CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Anti-europeanism
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Anti-europeanism

post #1 of 46
2/12/03 at 6:04am
Thread Starter 
It's common to call anyone disagreeing with US policies of being antiamerican, spreading hate towards the US. Same goes for anyone who opposes Israel's policies. He's of course an antisemite.

But what about the US expressed opinions on Europe?

First and foremost we had the official view as expressed by Donald Rumsfeld ("Germany has been a problem, and France has been a problem..." , etc). No need to elaborate on this. I'll just remind you that prior to them we had the US administration ignoring the historic ties between USA and Germany and refusing to follow the diplomatic tradition of congratulating Schroeder on his re-election last year.

But what about the press?

Take Thomas Friedman for example. He used to be a champion of a benign globalisation that would allow the union of different cultures and not their dumbing down to a common denominator. Lately, he's taken a more jingoistic approach. First, he made fun of the europeans' concerns towards genetically modified food. And now he's claiming that India should replace France in the UN security council. What he fails to address is whether a country that has illegally developed weapons of mass destruction and threatened to use them against it's neighbour is fit for this position. And if it's a question of size, shouldn't India replace the UK instead of France?

Other media are even more insulting towards the old country. New York Post columnist Steve Dunleavy talks of "the arrogant leaders of France" who should "take a short break from their favorite pastime - stabbing America in the back as it prepares to rid the world of Saddam Hussein ". He takes advantage of a D-day veteran (as is the paper itself with the insulting for the memory of the fallen soldiers, already notorious front page) and wonders "if those pompous peaceniks in Paris ever give a thought to kids like Jack Steele [WWII fallen soldier] while they're kicking Washington in the teeth". As far as honor is concerned, he's sure that "the turncoats making policy in Paris and Berlin don't know the meaning of the word". They are "appeasers and apologists for terror". In another article, he called Saddam the Hitler of our times, propaganda that is not only groundless and historically retarded but which further insults the memories of the millions who died in WWII, soldiers and victims to Nazi atrocity alike (note: Of course Saddam is a bastard, so don't base any reply on innuendo about europeans backing Saddam).

Far more well-respected papers, like The Wall Street Journal follow suit, resorting to name calling. French president Jacques Chirac is a "shameless procurer of Saddam" and "the mouse that tried to roar" (now, that's arrogant!) according to Christopher Hitchens. Others, have caled europeans "weasels" and, God bless groundskeeper Willy, according to many other columnists the french are indeed "cheese-eating surrendering monkeys "...

And why all this? Because the leaderships of many european countries (and the people of all of them, according to polls) are against a war that the current US administration wants to start and for the necessity of which they are not convinced. I wonder, if the mentality is that whatever the US asks from NATO must be immediately adopted, why bother with the voting?

America, why do you hate Europe?

*edited for spelling and presentation problems*

Reply
post #2 of 46
2/12/03 at 8:34am
Quote:
The Happy Rampager:
Course, politicians should have better things to do then throwing insults across the pond. But what else would Europe(or France and Germany)have to contribute anyhow?
Exactly the type of attitude that brings about said anti-american sentiment.
Reply
post #3 of 46
2/12/03 at 8:48am
Goes to show just how deep your lack of culture is, then. And one could easily apply such blatantly ignorant thinking to the US as well.
Reply
post #4 of 46
2/12/03 at 8:58am
And so it begins anew...
Reply
post #5 of 46
2/12/03 at 9:17am
Yet another thread becomes an argument about The Happy Rampager's peculiar viewpoint, rather than the actual topic at hand.

A word of advice: read all his posts in an Elmer Fudd voice. They don't make any more sense, but they're a lot funnier.
Reply
post #6 of 46
2/12/03 at 10:25am
Thread Starter 
Sshhh...I'm hunting Euwopeans....

Back to the topic please!
Reply
post #7 of 46
2/12/03 at 11:09am
Speaking as a not particularly politically minded Brit who never-the-less find this fascinating: I know that for the British, we seem to reside half in and half out of the European union depending on which day of the week it is and which issues is at hand. We get force fed a stance that is pejorative for most of the population judging by recent polls, and which is based on the stance of the biggest boy in the playground we can find to stand against. Namely the US so far as I can tell.

Certainly there seems to be a distinct gaping maw between how we are viewed when we speak up about the impending conflicts - which we seem to wholly support ?? - and when France and Germany oppose the impending use of force. In that instance, we see headlines like "MONSTROUS INGRATITUDE" splurged across the front of UK newspapers, citing this as a cashing in of the favour owed the US by France when they landed in Normandy in WWII and saved them from the Hun.

