This seems to sum up the OT US-EU debate quite well

[Hitro]

Originally posted by NY Hoya
I don't think that this is all that different than the numerous anti-US rants on European streets or south African cities when an American diplomat visits. I don't think any Americans focused on the differences until Europe made the first move...

That's basically what I mean.
There are no "numerous anti-US rants" on European streets, at least (and that is the important fact here) not more than in former times.
The left (the far left to be precise) has always been strongly anti-US, for the reason that America is the leading Capitalist nation and the far left is strongly anti-Capitalist next to some other reasons.
But the others, therefore the moderate left and anything right of it except for isolated right-wing extremists is friendly towards the US. Furthermore the far-left is also friendly towards the people, just not towards the "system".
And that all hasn't changed, what has changed is that it obviously (your post points at it once more) gets painted differently there.

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by Hitro
There are no "numerous anti-US rants" on European streets, at least (and that is the important fact here) not more than in former times.
The left (the far left to be precise) has always been strongly anti-US, for the reason that America is the leading Capitalist nation and the far left is strongly anti-Capitalist next to some other reasons.
But the others, therefore the moderate left and anything right of it except for isolated right-wing extremists is friendly towards the US. Furthermore the far-left is also friendly towards the people, just not towards the "system".
And that all hasn't changed, what has changed is that it obviously (your post points at it once more) gets painted differently there.

Well, perhaps they weren't covered as well in the past by our news media, but the anti-Bush protests that encompass many signs of anti -americanism seem to be much more widespread than in years past. Also, the treatment of our leaders by the leaders of other countries appears to be with more contempt, that contempt being fueled by the feelings of the general population. I can understand a shift in attitudes between the treatment of Bush II and Clinton, but things seem much more "anti" now than even under Bush I. That suggests an attitude shift in Europe in addition to any political shift amongst US presidents. It may of course just be the vocal left deciding to act out more over the past couple of years than anything else. That is surely the case in the U.S.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by NY Hoya
I can understand a shift in attitudes between the treatment of Bush II and Clinton, but things seem much more "anti" now than even under Bush I.

The issues are much more controversial now than under Bush I. And I remember protests against the Gulf War...
You have to understand that the Bush administration, in particular people like Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and Rice are seen as far-right by many. Now that may radicalize the far-left but many others also don't understand the views of that administrations on things like Kyoto (which already is a foul compromise), the ICC (are Americans above others?) and so on.
Bush certainly faces more opposition than Clinton. But Bush's policies certainly are worse for Europe than Clintons, that has nothing to do with an attitude towards America in general.

And being a friend doesn't mean to unconditionally accept and follow everything that the other friend thinks and wants.

 

[amadeus]

Why is the ICC so important to Europe? Do you really think that the U.S. would let charges of war crimes go univestigated, and unpunished?

I fail to see the problem.

 

[Ozz]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Why is the ICC so important to Europe? Do you really think that the U.S. would let charges of war crimes go univestigated, and unpunished?

WW2 Postwar Japan .

To be fair the UK and the commonwealth could and should
have screamed bloodly murder.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by rmsharpe
Why is the ICC so important to Europe? Do you really think that the U.S. would let charges of war crimes go univestigated, and unpunished?

I fail to see the problem.

Why is the US so strongly against the ICC? Do you think Europe would make up wrong charges against US servicemen?

But I don't want to discuss it here, we have had threads about it. My personal opinion isn't that important here anyway, in a way I'm quite alot on the left after all.
What I said in the last post was an explanation for the feeling Europeans have against Bush.

 

[Ozz]

Originally posted by Zarn
He meant that, Hamlet. I don't think anything is wrong with it. The wording could have been better, though. I don't see why you would be offended by it.

Cause it means "I'd be just as happy to turn my guns on you"

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by Hitro

Why is the US so strongly against the ICC? Do you think Europe would make up wrong charges against US servicemen?

No, but countries like Syria, Iran, and the Sudan might.

 

[Hitro]

Then let them do it.
If they are wrong it will come out in the trial. Being indicted doesn't mean being guilty or has your justice system already being changed that way?

 

[amadeus]

You don't think it's waste of time to have ridiculous suits filed against the U.S. by terrorist groups?

 

[Hitro]

Completely ridiculous suits would be rejected. Otherwise the court would be turned into a complete farce and its supporters would try to prevent that from happening.

But let's end it here or open another thread. Hoya might get angry

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by Hitro
The issues are much more controversial now than under Bush I. And I remember protests against the Gulf War...
You have to understand that the Bush administration, in particular people like Ashcroft, Rumsfeld and Rice are seen as far-right by many. Now that may radicalize the far-left but many others also don't understand the views of that administrations on things like Kyoto (which already is a foul compromise), the ICC (are Americans above others?) and so on.
Bush certainly faces more opposition than Clinton. But Bush's policies certainly are worse for Europe than Clintons, that has nothing to do with an attitude towards America in general.

