NEW EUROPE...THE THOUGHT OF OPPOSING AMERICA FEELS SO GOOD.

If we are considered 'immature' for voicing our displeasure toward France's support of Chirac's good friend, Saddam--

Why is it OK for France to turn around and do the same thing toward the small Eastern European states? Chirac practically blackmailed them with their EU membership. His complaints about Bush can't be taken seriously, as Chirac himself is a poor man's Bush. Actually, the Bush caricature accepted by his detractors is much more suited to Chirac--he just doesn't have the platform...

Understand the differences in the EU and UN. During the recent UN troubles, I saw relationships and difficulties I felt would impact the EU. However-- the jury is out. I could be wrong, and it could go swimmingly.

If they are successful, we save money.

Growing up is hard to do.

Sofia, I sometimes wonder whether you make yourself feel better about the US by finding someone who's a little worse than we are! As long as we're "not that bad," why, then, we must be truly excellent. That way we don't have to take responsibility for what we do... just hope someone out there always is a little eviller...

Tartarin--
There is possibly something to what you say. It's not that 'I make myself feel better' about our shortcomings; it's that the US shouldn't be held to a different standard.

Surely, anyone who seeks improvement needs to hear where the improvement is needed--but the continual sole focus on the US, while giving other nations a pass on their behavior and actions is wrong, IMO.

I don't understand the lack of outrage for Chirac's intimidation of the Eastern European states, for instance. How many threads did we have about the Dixie Chicks right to speak--? Yet, the same group has no criticism of Chirac's statement that the EEs missed an opportunity to "Shut up."

Mamaj-
The EEs count to me. They have been through Hell, and have a unique appreciation for freedom, having only so recently begun to enjoy it. It concerns me that they can be so flippantly dismissed, by Chirac, you or anyone. Politics aside--I am pulling for them, and think Chirac was crass and elitist in his remarks.

mj,
Shouldn't this be expected? Do you see this as bad?

On a side note, I find it ironic that the other countries of the world appear to need the UN in order to establish leverage against the U.S. I suppose one could argue the same for the EU.

I agree with you on Chirac's remarks, Sofia - a mini-Bush indeed, there, the parallel seems apt.

All in all Chirac remains an unlikely hero for the idealists. Everybody's up in arms about Berlusconi trying to rush a law through to immunitise himself before the courts finish up their case on his past corruption. But let's not forget Chirac would have long been convicted for the same kind of charges, had the French court not ruled that it was not in their authority to sentence an incumbent President ...

The disproportion in attention - all about the Dixie Chicks, noone for the EEs - has more to do with the Amero-centrism of this board than any political leeanings though, in my opinion ...

Luckily, it doesnt seem to have weakened their desire and resolve to join the European Union - they dont seem to share your sense that its a lost cause. Just this weekend, the Lithuanians voted by referendum to approve joining up, apparently in a huge majority - very first results mention 88% voting yes, at a turnout of 56%. The Slovenians and Hungarians already voted for joining up in previous referenda.

Lithuania passes test of faith to vote in favour of joining European Union

Hungary voted on April 12: with a turn-out of 45,6%, 83,8% voted 'yes' on EU accession.

Slovenia voted on March 23: with a turn-out of 60,2%, 89,6% voted 'yes' on EU accession.

Note: the Slovenes also voted on NATO accession. A majority approved that, too - but a markedly smaller majority: 66,0%.

(See www.ifes.org/eguide/2003.htm)

Many more CEE countries will come up next. Always a good place to check out more in-depth what the mood there is like is the Eurobarometer (http://europa.eu.int/comm/public_opinion/cceb_en.htm)

But Sofia, if you're going to use that hold-to-a-standard approach, why shouldn't Chirac use the fact of the EU to the Eastern Europeans? Did we not do the same thing with Turkey, to say nothing of some other countries? Chirac did neither more nor less than did Bush. And then these various countries could make their choices. I suppose it was maddening to the Bush cabal that Turkey apparently thought the EU was more important to them than the US. As did some others. I'm sure that in the master plan set up by the members of the PNAC and their affiliates all other countries were expected to be awed into compliance with the US.

Mapleleaf - it was an observation, and no, I don't see it as a bad or good thing; rather as something that has happened because of our actions. For which we accept no responsibility. That's one of the outstanding character traits of this admin - nothing that happens is their fault. It's always someone else's.

And you misunderstand me about the EEs. I think it's great that they are joining NATO, and they are pulling up. But I think one has to look carefully at whom the Bush people chose to publish on their coalition list. Who isn't there assumes great importance, and somehow diminishes who is there. That list appeared as a kind of desperate last minute thing.

mamaj--
You underlined my initial point--Bush and Chirac did the approximate same thing. Bush was derided for 'the bribe', and Chirac was given a pass here for holding the EU membership over the EE's heads.

Those who beat on Bush daily had nothing to say about Chirac.
But, I think nimh is right. Our AmerioCentric board will never use good Bush-bashin' energy on Chirac. Damn.

nimh--
Though I cited Chirac's intimidation, I didn't have the impression they wouldn't get in the EU.
I can't believe what you said!! French courts couldn't sentence Chirac? How could I have missed his law breakin'!!? It's good to be Pres in France--They can't be criticised in the media, so I hear. Arg!
Thank you for the information.

I hope the EEs are treated decently as full members of the EU. I don't know why I have a picture of Lithuania's representative pouring France's coffee...

