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

Well, let's not forget the economy actually boomed in most of Europe in the 90s. Even now, all the panic is about a serious slowing down, even stagnating economic growth - which is still quite something different from actual economic decline.

Bottom line - to just sketch it with the broadest brush, and add, if you dont mind, a poetic repetitive effect <smiles>: economic growth was sound when the first Muslims came, early 70s, then slowed down seriously in the early eighties when more Muslims came, then emerged up again in the late eighties while more Muslims came, stagnated in the early nineties while more Muslims came, boomed in the late nineties while more Muslims came, and now is stagnating when, well, new Muslims are still coming in. Nothing much of a correlation there ;-).

You can do it country by country, too, like Walter suggested - the Dutch economy boomed in the nineties while the German economy didnt, though percentage of Muslim population is roughly similar - et cetera - but I think the point's been made! <grins>

I told you, the reason are the "godless commies"! :wink:

well, there's a point <grins>

except east of frankfurt a/oder the growth percentages shoot up again (well, a bit) ...

3 European Economies Contract, Causing Fears of Global Damage NYTimes

The Dutch economy is now officially in a recession because it contracted by 0,2% and 0,3% in subsequent year-quarters. Compares roughly with the link Walter provided on Germany, which had a 0,2% shrinkage.

um ... can I say something maybe irrelevant? (I have been rearing to participate in this discussion for some time ... I've come six pages and am getting tired. <yawn>

but what I wanted to say is ... I don't think America gets held to an unfair standard. I think the administration fails to live up to *the* standard that should be upheld. when that happens, I think it's important for me, as an american, to be on that.

yeah - it's not about being held to a higher - or UNFAIR <laughs> - standard at all. it's about acting responsibly in a world society.

sorry. I was about to explode. I think I'll finish reading now.

damn ... muslims coming all over the place. isn't that against their religion?

<winks>

sorry ... I FINALLY got caught up ... and that was all I had to say ...

anastasia--

Are the Americans the only ones in the world not living up to *the* standard?

no. duh. <giggles>

but what I wanted to say is ... I don't think America gets held to an unfair standard. I think the administration fails to live up to *the* standard that should be upheld. when that happens, I think it's important for me, as an american, to be on that.

yeah - it's not about being held to a higher - or UNFAIR <laughs>
------------------------------

Then, you duh is misassigned. If America is not the sole perpetrator of substandard behavior, America should not the the sole target for criticism.

Insert duh here. <wry smile>

uh ... no ...

those are two separate issues.

1. I don't think the standard is unfair.

2. I don't think America's is the only country who doesn't meet the standard. I think that's obvious. "duh" reassigned. <smiles>

I think politicians, in general, play Politics, as opposed to Policy - but that's just my opinion. I also think that the current administration (which I did not vote for and do not support) has shown a gross disregard for ... ettiquette, maybe? A definite disregard for a working "World Society" (I think the administration is out for America first, at the expense of other countries - but that's just my opinion) I don't like George Bush, and I think it's important that people know there are people out there who absolutely disagree with his actions. That's where I'm coming from when I give my opinions. I'm not concerned about France's president because I have *enough* to worry about with America.

Now, of course, in the larger picture, I *do* think corrupt politicians should be taken out of office. But damn - that's not an issue I care to debate.

So yeah - I voice my opinions about Bush because that's what I care to discuss. Especially when I know there are people around who are voicing an opposite opinion.

In a way, it's like I'm fighting my own little (tiny) war on terrorism - one person at a time. If I can see where *we* are at fault, I can explain that to people - and people - one at a time - will see that not all Americans think like ... Bush. <shrugs>

Or something.

It isn't.

It does seem to react with considerably more pique when it is than other countries, though.

Very well. And while you focus your criticisms on America, I will continue to show that other countries perpetrate similar offenses. And, since no one feels they merit criticism, I guess I shall perform this job.

Fairness. Global context.

It's a good thing.

sure. was there ever a question about that? I never said anything about that. <shrugs>

Sofia, who says other countries don't merit criticism? And what does it prove at all? If I kill someone and I point at all other murderers, or even find murderers who weren't punished, does that mean I should not be punished? Does it mean I am LESS of a murderer? Don't think so.

my mom taught me to wash my own undies before I went sniffing at others.

Perhaps I should expound.