Whether this is our media's puritanical interpretation of what they think the US wants to see (yet bizarrely there's still massive media campaigning against a US-led call to arms) or not I couldn't, and wouldn't be equipped, to say.

Either way, as most things appear to be in this particular world crisis, I don't really think it's got anything to do with being European as such. I think that's just who this frustration-due-to-a-perhaps-not-entirely-justified-conflict-being-opposed happens to be levelled against this time around. And Europe is a comparatively soft target.

I suspect the EU as a body is perceived as one that would not answer back aggressively. Who do you vocally admonish more vociferously ? A united body of peace-seeking nations or another unilateral government that might be a bit more active in refuting the US than mere muttering at a summit and murmuring rhubarb ? I'm sure China doesn't want a war, but can you imagine anyone fucking with them about their objections ?

I think the US is just desperate for everyone to agree with their reasoning asap. It costs money to keep troops out there.

I think any actual anti-European tendancies are probably moot in the context.

For the record, I'm not anti-anyone, save that special group known as "fucking fools". But they're on both sides of the pond, so...I agree (of course) in principal to crushing tyranny but I'm just not sure a war is the answer. Which is frustrating as it would also be the most obvious option to take. But this isn't a playgound, so at what cost. We all know the answer there. Hence dilemma and unfortunate bickering ensues on both sides.

I'm probably being grossly literal, but as a political outsider but who tries to keeps abrest of current affairs, it's how it seems to me. am I on the right track at all ?

Reply
post #8 of 46
2/12/03 at 12:04pm
Anti-Europeanism is such a broad term. I think that anti-French is far more indicative of how people in the US are. The anti-German movement has reared its head again, too, mostly because of Gerhard Schroeder and his anti-American re-election platform. Prior to this, the US wasn't really anti-German. Quite frankly, for him to complain about the problem is stupid because he could have prevented it by just shutting his yap. Instead, he riled up people here in the states, who in all fairness, are more anti-Schroeder than anti-German.
The French (as a whole) is another matter here. There's always been an anti-French feeling here for a variety of reasons, most seeming to come from France's attempts to establish itself on the world stage as a Superpower, which usually come at the expense of the United States. This, combined with an air of cultural superiority (which, as a result of the US being a menage of cultures, is probably justified) turns the stomachs of a lot of Americans. Just using me as indicative of the general US population (which may not be the case, but I don't know), I like the French as individuals. I was there this past summer, and everybody I met was very nice. I feel very different about France as a nation, though. I think they (the French government) feel the only way to improve their standing is by being a thorn in the US's side.
Reply
post #9 of 46
2/12/03 at 12:30pm
Sorro gets the prize.

Anti-Europeanism I am chuckling as we speak. Looking at the everyday press of France, Germany and Greece i'd say its the other way around. Our press has only recently started firing back.
Reply
post #10 of 46
2/12/03 at 12:31pm
J'aime toutes les français qui aiment des rassemblements de camion de
monstre
Reply
post #11 of 46
2/12/03 at 12:36pm
Thread Starter 
Gotta ask, if the european press is antiamerican for saying pretty much the same stuff as the US papers are saying about europe, isn't the US press antieuropean by default?

And why is this a contest, the US press feeling the urge to "fight back"?

And to throw oil into the fire, would some columnist calling the Israelis "yarmulke-wearing militant swines" be acceptable?

Before you feel the urge to be insulted, of course I don't agree with the above insult or any other degrading term used for any people on this planet or Zeta Reticuli. They are all terrible, dangerous and that's my point.

P.S. How can I become a resident of Monica Belucci?

Reply
post #12 of 46
2/12/03 at 12:43pm
I think, as always, the problem is between individual politicians. And, as always, the press prefer to portray it as a problem between nations. Easier to insult an entire country than actually get into the nitty gritty of why people disagree.

It's a press thing, not a "man in the street" thing. That's my take on it, anyway.
Reply
post #13 of 46
2/12/03 at 12:46pm
Quote:
Call:
J'aime toutes les français qui aiment des rassemblements de camion de
monstre
Do that again and I'll punch you right in the neck!
Reply
post #14 of 46
2/12/03 at 12:50pm
Vous ne pourriez pas poinçonner un hamster !
Reply
post #15 of 46
2/12/03 at 12:50pm
Thread Starter 
That's one of the things I'm peeved about. European press attacks Dubya and in the case of Israel Sharon. It doesn't attack the American or Israeli people.

The US press, on the other side, talks about weasels, cheese-eating surrendering monkeys, wimps and makes fun of the european health concerns.

