10.23.2004
Europeans for Bush?
Our European friend and commenter Jan has provided this site with the link to an October 13 story in The Globalist: Why Europe Needs - And Wants - Bush to Win. It is an anti-American screed, and well-written at that. It's one of those articles one needs to think upon a bit. Read it and comment, please.
After having thought a while, I can agree that Bush is hated in many parts of Europe. He has probably even inspired a bit of back-slapping between such formerly viscious enemies as France and Germany! Yank bashing and Bush slandering is a huge industry in Europe.
After having thought a while longer, it really chaps me that the US is stuck with the heavy lifting - having to make the hard choices - in order to re-stabilize the middle-eastern world. All the while, the French, Germans, Belgians, and various and assorted other 'continentals' sit back, watch, and nip at W's heels with the cry "neo-con!"
The story's author Richard Phillips, a financial consultant with especial expertise in things European and the UN, reveals himself there as one whose nose is out of joint with free-thinking folks. No, a 'globalist' is too much a 'relativist', and therefore too 'nuanced' to concern himself with such fly-over-types as me.
I read a sign on a church billboard this morning (no, wasn't Baptist): "The men who move the world cannot be moved by the world." Now take it as you will, but I thought it summed up our current American administration. It is taking hits as hard as any since the administration of Abraham Lincoln. I believe in W's resolve! If, as Phillips intimates, a second administration will cause Europeans to morph from anti-Bushies to anti-Americans, then I will just have to hold onto the railing that much harder.
Europe can fuss, preen, and posture till the cows come home. In the end, history will yet again justify American action in this violently changing world -- we are not done yet!
Oh yeah, the EU's principal goal from way back when: a trading block to equalize US marketing dominance. France wants to be in charge.
Thanks, Jan. I hope you will give us more of your point of view. As has been said, there is hope for all of us westerners as long as we keep talking -- at one time, we were pretty strong in our mutual affections...
Our European friend and commenter Jan has provided this site with the link to an October 13 story in The Globalist: Why Europe Needs - And Wants - Bush to Win. It is an anti-American screed, and well-written at that. It's one of those articles one needs to think upon a bit. Read it and comment, please.
After having thought a while, I can agree that Bush is hated in many parts of Europe. He has probably even inspired a bit of back-slapping between such formerly viscious enemies as France and Germany! Yank bashing and Bush slandering is a huge industry in Europe.
After having thought a while longer, it really chaps me that the US is stuck with the heavy lifting - having to make the hard choices - in order to re-stabilize the middle-eastern world. All the while, the French, Germans, Belgians, and various and assorted other 'continentals' sit back, watch, and nip at W's heels with the cry "neo-con!"
All the while, America blusters, fumes and cites a Baptist morality that is often indecipherable outside America’s ‘red’ states — those that predominantly vote for George W. Bush.
The story's author Richard Phillips, a financial consultant with especial expertise in things European and the UN, reveals himself there as one whose nose is out of joint with free-thinking folks. No, a 'globalist' is too much a 'relativist', and therefore too 'nuanced' to concern himself with such fly-over-types as me.
I read a sign on a church billboard this morning (no, wasn't Baptist): "The men who move the world cannot be moved by the world." Now take it as you will, but I thought it summed up our current American administration. It is taking hits as hard as any since the administration of Abraham Lincoln. I believe in W's resolve! If, as Phillips intimates, a second administration will cause Europeans to morph from anti-Bushies to anti-Americans, then I will just have to hold onto the railing that much harder.
Europe can fuss, preen, and posture till the cows come home. In the end, history will yet again justify American action in this violently changing world -- we are not done yet!
Oh yeah, the EU's principal goal from way back when: a trading block to equalize US marketing dominance. France wants to be in charge.
Thanks, Jan. I hope you will give us more of your point of view. As has been said, there is hope for all of us westerners as long as we keep talking -- at one time, we were pretty strong in our mutual affections...
// posted by HunterByrd @ 12:36 PM 
Comments:
<< Home
This is an extraordinarily shallow and jejune article. To do a proper "fisking" would take more time than (a) it is worth, and (b)I have. Full of flowery phrases that substitute for good solid analysis: e.g., Europe "laboring under the yoke of American hedgemony." Gawwd. If a 9th grader wrote a paper with that phrase in it I would give him a C. If you believe this tripe, so be it. Just to give you a taste of what the full treatment would entail, I will address a single point from the article.
This clown would have us believe that Ghadafi decided to disarm, not because we had just applied a serious beatdown to Saddam, but because, for years, Europeans had been "talking" and "negotiating." So let's think about this: Europe spends years and years negotiating, pleading, talking, blah blah blah, and nothing happens. Ghadafi just stands pat. Why shouldn't he? What's he got to be afraid of? Then comes Operation Iraqi Freedom, demonstrating that America is serious about using military power against rogue dictators who have a history of supporting terrorism, and suddenly, just like that, Ghadafi decides to disarm. Would it be more reasonable to infer that the decision to disarm was made because of (a)years of pointless palaver between Ghadafi and Europe that had heretofore produced nothing but more discussions, or because (b) Ghadafi now understood that this American President, unlike his predecessor, will do exactly what he says he will do, and that, if he didn't disarm, he was probably one of the next guys on the hit list. My common sense tells me (b) is the obvious selection, But hey, that's just me. I'm not sophisticated like a European.