The thing is that although the issues are different, the policies and governments behind those policies are not that different. Bush I never signs Kyoto, the ICC or any of this other stuff. Clinton signed on to many of these things fully knowing that they would never be ratified by Congress. Yes, Bush II is to the right of Clinton, but he is not that much different from Bush I or Reagan. I submit that two things have changed over the past 10-15 years, the "talk" coming out of Washington under Clinton and the attitudes and actions of Europeans. The actual policy enforced by Clinton did not differ much from that under Bush I or Bush II. The rhetoric did. This does not fully explain the divergence of opinion between the US and Europe. Neither Bush I nor Clinton was admonished by the German gov't as was Bush II.

Originally posted by Hitro
And being a friend doesn't mean to unconditionally accept and follow everything that the other friend thinks and wants.

We hear this all the time from Europeans who seem to forget that it goes both ways. Regardless of what you think and may hear, we do understand that you may have different ideas about what to do with Iraq. We also accept your right to have those viewpoints. I do hope that you will reciprocate when it comes to Kyoto and the ICC.

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by Hitro
But let's end it here or open another thread. Hoya might get angry

Please do continue. It's all part of the bigger picture.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by NY Hoya
Bush I never signs Kyoto, the ICC or any of this other stuff.

That's irrelevant, it wasn't an issue back then. World politics was dominated by the collapse of the Eastern bloc and the Gulf War during his term.

Clinton signed on to many of these things fully knowing that they would never be ratified by Congress.

The average European probably doesn't know the way the American political system works exactly. Besides that you can't even be 100% sure about it.

Yes, Bush II is to the right of Clinton, but he is not that much different from Bush I or Reagan.

Take a look at history and you'll find out the extreme hatred towards Reagan within the European left at least. The others widely regarded him as a cowboy actor.

I submit that two things have changed over the past 10-15 years, the "talk" coming out of Washington under Clinton and the attitudes and actions of Europeans. The actual policy enforced by Clinton did not differ much from that under Bush I or Bush II. The rhetoric did. This does not fully explain the divergence of opinion between the US and Europe. Neither Bush I nor Clinton was admonished by the German gov't as was Bush II.

What should that have been for? Supporting unification in Bush I's case? Clinton's Mideast politics?

We hear this all the time from Europeans who seem to forget that it goes both ways. Regardless of what you think and may hear, we do understand that you may have different ideas about what to do with Iraq. We also accept your right to have those viewpoints. I do hope that you will reciprocate when it comes to Kyoto and the ICC.

This is a case that can again be seen vice versa.
We accept your right on your viewpoints on Iraq. I do hope you will reciprocate when it comes to Kyoto and the ICC.

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by Hitro
That's irrelevant, it wasn't an issue back then. World politics was dominated by the collapse of the Eastern bloc and the Gulf War during his term.

Right, and world politics is different today because the Europeans have taken a turn to the left, supporting ideas like Kyoto and the ICC that would never have been considered way back then The world is also volatile today, it's just other issues have started to gain in importance. You have to agree that there was at least a small change in European politics post Cold War to worrying more about things other than the Soviet/Warsaw pact.

Originally posted by Hitro
The average European probably doesn't know the way the American political system works exactly. Besides that you can't even be 100% sure about it.

I thought it was Americans who were ignorant of Europe and Europeans knew everything about us. You mean some Eurocoms are ill informed about the way things work here?

And I can guarantee you Kyoto never would have passed the Senate. At best it had the support of about 10 senators.

Originally posted by Hitro
Take a look at history and you'll find out the extreme hatred towards Reagan within the European left at least. The others widely regarded him as a cowboy actor.

I agree that the left certainly hated him, but he had a lot more support from the rest of Europe than does Bush II. And I would argue that his policies were much more conservative than Bush II's. Even some of the more reasonable people here consistently refer to Bush as a moron when we all know that is not the case.

Originally posted by Hitro
What should that have been for? Supporting unification in Bush I's case? Clinton's Mideast politics?

Action in Panama, Somalia and Haiti, all of which were of dubious worth compared to Iraq this time around. Aside from that, all U.S. presidents do plenty of things that get Eurocom's panties in a bunch. Just seems like those Eurocoms are more vocal these days.

Originally posted by Hitro
This is a case that can again be seen vice versa.
We accept your right on your viewpoints on Iraq. I do hope you will reciprocate when it comes to Kyoto and the ICC.

It's a deal! We'll stop asking for support for Iraq, you guys quit b******* about us not signing onto Kyoto and the ICC.

