Quick Look at Bush's European Tour

[Buck Armstrong]

Originally posted by: CanOWorms

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: CanOWorms
The world cannot afford a militarily strong Europe. History has shown that they do not know control.

and egypt will end up building more pyramids using thousands of slaves
and the mongols will raid every city they enter
and the vatican will start a new crusade

The Europeans were in power relatively recently. They are the same or similar societies, governments, etc. I don't feel that European societies have progressed enough, particularly with WW2 (maybe with the exception of Germany) and colonialism. Many still celebrate colonialism.

The world cannot survive another rape. Luckily, Europe is aging rapidly, shrinking in population, diminishing in worldwide importance, and sliding in technology. I don't think those factors will help them militarily.

Hopefully the US will retain some military presence in Europe as a check.

Wow. So I guess since the Europeans are still the same Jew-murderin', World War startin', fascist whores they always were, then we must still be neegra-whippin' beloved patriot-killin' cowboys. But still, somehow we've managed to "progress" and they haven't, which is even more impressive when you consider that this country was founded and built predominantly by European immigrants and their descendants.

I'm not exactly an anti-war liberal, but I'd like to apologize to all Europeans for the above post. 🙂

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Buck Armstrong

Wow. So I guess since the Europeans are still the same Jew-murderin', World War startin', fascist whores they always were, then we must still be neegra-whippin' beloved patriot-killin' cowboys. But still, somehow we've managed to "progress" and they haven't, which is even more impressive when you consider that this country was founded and built predominantly by European immigrants and their descendants.

Perhaps when they take true responsibility for the rape of the world they will be ready. Unfortunately it seems that they are still avoiding it. Just like how some would be wary if Japan militarizes, I think it's only natural for most of the world to be concerned about Europe.

It doesn't matter whether the US was built by European immigrants or not (which is something that I definitely do not agree with 100%) because we're not talking about some sort of genetic link.

 

[Kibbo]

Can, to be comfortable with a militarily strong US, and not with a militarily strong Europe shows hubris, conceit and ignorance.

This ideological view you have that the US is fundamentally, morally superior to Europe is rediculous.

And to point to imperialism to support your argument would be analagous to a Frenchman pointing to slavery and saying that the US doesn't have the moral attributes needed to act responsably. It's a piss-poor argument to hold up crimes of a century or more ago and draw conclusions about a culture today.

It's a dangerous argument to look at another's crimes and not see the potential for the same crimes in your own people.

 

[CanOWorms]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Can, to be comfortable with a militarily strong US, and not with a militarily strong Europe shows hubris, conceit and ignorance.

This ideological view you have that the US is fundamentally, morally superior to Europe is rediculous.

I don't think that the US is inherently morally superior than Europe or anything like that. Just like how many people would be comfortable with Guatamala building up a military but not Japan, I am comfortable with other nations building up a military, but not Europe. It's a natural reaction. Many are uncomfortable with the US gaining power as well.

And to point to imperialism to support your argument would be analagous to a Frenchman pointing to slavery and saying that the US doesn't have the moral attributes needed to act responsably. It's a piss-poor argument to hold up crimes of a century or more ago and draw conclusions about a culture today.

Imperialism is perfectly ok to bring up because Europe practiced it very recently. Like I've stated before, many are wary of Japan building up - I am wary of Europe.

Also, I doubt a Frenchman would point out slavery when France massively practiced it into the 20th century, and even forced Haiti to pay reparations amounting over $20 billion for abolishing slavery centuries ago until the 1950s. Moral attitudes indeed! While slavery was a horrible act, you would think that you could come up with a different/better topic since it's repeatedly brought up as if the act was unique to the US or under some special treatment in the US. There are plenty of others things you could choose!

 

[freegeeks]

Originally posted by: Kibbo
Can, to be comfortable with a militarily strong US, and not with a militarily strong Europe shows hubris, conceit and ignorance.

This ideological view you have that the US is fundamentally, morally superior to Europe is rediculous.

And to point to imperialism to support your argument would be analagous to a Frenchman pointing to slavery and saying that the US doesn't have the moral attributes needed to act responsably. It's a piss-poor argument to hold up crimes of a century or more ago and draw conclusions about a culture today.

