Bush,A smashing London performance?

au

The IAE is -although situated in Vienna- definately not European!

0 Replies

From the New York Times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/20/international/europe/20BRIT.html?th

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I suspect many Europeans believe that the formation of the EU has given them a new beginning, wiping away the stains of their ghastly histories, and ushering in a brave new world in which all nations are to be judged in terms of their suitability for admission into their sacred club. Moreover they presume that the legalistic, bureaucratic formalisms they have invented for the governance of the rich Western part of Europe are just the right remedy for the ills of the whole world. This view of course is quite blind to the realities of their own histories, and, as well, to the facts of the world today. President Bush is quite wise and right to give this distorted and self-serving world view the contempt it so richly deserves.

The EU was formed so that Europeans would stop engaging in wars with each other. By bringing the peoples closer to each other you prevent wars.

Bush hasn't been showing contempt toward France and Germany. He was asked in his David Frost interview if he could forgive the French and German leaders. He replied that he understood and respected the disagreements, it's a natural element of democracy. He also mentioned that the Germans' attitude is generally positive towards the US. It's in Germany's best interest to work closely with the US, and vice versa.

I agree with the suggestion that European powers have done some terrible things throughout history, but power is always with choices and consequences. Can't you see that the US has no greater ability to govern than the British and French in their imperial past? If you can't acknowledge the flawed nature of control and governance then you are a fool.

Iain

0 Replies

Hey George -- Let's look for statistics, okay? Violent terrorism between 9/11 and the start of the Iraq invaston compared with start of the Iraq invasion and now. Anyone got any ideas (or facts!) about this?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

From the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/20/international/europe/20BRIT.html?th

Can't read it, you have to be registered.

Iain

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

au

The IAE is -although situated in Vienna- definitely not European!

Quote:

The IAEA is the world's center of cooperation in the nuclear field. It was set up as the world's "Atoms for Peace" organization in 1957 within the United Nations family. The Agency works with its Member States and multiple partners worldwide to promote safe, secure and peaceful nuclear technologies.

The IAEA Secretariat is headquartered at the Vienna International Center in Vienna, Austria. Operational liaison and regional offices are located in Geneva, Switzerland; New York, USA; Toronto, Canada; and Tokyo, Japan. The IAEA runs or supports research centers and scientific laboratories in Vienna and Seibersdorf, Austria; Monaco; and Trieste, Italy.

Iain

0 Replies

Well, I should and do know that, dduck - most of my and my wives family live in Austria (Vienna and Steiermark).

I just wanted to say, it's not an European institution, although it is situated in Europe.

Sorry for the confusion.

0 Replies

Here it is, Duck:

Quote:

Of Blair and Bush, and the Ties That Bind

0 Replies

Thanks Tartarin.

Damn you are fast!

0 Replies

Thanks for that, Tartarin.

Quote:

"If other Europeans were slow to realize the enormity and urgency of the impact of Sept. 11 on Americans,..."

I think we do realise, that 9.11 affected the American psyche most profoundly, but it didn't have the same impact on Europeans because we've been bombed a few times already.

Quote:

To objections over his close alliance with Mr. Bush, Mr. Blair asks if detractors would prefer the United States be left to shoulder the burden of international security by itself. "I always say to people that the thing I fear is not American unilateralism," he said to a group of London-based American reporters last week. "It is actually American isolationism were it ever to go down that path."

It's ironic that Blair offers only two alternatives, as he is well known for his "third way". As I mentioned earlier there was an opportunity to examine the French-German counter-proposal to immediate war, however, the US and Britain sidelined this at the first possible opportunity. If the BB brothers had managed to negotiate a strategy with the rest of Europe, they'd have won public in Britain, and probably in lots of Islamic countries too.

Quote:

"Once again, American and Britain are joined in the defense of our common values."

Whose common values are they talking about? British opinions were ignored! Again, nice words designed to (mis)lead.

Iain

0 Replies

dduck wrote:

[
The EU was formed so that Europeans would stop engaging in wars with each other. By bringing the peoples closer to each other you prevent wars. ...

I agree with the suggestion that European powers have done some terrible things throughout history, but power is always with choices and consequences. Can't you see that the US has no greater ability to govern than the British and French in their imperial past? If you can't acknowledge the flawed nature of control and governance then you are a fool.

