Europe's Long-Standing Dislike of America

[Hagbard Celine]

The real truth is many europeans WANT theocratic regimes to get nukes.

Avenger, give me a break with this. Nobody in their right mind wants theocratic dictatorships to get nukes. I call bullschite!

 

[sitarro]

Avenger, give me a break with this. Nobody in their right mind wants theocratic dictatorships to get nukes. I call bullschite!

Hagard,
They may not admit it but by their lack of action and general pussy footin around says it. France, Germany, Russia, and the UN's involvement with Saddam(against UN sanctions) and their fight with the United States to prevent us from taking that unstable, murderous, environmentally disasterous, and extremely cruel pile of camel shit out of power says it also. Ignore the facts kid, we know that you have to be antiBush to be cool in school, doesn't make you very bright though.
Hey padish,
Has that highly informative, nonbiased, and always correct news media in France and Europe bothered to report how Chirac, Putin, Schroeder and Kofi's kid spent a lot of time on there knees in front of Saddam doing anything and everything for him? I didn't think so, we know that European leader's sex life is their business.

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Hagard,
They may not admit it but by their lack of action and general pussy footin around says it. France, Germany, Russia, and the UN's involvement with Saddam(against UN sanctions) and their fight with the United States to prevent us from taking that unstable, murderous, environmentally disasterous, and extremely cruel pile of camel shit out of power says it also. Ignore the facts kid, we know that you have to be antiBush to be cool in school, doesn't make you very bright though.

I never said anything about Bush here man! You're trying to change the subject.

Think about what you're saying here. Europeans have just as much interest in not seeing brutal regimes gain access to nukes as we do. I guarantee you that none of them want to see a mushroom cloud rising out of Paris, London, Rome, Berlin or Amsterdam and I can comfortably say that having never met any of them. They're human beings just like us man! You're trying to demonize them when the reality is just that they approach diplomacy in a different manner than we do. Where Europeans draw diplomacy out and use positive reinforcement to encourage good behavior, US diplomacy is more direct and forceful.

 

[sitarro]

I never said anything about Bush here man! You're trying to change the subject.

Think about what you're saying here. Europeans have just as much interest in not seeing brutal regimes gain access to nukes as we do. I guarantee you that none of them want to see a mushroom cloud rising out of Paris, London, Rome, Berlin or Amsterdam and I can comfortably say that having never met any of them. They're human beings just like us man! You're trying to demonize them when the reality is just that they approach diplomacy in a different manner than we do. Where Europeans draw diplomacy out and use positive reinforcement to encourage good behavior, US diplomacy is more direct and forceful.

Well it sure has worked well for them so far. Who was that little guy that they used that asslick diplomacy with . . . . oh yea, Hitler. Mussolini sure seemed impressed and Stalin was ready to jump thru hoops after all of those invitations for tea. I guess that was what France, Germany, and Russia where doing when they gave diplomatic BJs to Saddam, rumor has it Chirac swallows. I guess that was what you mean by positive reinforcement.
You just don't get it do you kid, these aren't labrador retrievers that we are dealing with. These are animals that will saw a innocent man's head off. . . .slowly. . . with a dull knife. Check out the videos "man", see if you can stomach them. The only diplomacy these vermin respect is the choice of what caliber ammo we use to kill their sorry asses. There is no communicating with these 14th century rejects. I guess you think you can talk a grizzly out of ripping your red-eyed head off too. . . you're just a bit naive as they are. :baby:

 

[padisha emperor]

Come on, don't say that the USA went to Iraq only to dissolve the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and bring democracy, while the evil French, Germans and Russians were only running to preserve their interests...

USA helped a lot of dictators in the past, sometimes against democratic regimes and elected president - Aliende and Pinochet in Chile, to give an example - .

When it was the USA's interest, they didn't have any hesitation to put bloody dictatorship on the power.