Publius
This clown would have us believe that Ghadafi decided to disarm, not because we had just applied a serious beatdown to Saddam, but because, for years, Europeans had been "talking" and "negotiating." So let's think about this: Europe spends years and years negotiating, pleading, talking, blah blah blah, and nothing happens. Ghadafi just stands pat. Why shouldn't he? What's he got to be afraid of? Then comes Operation Iraqi Freedom, demonstrating that America is serious about using military power against rogue dictators who have a history of supporting terrorism, and suddenly, just like that, Ghadafi decides to disarm. Would it be more reasonable to infer that the decision to disarm was made because of (a)years of pointless palaver between Ghadafi and Europe that had heretofore produced nothing but more discussions, or because (b) Ghadafi now understood that this American President, unlike his predecessor, will do exactly what he says he will do, and that, if he didn't disarm, he was probably one of the next guys on the hit list. My common sense tells me (b) is the obvious selection, But hey, that's just me. I'm not sophisticated like a European.
Publius
# posted by 
: 12:37 PM
: 12:37 PM 
Jan! Where have you been? We've missed you. I even visited your blog. I liked the photos of Sweden and the one of you and your friends, although I wish they had not insisted on you hiding their identities. You guys weren't conspiring to commit some crime, were you? Just kidding, of course.
As for your comment, I'm not sure how to respond. I'm afraid it is very naive to think that Europe will ever "talk us out of trouble." I really wish you would read more history. Do you really think you can "talk" your way out of being a target for terrorists? There are, unfortunately, people in the world who hate you regardless of what you say, regardless of how friendly you try to be. Remember Bosnia? Europe didn't seem to be able to talk itself out of the ongoing genocide in that country. Only when the USA joined the effort was anything accomplished. Have you been reading about the terrible genocide going on in the Sudan at this very moment? The United Nations and Europe, have been talking and talking about this situation for months, and guess what? No one does anything while people continue to die in massacres on a regular basis. Do you think those people in Darfur believe in the power of talking? They need action NOW. They need someone to use force NOW to protect them or else they will be dead. Is it a good and honorable thing to talk and debate and negotiate for more months when you know that people are being massacred every day, every week? Yet in Europe, America is called barbaric and evil for taking action to stop this kind of genocide.
Negotiating is always the best way, but a reasonable person has to know when you have reached a point beyond which more talk is not only useless, but harmful. Negotiations require TWO parties that both wish to reach an agreement in good faith. Otherwise, negotiations are useless, and a sham.
Publius
As for your comment, I'm not sure how to respond. I'm afraid it is very naive to think that Europe will ever "talk us out of trouble." I really wish you would read more history. Do you really think you can "talk" your way out of being a target for terrorists? There are, unfortunately, people in the world who hate you regardless of what you say, regardless of how friendly you try to be. Remember Bosnia? Europe didn't seem to be able to talk itself out of the ongoing genocide in that country. Only when the USA joined the effort was anything accomplished. Have you been reading about the terrible genocide going on in the Sudan at this very moment? The United Nations and Europe, have been talking and talking about this situation for months, and guess what? No one does anything while people continue to die in massacres on a regular basis. Do you think those people in Darfur believe in the power of talking? They need action NOW. They need someone to use force NOW to protect them or else they will be dead. Is it a good and honorable thing to talk and debate and negotiate for more months when you know that people are being massacred every day, every week? Yet in Europe, America is called barbaric and evil for taking action to stop this kind of genocide.
Negotiating is always the best way, but a reasonable person has to know when you have reached a point beyond which more talk is not only useless, but harmful. Negotiations require TWO parties that both wish to reach an agreement in good faith. Otherwise, negotiations are useless, and a sham.
Publius
# posted by : 3:32 PM
: 3:32 PM
Jan,
Good to hear from you again, if only in the briefest of terms. Publius said it far better than I could this day.
If you really believe 'talking' is always appropriate, I beg leave to speak with you again in oh, say, 20 years, concerning the situation you are going to find in your own country (do you see the handwriting on the wall, yet?).
Some folks just have an agenda. Sure, they'll sit across the table for a good show, but they will have their agenda. A good example of an agenda might be, hmmm ...Shiira Law...Islamic Law. Just so I'm not misunderstood: I'm referring to the darker, nebulous aspects of it only.
During your learned, extended negotiations, you'll get plenty of good lip service to chew on -- even make a point or two yourself -- but in the end, the law is the law.
The 'law' brought down two very tall skyscrapers in NYC. It ruined the lives of a few folks in Spain and Bali. Dropped a few kids in Beslan. Put a hole in the Cole. Splashed Leon Klinghoffer. Terminated a Boeing 747 over Lockerbie. Is currently kicking up serious dust in Darfur. You get the picture.
That said, someone has to be a 'pariah' in this topsy-turvy world. Guess it might as well be the good ol' USA
HunterByrd
Post a Comment
Good to hear from you again, if only in the briefest of terms. Publius said it far better than I could this day.
If you really believe 'talking' is always appropriate, I beg leave to speak with you again in oh, say, 20 years, concerning the situation you are going to find in your own country (do you see the handwriting on the wall, yet?).
Some folks just have an agenda. Sure, they'll sit across the table for a good show, but they will have their agenda. A good example of an agenda might be, hmmm ...Shiira Law...Islamic Law. Just so I'm not misunderstood: I'm referring to the darker, nebulous aspects of it only.
During your learned, extended negotiations, you'll get plenty of good lip service to chew on -- even make a point or two yourself -- but in the end, the law is the law.
The 'law' brought down two very tall skyscrapers in NYC. It ruined the lives of a few folks in Spain and Bali. Dropped a few kids in Beslan. Put a hole in the Cole. Splashed Leon Klinghoffer. Terminated a Boeing 747 over Lockerbie. Is currently kicking up serious dust in Darfur. You get the picture.
That said, someone has to be a 'pariah' in this topsy-turvy world. Guess it might as well be the good ol' USA
HunterByrd
# posted by : 9:34 AM
: 9:34 AM << Home