 

[Eowyn of Rohan]

Well, that's score one for the euros: Reagan WAS a cowboy actor. He spent most of his presidency reading off a telescreen.

The USA/ICC situation is a powerplay, plain and simple. There's a parallel example in the Middle Ages when the Roman Catholic Church was the superpower. Whenever a priest committed a crime, he was NOT answerable to the civil courts, but was sent to Rome to be tried by a religious court, which usually found him innocent. After all nobody could gainsay the Church!

The same thing with the USA. They don't want their people answerable to a world tribunal. Example, if the coming Iraq war has atrocities anything near to the Vietnam court-cases, the USA will send those men HOME to be acquitted. Unless there's a lot of publicity about it, in which case they just may be found guilty, but I doubt it.

 

[bobgote]

I thought the article was good. (That is what this thread's about, right?).

 

[Heffalump]

Originally posted by NY Hoya

I submit that two things have changed over the past 10-15 years, the "talk" coming out of Washington under Clinton and the attitudes and actions of Europeans. The actual policy enforced by Clinton did not differ much from that under Bush I or Bush II. The rhetoric did.

Aside from some good post 9/11 work assembling a coalition to go against Afghanistan, Bush diplomacy has been rather inept. On Iraq and Kyoto in particular he's needlessly made things harder for himself by failing to engage in any constructive way with the outside world.

In terms of Iraq he's recognized the plight he's worked himself into -- witness the sudden phone calls & diplomatic efforts. He will (I think) further reverse course and offer to support some sort of a UN inspections regime with a fixed deadline & tough conditions. It will of course almost certainly fail ... giving Brit & French leaders the political cover to support war. With that backing then other countries (most importantly, Turkey) will come around.

Now if W had been as wise as his father and played the diplomatic game at the outset he could have avoided a lot of trans-Atlantic bickering and ill-will.

Not that I'm excusing EU leaders (aside from my man Tony) from their foolhardy views on that issue.

But of course the main thing that's changed in the last 10 years is that the US no longer needs the Europe like it once did. And yes even vice-versa. There was a time when the peoples of each place genuinely felt that their continued existence (in face of the Soviet threat) depended on close cooperation. There's nothing of this magnitude driving us together today.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by NY Hoya
Right, and world politics is different today because the Europeans have taken a turn to the left, supporting ideas like Kyoto and the ICC that would never have been considered way back then The world is also volatile today, it's just other issues have started to gain in importance. You have to agree that there was at least a small change in European politics post Cold War to worrying more about things other than the Soviet/Warsaw pact.

Kyoto and the ICC are the results of new developments. That has nothing to do with left/right. Kyoto is the (slow) reaction to the climate problems (yeah, I know you don't acknowledge them, but the governments do here, even most of the conservatives).

I thought it was Americans who were ignorant of Europe and Europeans knew everything about us. You mean some Eurocoms are ill informed about the way things work here?

I'm not completely sure what a "Eurocom" is.
But I can assure you that many Europeans don't know it completely and most of those support the U.S.

And I can guarantee you Kyoto never would have passed the Senate. At best it had the support of about 10 senators.

Maybe, irrelevant, Clinton was a smart guy, unlike...well...

I agree that the left certainly hated him, but he had a lot more support from the rest of Europe than does Bush II. And I would argue that his policies were much more conservative than Bush II's.

That's another issue. The things that matter for the Europeans aren't. Back then Europe and the U.S. had the Cold War as the main issue that covered up the differences. Furthermore Thatcher was in place in Britain, which may have biased the complete picture...

Action in Panama, Somalia and Haiti, all of which were of dubious worth compared to Iraq this time around. Aside from that, all U.S. presidents do plenty of things that get Eurocom's panties in a bunch. Just seems like those Eurocoms are more vocal these days.

Panama and Haiti were strongly opposed. Somalia was under UN coverage. And Bush never did a single thing Europe could like, unlike most other Presidents. Those before Clinton had the Cold War and Clinton was quite moderate (just by the way, I hated his administration as well, in particular Madeleine Albright ). Billy Boy is a funny guy though, the whole Lewinsky thing widely discredited the Republicans in most European's eyes.

It's a deal! We'll stop asking for support for Iraq, you guys quit b******* about us not signing onto Kyoto and the ICC.

No way. You ratify the Kyoto protocol and agree to the ICC and then you may bomb the hell out of Saddam.

( Note to possibly appalled Europeans: They would do it anyway, let's just sell the old Fascist )

 

[Heffalump]

Oh yes and I agree with NY Hoya that the average American's view of Europe (excluding UK) has begun to sour.

Rightly or wrongly the Europeans are regarded as ingrateful for the messes (right up through Kosovo) that the US has bailed them out of. And of course Europe reaps the benefits of the American taxpayer today (in what are essentially subsidies of that continent's defense.)