It's a dangerous argument to look at another's crimes and not see the potential for the same crimes in your own people.

don't bother arguing with Canoworms

he's a blind nationalist, he's lost and no help is possible

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: Forsythe
Threats? Sucking the life out of us?

With any fvcking luck, denmark won't have a military in 10 years. Americans are perverted.

We'll be lucky if we even get rid of "hjemmeværnet" (kind of national gard) 😛

 

[conjur]

But what if Bush's name had been "Mungo"?

 

[NeoV]

this Europe bashing is just plain stupid....our military is there for strategic locations, and Bush's comments were nothing more than an olive branch to the EU nations that haven't exactly been on board with our military decisions in the past few years, and with good reason I might add.

TLC, thanks for once again showing us your liberal side with "their social programs are sucking the life out of them" - gee, they are really dumb for having public health care systems...USA #1, everyone else sucks...blah blah blah......


yawn

 

[biostud]

I think your way of thinking security is a bit old fashioned. The importance of military security has lessened (but is of course still necesary). No country would gain anything from attacking US, Europe, China or any other major economy. And if you don't gain anything why would you start a war? I'm starting to worry a bit about the situation in Russia as it doesn't seem to go in the right direction. Personally I don't think that military power is the best way to win the war on terror, we need to fight the reasons why people join terror groups.

The problem is Bush is delaying an inevitable discussion. In his speech he states "the alliance of Europe and North America is the main pillar of our security." This is cold war thinking and is ultimately, simply not true.

yes and no. US still share the same values as europe when it comes to democracy, freedom of speech and free trade. Security is so much more than military, when we have a global economy and morally/diplomatic US stands a lot stronger if European countries back up the actions.

Yes Europe maintains an oversized diplomatic role in the world, a remnant of a post-wwII world. But US security interests are NOT rooted in Europe any longer. Yes Europe remains an important economic partner (although Western Europe is a declining economic force), but the US committment to protect Europe is no longer necessary with the demise of the Soviet Union. And now that they don't need the protection, they have turned against their "masters" as the new threat to their interests. Indeed, many European nations have it in their agenda to oppose US hegemony.

The thing is that the foreign policy of Europe is still a mesh of differnet countries it's maybe 40% supporting the current foreign policy and 60% against. But who says US foreign policy won't change? and US has the privilege to act as one unified nation, while europe still is lots of different countries. As long as EU doesn't have a structure where EU acts as one military power it's ridiculous to talk about europe as one. It's not easy to bring all these countries who all think they are the best together to form policy. Just like US don't want to be bound by UN. Imagine if every state in US had to choose wether or not they would join a war, that's kind of what it's like in Europe ATM.

The EU has one and half times the population and a slightly larger economy. There is no realistic threat to them that they shouldn't be able to handle on their own. It's time they man-up and take care of their own defense.

Many people think that anything that diminishes the US's military or diplomatic influence is contrary to our interests... but this isn't true, especially in Europe. Times have changed, threats have changed, and warfare has changed. NATO is an anachronism.

I kind of agree with your point on NATO, but I think it would be very dangerous to abolish it. We need a bond that connects the most powerfull economies/democracies in the world. We must keep the ultimate goal in mind, and even if the relationship ATM is not the best, we will have to deal with it and we will try to find the best way to get a free and democratic world.

Good relationships are better than bad relationships, but our military ties to Europe are no longer the main event in protecting American interests. The new way is the "coalition of the willing" model rather than some decrepid alliance where one or two poor sports veto reasonable actions.

I wouldn't react too fast. If EU in the next 10-15 years get a more effient way to deal with military/foreign problems and US might change some policies as well (GASP!), it would be stupid if we had just thrown out our coalition. We have issues we need to deal with, but given some time, new governments etc. I hope and think we can keep our relationship, I really think we need it.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: conjur
But what if Bush's name had been "Mungo"?

I thought he hadn't been outside US before he became president.

 

[cwjerome]

Biostud, I disagree that the US needs NATO and the current military arrangement with Europe to keep our "bond." Our culture and economies are entwined and it's going to stay that way even if militarily things change.

I know it's a broad brush to say "Europe," but I'm talking broadly anyways so, it fits.