 

[manu1959]

Come on, don't say that the USA went to Iraq only to dissolve the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein and bring democracy, while the evil French, Germans and Russians were only running to preserve their interests...

USA helped a lot of dictators in the past, sometimes against democratic regimes and elected president - Aliende and Pinochet in Chile, to give an example - .

When it was the USA's interest, they didn't have any hesitation to put bloody dictatorship on the power.

then tell me....why did the US go to Iraq?

were the germans, french russians and chinese not protecting their interests?

what does america's past have to do with the here and now?

france used to be an evil empire bent on taking over the world...since you were once that should i belive that you are still that?

hate us all you want yall are just a few rock short of a full box

 

[padisha emperor]

Hey guy, for the last time I don't hate you, the USA and the Americans.

But still believe it if it's enjoying yourself...

 

[manu1959]

Hey guy, for the last time I don't hate you, the USA and the Americans.

But still believe it if it's enjoying yourself...

don't care either way.....questions too tough for you ?

 

[Said1]

I never said anything about Bush here man! You're trying to change the subject.

Think about what you're saying here. Europeans have just as much interest in not seeing brutal regimes gain access to nukes as we do. I guarantee you that none of them want to see a mushroom cloud rising out of Paris, London, Rome, Berlin or Amsterdam and I can comfortably say that having never met any of them. They're human beings just like us man! You're trying to demonize them when the reality is just that they approach diplomacy in a different manner than we do. Where Europeans draw diplomacy out and use positive reinforcement to encourage good behavior, US diplomacy is more direct and forceful.

Put it this way, who is pushing for contined sale of nuclear technology?

 

[Harmageddon]

Robert Kagan’s piece was quite informative, thank you.
Now as to my personal view of this:

Robert Kagan seems to be living with his head in his ass.

Now before everyone gets all aggressive once more, let me explain why I think this is so. Remember, this is MY personal view, it does not necessarily correspond with the European view in general.

In short:
Kagan on the one hand applauds the relations between Europe and America that have been both friendly and aggressive in the past. This I agree with in full, as should be obvious from previous posts. I also agree with his notion that a peaceful Europe would not have emerged without the American economical aid and a massive American military to keep an eye on European internal relations, thus preventing new wars to develop between European countries intent on revenge after WWII.

Kagan on the other hand applauds the continuing unilaterism embraced by America. Any criticism by Europe in this regard he dismisses as being a sign of weakness. Sure enough, Europe has seen it’s influence dwindle after the second World War because of a weakened military presence as related to the soviet and american forces. And yes, America is the stronger of the two. But to explain any unilateral action as a sign of strength while bashing any opposition with the argument of “well you have no choice because you are weak” is the most essential flaw in his entire piece. For if this were the truth, than any action taken by the strong are automatically considered a good act, while any action by the weak are automatically evil or worse, weak acts.
If you truly think this is so, I have an elixer of strength to sell you.

This is once again a perfect example of Sitarro rhetoric: stating your belief as truth, and gathering facts to try and build a foundation for them. My view on Sitarro rhetoric: see previous posts.

 

[Harmageddon]

The second article posted by Kathianne is even more sad.

It is basically a copy of Kagan’s piece, but written by some less-gifted writer. One piece from this second story I will use as an example of it’s sadness:

“I think that Europeans don't realize that Americans are a plain speaking people, not given to easy hypocrisy. And in particular, for the Jacksonian core the idea of honor is a strong one. Jacksonians do not abide trash-talk. Mead says:

Jacksonian honor must be acknowledged by the outside world. One is entitled to, and demands, the appropriate respect: recognition of rights and just claims, acknowledgment of one’s personal dignity. Many Americans will still fight, sometimes with weapons, when they feel they have not been treated with the proper respect. But even among the less violent, Americans stand on their dignity and rights.

And so it is that Americans reacted to the initial European chiding not as an opportunity to figure out that there was a disagreement, but as an assault on American honor.”