Iain

I agree with both propositions above. The EU WAS intended as the remedy for endless European wars. Power DOES involve choices, often between bad or worse: moreover these choices are not always made with perfect wisdom by leaders anywhere.

I don't consider myself to be a fool. I am however perplexed by the apparent inability of our vociferous European critics to understand these points themselves.

0 Replies

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:vrKD-StfN0QC:www.dacbsa.org/images/thumbs-up.gif

0 Replies

That's what all the guys used to say, Frank.

0 Replies

Duck, you write... "...think we do realise, that 9.11 affected the American psyche most profoundly, but it didn't have the same impact on Europeans because we've been bombed a few times already."

I'm not so sure 9/11 had a profound effect on the majority of Americans (though of course it was a serious trauma for New Yorkers). In my wanderings I've encountered those who look at it as a frightening drama (lingering memories of images of plane hitting building, those people jumping, often hand in hand, off the WTC); I've encountered those who were traumatized by the 2000 election (I don't exaggerate) and who are waiting for history to prove that the administration had a hand in 9/11; there are those who have experienced war and (as you say) bombing, and who measure it by another standard. In short, 9/11 was pivotal politically but perhaps not emotionally to the extent politicians would like us to think.

As for the rest of your post, I couldn't agree more.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

I've encountered those who were traumatized by the 2000 election (I don't exaggerate) and who are waiting for history to prove that the administration had a hand in 9/11

Oh come on ! Give it a rest. Where pray tell do you find these people? If you have found them, how is it that you have time to be concerned about the religious right ?

0 Replies

I agree that 9/11 did not have a traumatic effect on most Americans; however, what it did do was eliminate the conscious or subconscious belief that "It can't happen here."

0 Replies

Traumatic effect or not. It was an event however that focused all American's eyes on one issue. And awakened patriotism in most. Sort of a "Remember the Alamo" slogan. It might have been the kick in the ass that this laid back, spoiled, self indulgent, politically correct, permissive nation needed to bring it back to reality. And with the scourge of terrorist activity prevalent throughout the world it could be that several other nations will get the message. Today it is you that has suffered terrorist attacks. Tomorrow it may be me.

0 Replies

That's weird to think about Flyboy -- I didn't grow up with the feeling that "it can't happen here," but I was a little kid at the end of WWII, spent the year after the war in a war-torn part of Europe, had friends whose families had been in the underground, and internalized "it does happen here." And apart from that, I think Vietnam did, in some sense, happen here -- it certainly hit many people very hard, during and after. I don't think we can simplify the effects of 9/11 on individuals, not do I think it awakened patriotism in most.

0 Replies

Tartarin wrote:

In short, 9/11 was pivotal politically but perhaps not emotionally to the extent politicians would like us to think.

I think there were clear signs of American emotion after the attacks. I point to the large drop in number of people travelling by plane, and the increased security measures at airports, such that my shoes would set off metal detectors - I've never had that happen before. Moreover, I think that Bush has used this fear, and people's expectations (the US is the only world super-power. We're surely not going to let them get away with this. Okay, who can we blame) to push out those he decides is evil.

The problem with leading the world alone (or without consensus), is that the rest of the world doesn't get a chance to vote you out of office. Wasn't the warcry during the American Revolution (or War of Independence - take your pick), "No Taxation Without Representation", or "Don't expect us to do anything for you, without some say in the matter"?

Iain

0 Replies

dduck,

I don't think waiting for consensus is a sufficiently reliable way to deal with serious, emerging threats. Isn't that one of the main lessons of the history of the last century? One of the fascinating elements of the history of the period is the degree to which contemporary leaders deluded themselves about the real intentions of both Hitler and Stalin.

Moreover, I doubt that more talking or consultation would have changed the decisions of the various governments involved. Each acted in pursuit of their self interests as they perceived them. I believe the positions of France and Germany on this matter have much more to do with the ambitions of those countries in other areas than they do with the specifics of the Iraqi matter. In particular, France acted consistently with a policy direction staked out decades ago. France also had a significant economic interest in the former Iraqi regime, with recently acquired development rights to the principal Iraqi oil fields and a substantial arms trade, so perhaps that alone was enough for them.

0 Replies

Bush,A smashing London performance?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know