First on, say, 'popular criticism'. When you go to Estonia, Russia will be the main target of criticism. When you go to Russia, Chechnyans will be the main target of criticism, I'd suppose. In Ireland, for decades it would have been England. In Holland, Germany was the most resented country for decades, and even the slightest mis-step of the government there would meet with immediate protest here.

It is almost always the country that has the most immediate impact on one's own that will bear the brunt of criticism. The standard for popular criticism is often not all too objective at all. Far-away dictatorships are forgiven things that no nearby democracy would get away with. Though arguably hypocritical, this has nothing to do with anti-Americanism in particular.

The bottom-line standard here remains, alas, 'just don't make me feel threatened'. The fact that at the moment, the US is perceived as the one single country with the greatest impact on any other country's well-being is, for better or for worse, related to recent US foreign policy.

Secondly on, shall I say, 'official criticism': being censored by international political bodies or other governments. Again, as any overview of which countries were censored in proposed UN resolutions and which of these resolutions actually were adopted will show, there's never been an objective golden standard - keeping your head down or acquiring powerful allies has always been enough to escape censure. But should you have transgressed international law, human rights conventions or any of the caboodle all too openly and you lacked the powerful ally, you got the criticism without reservation. And the US has never hesitated to use this weapon against other countries. Even the post-Milosevic Yugoslav government was put under immense pressure, arguably amounting to blackmail, to comply with the order to extradite war criminals to the international court. (Rightly so, I believe, but that's an aside).

Many countries have been slammed time and again in this way - by the US too - for failing to play by the rules, and have reacted with indifference or submission. Yet now that the US, being considered to have transgressed the rules of diplomacy if not international law outright, itself gets to be singled out for condemnation, it indignantly cries out in protest - "how dare they?! We're the good guys!". Whence the "pique" reference. It's not just inconsistent, it also misses the point. The Croats thought they were the good guys, too, let alone the Muslim fighters of Srebrenica - yet the latter's leader is now up for sentencing, too. Rules are rules, and they should apply for both good and bad guys.

In a broader context, there is well a case to be made that it is in fact the US government itself that insists on having double standards in place - standards that would safeguard them against the measures they do advocate for others. The ICC is the obvious example, as in its case the US did so quite explicitly. Imposing the authority of war crimes tribunals is fine when it concerns the Balkanese - but a veto will strike any court that would claim jurisdiction over Americans.

Sofia does this over and over again -- "if so and so is bad, then it's okay for us to be bad". Glad I'm not her mommy. In adult life, it seems a little puerile, not to mention boring, to play the neener-neener game in discussions like this...

Anastasia, on the other hand, makes the key point, albeit about undies. As we keep having to remind Sofia, America is a democracy, a country in which we are responsible for our actions, including the actions of our government. For that reason, we are obligated to remain concerned and critical. Anything less is just not living up the standards... we've... set... for... ourselves... by... accepting... citizenship...! Okay? Can we now stop playing this little game of, "If you criticize anything about America's policy, lemme tell you about Uruguay?..."

By the way, welcome Anastasia! Haven't had the opportunity before to say hi!

<smiles> You go, girl.

Because let's please differentiate between "the world" and "Able2Know". When you write, "since no one feels they merit criticism", you mean, I'm sure, here - on A2K. It certainly doesn't hold elsewhere - Chirac has been fiercely criticized in his own country as well as in the EU, overall, throughout his term of office. But, sure, here on A2K most of the cannons are turned direction DC.

Let's just say that Able2Know might be to the US what Holland was to Germany, or Estonia to Russia (if I'm not taking the metaphor too far). With so many Americans posting here and thus so many of the threads focusing on the US and its role in the world, most of the criticism will be targeted at it too. (That's where one of my gf's "duh"s would come in). It comes with this board's America-centrism.

I would love to see a much more extensive, versatile "International News" forum here ("International News" - the header alone is Amero-centric, lumping the rest of the world into one category) - and the more vibrant it would be, the more the cannons would be directed at many different capitals as well. Let's go open some threads highlighting the troubles elsewhere in the world!

nimh - je bent dope. doop, zeg ik. <smiles>

tartarin - thanks. <g> I was trying to use pretty words, but the panties thing just slipped out. dunno why. <giggles> it's good to meet you, too.

stasia