So your honour was smeared all over the walls when 9/11 happened. It was also smeared all over the place during the magnificent response to hurrican Katrina. Your response to the atrocities of 9/11 started off at a sane level: you attacked the country deemed responsible, or at least the country suspected to be the hiding place of the idiot that did this. Good.

Then, you started to fuck up all your credibility by smearing your incompetence all over the walls. What’s the plan there? Trying to cover the honour that was on the walls with incompetence – I don’t get it.

And when the Europeans start asking questions as to why you do this, you lash out at the Europeans and start calling them weak. This article kind of points out the error but manages to miss it at the same time: you fucked up as a nation and cannot stand others to tell you so in a diplomatic way. Because you like plain talk better.

 

[Harmageddon]

I think We all agree there needs to some sort of global security force. The U.S. is it. The U.N. fails repeatedly. It's too corrupt. Until then, someone needs to do what has to be done. The real truth is many europeans WANT theocratic regimes to get nukes. Their senseless hatred of America runs so deep they will sleep with any enemy, self preservation be damned.

It has been stated before, but what the hell are you thinking?
The UN is corrupt, I agree. But your government is corrupt as well. So is mine. It's what they do, besides running the country.
THAT is the problem we should adress. But no, you'd all feel much better pointing at the corrupt problems of others while ignoring your own. It's called hypocrisy. Must be your middle name.

Europeans WANT what? Are you insane? We do not want ANYONE to have nukes, at all. But they exist, so there's not much point in not wanting this. Truly, the world you live in consists of a little more than America on the one hand and the world on the other. . . the only people that seem to think so are Americans. Step off the fucking self proclaimed higher ground and get real.

Although I'm afraid if you really believe Europeans want to see nukes with every insane motherfucker on the planet, you may just have swallowed an overdose of blue pills. The only cure to that is education. Sorry.

 

[padisha emperor]

then tell me....why did the US go to Iraq?

were the germans, french russians and chinese not protecting their interests?

what does america's past have to do with the here and now?

france used to be an evil empire bent on taking over the world...since you were once that should i belive that you are still that?

hate us all you want yall are just a few rock short of a full box

Did I said France and co didn't preserve their interests ? no. I just said that don't show it as "evil France and co" and "pride and pure America"

Why did the USA go to Iraq ? many reasons.
But don't make me believe USA sent so many soldiers and lost so many braves only to put down Saddam. (before, yUSA said : it was for WMD. But no WMD founded. Then, they said it was for democracy. hahaha. Why only in Iraq, when there is so many dictatorship in the world. Is there liberties and democracy in Saudi Arabia ? oops, I forget, S-A is USA's ally...)

 

[Harmageddon]

Originally posted by Sitarro
Hagard,
They may not admit it but by their lack of action and general pussy footin around says it. France, Germany, Russia, and the UN's involvement with Saddam(against UN sanctions) and their fight with the United States to prevent us from taking that unstable, murderous, environmentally disasterous, and extremely cruel pile of camel shit out of power says it also. Ignore the facts kid, we know that you have to be antiBush to be cool in school, doesn't make you very bright though.

Hehehe.
Thanks for the entertaining hot air. I believe you just missed a country in your little list. . . I believe it's called the United States of Whatever. Apparently they sold Saddam's regime ingredients for nerve gas, that Saddam was to use on the Iranians. When he threw it on the kurds instead, they sold him some more to really throw on the Iranians this time. Besides that an ample supply of weapons of course, to fight a war with Iran. Remember the picture with Rummie and Saddam shaking hands? So don't start the crap about involvements that were hypocritical at best; your own country had plenty of that.

Originally posted by Sitarro
Hey padish,
Has that highly informative, nonbiased, and always correct news media in France and Europe bothered to report how Chirac, Putin, Schroeder and Kofi's kid spent a lot of time on there knees in front of Saddam doing anything and everything for him? I didn't think so, we know that European leader's sex life is their business.

