the EU (some people here might remember my profile having an EU flag instead of an Spain flag some months ago) but now all that entusiasm is broken. Not only because of all the things I see and hear at the news, but also beacuse of my travels around Europe and what I've seen there.

MRT144 · March 11, 2003, 09:02

whoops

HershOstropoler · March 11, 2003, 09:10

"The US has joined our cause, and we should remain the man on the inside."

But you are being assimilated.

HershOstropoler · March 11, 2003, 09:12

As for the split - within the european public, definately not. And even not a large split between the european and the american public.

Among EU and with the US governments, sure. We have the Washington rightwing gang plus its vassals vs the axis of reason....

March 11, 2003, 10:05

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
As for the split - within the european public, definately not. And even not a large split between the european and the american public.

Among EU and with the US governments, sure. We have the Washington rightwing gang plus its vassals vs the axis of reason....

That should read TREASON!

HershOstropoler · March 11, 2003, 10:10

Treason of what? How can you commit treason against someone who you owe no loyalty, and who is asking your help or at least silence in breaking the law?

Spiffor · March 11, 2003, 10:15

Oliverfa :

Care to explain why the hostility to war in Europe's public opinions are so similar, whether it is in France Germany or in Spain / Italy ?
You seem to think Aznar's, Blair's or Berlusconi's positions match their populations, which is a false statement.
The division between EU's governments have nothing to do with a so-called division between populations or countries.

You traveled in Europe, and understood how different Europeans are. I don't think it has anything to do with Aznar or Chirac. It has to do with diverging histories and cultures over millenia. You'd have found out the same while travelling if Iraq had never become an issue.

The Mad Monk · March 11, 2003, 10:15

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
As for the split - within the european public, definately not. And even not a large split between the european and the american public.

Take another look at CounterGlow and tell me that with a straight face.

HershOstropoler · March 11, 2003, 10:17

* looks *

[straight face] As for the split - within the european public, definately not. And even not a large split between the european and the american public.

Just because of the loud ultranationalists?

The Mad Monk · March 11, 2003, 10:21

I'm going to bed.

HershOstropoler · March 11, 2003, 10:22

night...

We have roughly 50 % opposition in the US, and 80 % in europe. Can't see a huge split there.

DanS · March 11, 2003, 11:00

vs the axis of reason....

We have roughly 50 % opposition in the US, and 80 % in europe.

Actually, the opposition is a lot less than 50%--37%. The numbers have been very consistent over the last decade. 66%-70% subscribe to the notion of removing Hussein by force, with allies and the UN. 57%-60% without the UN.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...data030403.htm

I'm guessing that the questions are much less muscular in Europe too. They probably ask about disarmament rather than overthrow.

HershOstropoler · March 11, 2003, 11:04

As this axis-dubbing has become popular, I thought I'd participate with another cheesy label....

I said "roughly" 50 % to account for the possible questions. If it's all nice and clean and support blah blah, it goes up there. If you put in the negatives, it goes down a good deal.

"They probably ask about disarmament rather than overthrow."

Huh? Why do you think that?

Also, disarmament is rather seen as a non-issue here. The whole dispute is about the Bush war for control of Iraq.

DanS · March 11, 2003, 11:06

You know, this sounds a lot like "Mr. Polk's War".

HershOstropoler · March 11, 2003, 11:08

Heard that before, but can't make the connection. What was Polk's war again?

DanS · March 11, 2003, 11:13

Mexican-American War. 1846. Historians recognize Polk as one of our best presidents, even though he's mostly forgotten in the collective American psyche.

There was a lot of dissention and protest because of very similar reasons to Gulf War II.

Huh? Why do you think that?

Well, what are the poll questions across Europe?

HershOstropoler · March 11, 2003, 11:26

Usually support of war against Iraq with UN mandate; support without UN mandate; support of Bush policy.

OliverFA · March 11, 2003, 13:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Oliverfa :

Care to explain why the hostility to war in Europe's public opinions are so similar, whether it is in France Germany or in Spain / Italy ?