Sofia

Certainly French courts can sentence Chirac - however, he can't be accused during his presidentship. (According to the French Constitution, a president is protected from being brought before judicial bodies while he is in office.)

Critics in the press against him are frequent, especially by the left press (he is a conservative, you remember).
You can read this daily here: http://www.ttc.org/ (Of course, you wont find critics on Chirac any day.)

'Nother reason why it was so important for him to get re-elected ...

Actually - Walter, do you know whether the whole trial (which was halted for the above-mentioned reason very late in the game, I remember) can simply be restarted after his presidency ends, or would the case have to be newly formulated, with new grounds, new evidence?



Probably for the same reason I have this mental picture of Tony Blair pouring Bush's tea and hand-wringingly pleading that, perhaps, still, he should reconsider, if he doesn't mind, about the UN, because, you know ... <grins>

Seriously, though, there is one essential difference, as dagmar I think already pointed out. The EU comes with strings attached - it's not just the unsaid commitments of diplomacy that binds the members. Blair has nothing much on paper he can actually force Bush to follow up on - all he has to play with is a sense of trust and common fate. In the EU, on the other hand, all member states, whether big or small, simply have to comply with an extensive body of laws that take precedence over their national laws - whether they're France or Malta.

Sofia -- This issue keeps cropping up: "it's that the US shouldn't be held to a different standard."

My understanding of social behavior (including countries in their social circle -- the rest of the world) is that one should always be self-critical before climbing on one's high horse and criticizing others. And then, in a democracy, it's intensely important that citizens be fully informed, questioning, and willing to second-guess their politicians 24/7. Those who don't may be infatuated with America, but they don't love it.

nimh

Neither is my knowledge of French law so good to give an answer nor do I remember haven't read some reliable quotations about that.

(I'm trying to read some French law later, however.)

Sofia -- This issue keeps cropping up: "it's that the US shouldn't be held to a different standard."

My understanding of social behavior (including countries in their social circle -- the rest of the world) is that one should always be self-critical before climbing on one's high horse and criticizing others. And then, in a democracy, it's intensely important that citizens be fully informed, questioning, and willing to second-guess their politicians 24/7. Those who don't may be infatuated with America, but they don't love it.
-----------------------------------
Well, please share your Marquis of Queensbury rules with the rest of the world. They aren't abiding them.
You can start with our non-American boardmates-- Since you say we have no right to criticise other countries, I'm sure this rule of propriety is even-handedly applied to other countries and their citizens.





I didn't think so.
You're painting yourself into a corner.


PS-- Questioning only the actions and motives of the party you don't like not only means you don't love your country, nor are you infatuated with it--You're pimping it.

Sofia - your defense of your country is admirable, and your affair. Someone else's criticism is just as valid, and is the affair of the person who holds it. But you seem to talk out of both sides of your mouth at once. You compare actions of Bush and Chirac, which actually do not equate at all, and say "well, if Jaques can do that, why can't George?" But you don't want to hear that George is doing what Jaques does.

And the thing is, they're not. While George refuses to even telephone Schroder, and says bad things about Chirac, and Belgium, and shakes a finger at Syria and Lebanon and Iran (and that statement about Chirac won't be invited to the ranch is silly beyond words), Chirac at least is trying to play grown-up diplomacy and mend some fences. The world is full of adults playing at politics, but Bush isn't one of them.

mamaj--
Some of your statements relating to my comments are in error, but if you read up, you will see this issue has been resolved.

Tartarin is the one who said we have no right to criticise other countries.

Bush's and Chirac's behavior was very similar.
And, I hope you realize that Chirac's motives are not noble. He's got a couple bil riding on his efforts to get part of the action. The world isn't so easily divided into bad (US) and good (France.)

I never did get why any priority should be given in criticism.

People tend to criticize what's making waves. Example, Michael Jackson is criticized more often that Englebert Humperdink (sp).

Such is life, the king is talked about more than the peon.

Tartarin wrote:


" My understanding of social behavior (including countries in their social circle -- the rest of the world) is that one should always be self-critical before climbing on one's high horse and criticizing others. And then, in a democracy, it's intensely important that citizens be fully informed, questioning, and willing to second-guess their politicians 24/7. Those who don't may be infatuated with America, but they don't love it. "



Sofia wrote:



"PS-- Questioning only the actions and motives of the party
you don't like not only means you don't love your country, nor are you infatuated with it--You're pimping it."


Sofia - I've just re-read this little gem, and I have to confess it makes no sense. Perhaps you've misunderstood what Tartarin wrote? And where on earth does pimping come into this? Pimping means the selling of commodities and service for profit (not in a good way). So what you are saying is that those who question are pimping?

That introduces a whole new meaning to the republicans of the last 10 years. Since they had made the questioning of motives and actions of people running the country not only their hobby, but, in many cases, their politicial jobs, they not only didn't like their country, but they were engaged in pimping - in selling goods and services to any john who came driving up. Now that would explain where they got the money to buy their funny clothes and expensive houses. Perhaps they could organize a lobby of pimps for pimps? That should make the loyal Americans who question and worry sit up and take notice. And not hang around street corners.

It also makes the non-questioners look insecure about their positions, and unable to defend them.

And, having just come home with a great selection of French cheeses and French and Portuguese wines, I think I sit down and meditate upon all this.