Grin. You have some great resources, what are they, Faux news?
Ignorance is bliss, mate, and so is a comatose state. Just swallow a couple 'o blue pills and chill out on the couch of American greatness, don't bother with the world. You might get hurt.

Although Kofi's son and whatever bribes he is accused of did reach the news in Europe, we too have a biased media. So whatever interest Putin, Chiraq and others had in Iraq were not front page news. It was reported however, but mainly in the little posts on the edge of the newspapers.
Like I have been saying: do not trust to a single newssource for your view of the world. I realized the Dutch media was biased only after 9/11 and since I have been checking for news from a handfull of sites from all over the world.

All I'm saying is:
You seem to be unable to handle the truth. So don't talk as if you can. You wanna know what's going on?? Why the world increasingly hates you?? Check newsreports from other countries! They may also be lying, but you may just get a little closer to the truth. Your country is no worse than mine in this respect.

Reality is a shark, Sitarro - a real big one, like some ancient Megalodon.
Are you afraid you may be the snorkeler you refer to?

 

[sitarro]

Hehehe.
Thanks for the entertaining hot air. I believe you just missed a country in your little list. . . I believe it's called the United States of Whatever. Apparently they sold Saddam's regime ingredients for nerve gas, that Saddam was to use on the Iranians. When he threw it on the kurds instead, they sold him some more to really throw on the Iranians this time. Besides that an ample supply of weapons of course, to fight a war with Iran. Remember the picture with Rummie and Saddam shaking hands? So don't start the crap about involvements that were hypocritical at best; your own country had plenty of that.


Grin. You have some great resources, what are they, Faux news?
Ignorance is bliss, mate, and so is a comatose state. Just swallow a couple 'o blue pills and chill out on the couch of American greatness, don't bother with the world. You might get hurt.

Although Kofi's son and whatever bribes he is accused of did reach the news in Europe, we too have a biased media. So whatever interest Putin, Chiraq and others had in Iraq were not front page news. It was reported however, but mainly in the little posts on the edge of the newspapers.
Like I have been saying: do not trust to a single newssource for your view of the world. I realized the Dutch media was biased only after 9/11 and since I have been checking for news from a handfull of sites from all over the world.

All I'm saying is:
You seem to be unable to handle the truth. So don't talk as if you can. You wanna know what's going on?? Why the world increasingly hates you?? Check newsreports from other countries! They may also be lying, but you may just get a little closer to the truth. Your country is no worse than mine in this respect.

Reality is a shark, Sitarro - a real big one, like some ancient Megalodon.
Are you afraid you may be the snorkeler you refer to?

Ya know Hanzel,
You have given most of the cliche Euro lines about uninformed Americans and unilateral thinking this and hypocritical that . . . where is the Euro favorite? Where is the criticism of the overweight American or the single language Americans, we haven't heard that crap from you yet, why not?
Your posts have proven that you are the missinformed child and I am thoroughly bored with you. Make yourself usefull kid, go stick your finger in a dike.
Later. . . Yawn.

 

[Harmageddon]

Ya know Hanzel,
You have given most of the cliche Euro lines about uninformed Americans and unilateral thinking this and hypocritical that . . . where is the Euro favorite? Where is the criticism of the overweight American or the single language Americans, we haven't heard that crap from you yet, why not?
Your posts have proven that you are the missinformed child and I am thoroughly bored with you. Make yourself usefull kid, go stick your finger in a dike.
Later. . . Yawn.

You know Sitarro,
If you cannot stand the fact I'm pointing out you are misinformed on America's foreign policy issues, that is not my problem.

Why would I bother discussing grossly overweight Americans with you? What would be the point, you reckon? As for the single-language Americans issue, I don't care. For one, it isn't true and secondly, I don't know many British that are bilangual, nor French for that matter. What's your point?

As for the Euro-cliche that Americans are misinformed: you should read my posts beyond the lines where I may insult you. I have stated that most people are misinformed, Americans and Europeans alike, not to mention Africans that have generally no clue whatsoever as to what is going on.