Of course, I will gladly explain why I think that. But you have to explain why the opinion of the people who express it louder represents the opinion of everyone.

About the country I better know, Spain, the anti-war demonstrators were less than 3 millions. That's a very small portion of the 40 censed millions in Spain. How can you mistake 3 million as the majority? Even more, in that demonstrations were lots of goodwill people that thougt they were going in a fair nice demonstration, but found instead that their presence was manipulated as if they were oposing the legal and rightful government. The Madrid demonstration ended with a manifesto in favour of Castro, Chavez the Colombian guerrilla and several others. (Is very enlighting that the defenders of "peace" are also the defenders of that people) This is a political manipulation of the acts of goodwill people. They were there to stop the war (wether if they were right or wrong) and they found that the organizers used the strength of their presence to support dictators and antidemocratical systems that violate freedoms every day.

This is very sad to say, but no one in Spain can freely express that he (or she) considers the war as the less bad solution, even if that is what our government thinks. As a result, the people who want to surrender to terrorists get voiced everywhere, and the people who think different can't simply express theirselves. And they say we are in democracy! Wow!

In the 20th century not single war in democratic country was backed by the people, and this is not an exception. People in democratic systems will always be against the wars because they disturb their lives and their Status Quo (any good civ player knows it). The enemies of the freedom are simply using this goodwill people, and manipulating them to attack the system of freedom represented by the western civilization, which has its best defender in the US.

Quote:

You seem to think Aznar's, Blair's or Berlusconi's positions match their populations, which is a false statement.
The division between EU's governments have nothing to do with a so-called division between populations or countries.

Their position is backed by a democratic victory. As far as I know that's the only way of doing in democracy. They have the power, directly coming from the people who voted them. Trying to change this power by anything else is a perversion which passes over the democratic system. How do you count the number of people that back them and the number that don't do? So the democratic power isn't in the votes, but in the people yelling at the street or at the TV? Which system of government is this? The yellowcracy?

The tree of them have been reelected, which means that their way of governing has been reevaluated and considered good enough by their people. The convervative party in Spain has won almost any single election in Spain since 8 years ago. I fail to see how a bunch of very vocal people can nullify all that. All the eastern european countries also support the US positions. Certainly our government systems are far from being perfect. But pretending that every single politician in Europe except the enlighted Chirak are fool people who don't listen to their people and don't care about them is a very high acusation to the western civilization, and all that it represents.

However, Schroeder has lost the two latest regional elections in Germany (one of them at a lander which they were governing since many many years) but I fail to see all these people that punished him manifesting in Germany streets. Isn't it curious?

Quote:

You traveled in Europe, and understood how different Europeans are.
I don't think it has anything to do with Aznar or Chirac. It has to do with diverging histories and cultures over millenia. You'd have found out the same while travelling if Iraq had never become an issue.

You are completely right about that. It has nothing to do with the Irak issue. It's just an added deception. All this in conjunction made me regreet of my europeism.

DinoDoc · March 11, 2003, 13:38

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
The US was legally required to get UN approval.

Given the example set in the Balkans (US/EU intervening in an internal civil war outside of the UN to avoid a Russian veto), is that still true?

Ned · March 11, 2003, 15:08

oliverfa, Most Americans are supportive of a united states of europe, in prinicple. We do not ever want to see a repeat of the two world wars in the last century. However, our vision of a united europe is one where we are friends and allies. One where we cooperate together to advance civilization to further our shared values.

What has happened in the last year has come as a shock to many americans. We see now that France and some elements of Germany (I doubt the CDU would be so anti-american) wants to lead a U.S. of E. down an anti-american path. Obviously, we are concerned, so much so, that we may begin to oppose greater unification of euroope.

What has happened is neither good for the US or good for europe.

Hopefully, after the dust settles, we can kiss and make up. However, I believe the first moves for reconcilliation have to be made by Chirac and Shroeder.