If you are bored by a factual discussion that is again, your problem. Calling me a "missinformed child" shows once again you like to grind this discussion down to a namecalling contest. You should try growing up and see the world for what it is.

But you seem to be scared by the prospect that reality may be somewhat less simplistic than holy America vs. the world. So I ask again:

Are you afraid you may be the snorkeler you refer to?

 

[Hagbard Celine]

Put it this way, who is pushing for contined sale of nuclear technology?

Well Said, may I remind you that nuclear technology, in addition to its use as a WMD, is also a very good source of electricity? Anyway, the US sells nuclear technology too, to India, which is only a stone's throw from Pakistan and Afghanistan. Europeans aren't the only ones spreading this technology.

Why US Is Shifting Nuclear Stand With India

 

[Said1]

Well Said, may I remind you that nuclear technology, in addition to its use as a WMD, is also a very good source of electricity? Anyway, the US sells nuclear technology too, to India, which is only a stone's throw from Pakistan and Afghanistan. Europeans aren't the only ones spreading this technology.

Why US Is Shifting Nuclear Stand With India

My mistake, I meant arms and I was referring to China, NOT India in the first place.

So again, who is in support of dropping arms embargos with respect to China, and who isn't?

Here's something else you can research "what is India planning to do with it's spent Uranium?"

 

[CSM]

War in Irak 2003 : CSM, you can say everything you want, this american intervention was totally illegal.

And I say it isn't....

There are rules, and international laws. USA didn't respect them.

bull. The USA doesn't respect the "laws" made up specifically designed to break the USA

USA signed the UNO Charta. This is a part of the international laws. And USA didn't respect it.

Maybe you make a confusion between legality and legitimity. For you this was a legitim intervention, wasn't it ? This point is discutable, but here, i only put your point of view.

I beleive it was legal and legitimate

But on the law point of vew, about the legality, it was against the rules. It was totally illegal.

I disagree

UNO Charta : article 2-6 : even the non-member States can't use the war, the threat, or even the force.
And the article 2-4 : war, threat and forces are forbidden.

Disingenuous...the right to self defense is never denied

Ans there are other sources of laws.

And USA didn't sign the Ottawa convention, 1997, about the antipersonnal mines. Why ?

Because we like blowing up foriegners...

 

[CSM]

Robert Kagan’s piece was quite informative, thank you.
Now as to my personal view of this:

Robert Kagan seems to be living with his head in his ass.

Now before everyone gets all aggressive once more, let me explain why I think this is so. Remember, this is MY personal view, it does not necessarily correspond with the European view in general.

In short:
Kagan on the one hand applauds the relations between Europe and America that have been both friendly and aggressive in the past. This I agree with in full, as should be obvious from previous posts. I also agree with his notion that a peaceful Europe would not have emerged without the American economical aid and a massive American military to keep an eye on European internal relations, thus preventing new wars to develop between European countries intent on revenge after WWII.

Kagan on the other hand applauds the continuing unilaterism embraced by America. Any criticism by Europe in this regard he dismisses as being a sign of weakness. Sure enough, Europe has seen it’s influence dwindle after the second World War because of a weakened military presence as related to the soviet and american forces. And yes, America is the stronger of the two. But to explain any unilateral action as a sign of strength while bashing any opposition with the argument of “well you have no choice because you are weak” is the most essential flaw in his entire piece. For if this were the truth, than any action taken by the strong are automatically considered a good act, while any action by the weak are automatically evil or worse, weak acts.
If you truly think this is so, I have an elixer of strength to sell you.

This is once again a perfect example of Sitarro rhetoric: stating your belief as truth, and gathering facts to try and build a foundation for them. My view on Sitarro rhetoric: see previous posts.

I dont recall reading anywhere in Kagan's article where it says unilateralism is "right" or "good" or that the weak are evil...that is your spin and not necessarily a correct one either...care to re-read the article?