Going back to the whole Normandy argument, should the french reply that they helped you first during the war for independence? Or is this whole line of thought that includes historical debt and collective guilt stupid and irrelevant?
Reply
post #16 of 46
2/12/03 at 12:54pm
Quote:
The US press, on the other side, talks about weasels, cheese-eating surrendering...
I think the 500+ killed and 1300+ wounded BY the French in WWII might possibly agree.

But let's not cloud up the rhetoric with fact.
Reply
post #17 of 46
2/12/03 at 12:55pm
Thread Starter 
and I guess that if the above examples are not displays of antieuropeanism, then all those cries of antiamericanism in the past have also been silly exaggeration.

I can accept this.
Reply
post #18 of 46
2/12/03 at 12:55pm
Quote:
mastronikolas the butcher:
Gotta ask, if the european press is antiamerican for saying pretty much the same stuff as the US papers are saying about europe, isn't the US press antieuropean by default?

And why is this a contest, the US press feeling the urge to "fight back"?

And to throw oil into the fire, would some columnist calling the Israelis "yarmulke-wearing militant swines" be acceptable?

Before you feel the urge to be insulted, of course I don't agree with the above insult or any other degrading term used for any people on this planet or Zeta Reticuli. They are all terrible, dangerous and that's my point.

P.S. How can I become a resident of Monica Belucci?
Well sorry to break this to you Mastronikolas but our(US) press were frying other things over here before this Iraq situation came into play. Europe came up here and there but it was not in anyway anti-european. From the way I have heard it and seen it many(people living in Europe) for years have been scared to see the American reaction to the european press. When the translation went from french to english especially.

P.S Anyone can become a resident of Monica Belluci or at least thats what I wish. World would be a much better place thats for sure.
Reply
post #19 of 46
2/12/03 at 12:56pm
Quote:
Dan Whitehead:


It's a press thing, not a "man in the street" thing. That's my take on it, anyway.
100% Right Dan well done.
Reply
post #20 of 46
2/12/03 at 1:10pm
Quote:
Daywalker bloodbath style:
Quote:
Dan Whitehead:


It's a press thing, not a "man in the street" thing. That's my take on it, anyway.
100% Right Dan well done.
The danger is that, through the press, the "man in the street" gets a distorted view of events and ends up heading down the same road.
Reply
post #21 of 46
2/12/03 at 1:17pm
Thread Starter 
Germany is a huge economic power.

And I never expected to say this, but Dubya is not half the president his dad was. It's in the interest of the American public to have, say, diplomatic relations with other countries.
Reply
post #22 of 46
2/12/03 at 1:21pm
WE DO!!!!

What kind of nonsense is that?
Reply
post #23 of 46
2/12/03 at 1:30pm
Thread Starter 
Well, right now you do. But the way he's going, I'm not so sure about the future. Remember the support and solidarity displayed by virtually every nation in the world after 9/11 and compare it to what's happening now.

Dubya has already waged one (justified) war, he's going for a new (unjustified) one, neatly categorised a number of diverse countries as an "axis of evil", he allowed North Korea to get cocky since they understand that the US can't have a military presence in Afghanistan, wage a war in Iraq and then occupy it and at the same time fight them, has alienated the muslim world, possibly helping terrorist recruitment, has insulted France and Germany, etc. For chrissake, it's the US and is looking for allies in the Czech Republic and Latvia! And Rumsfeld claims that he's happy about this and he prefers them over Western Europe.

Either we've all gone insane, or there's something wrong with your foreign policy.
Reply
post #24 of 46
2/12/03 at 1:30pm
Quote:
It's in the interest of the American public to have, say, diplomatic relations with other countries.
Actually it's in the interest of the American public to have our Government do it's primary job...to protect and defend the American People.
Reply
post #25 of 46
2/12/03 at 1:35pm
Where was Germany&France when Clinton was bombing Baghdad in 98? Clinton had no U.N cooperation there.

Its hypocricy like this action here that really gets to me.

The Algerian War: Villages were burned to the ground, local farming populations were deported and put into concentration camps. Women were raped, burned and killed. Men were arrested and tortured. A flow of protest emerged in France itself and the government replied by censoring newspapers and banning a lot of books. In the United Nations, France was systematically condemned.
Reply
post #26 of 46
2/12/03 at 1:36pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Majin Kronos:
Quote:
It's in the interest of the American public to have, say, diplomatic relations with other countries.
Actually it's in the interest of the American public to have our Government do it's primary job...to protect and defend the American People.
Isn't it easier to do this job by having allies rather than being alone?
Reply
post #27 of 46
2/12/03 at 1:40pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Daywalker bloodbath style:


The Algerian War: Villages were burned to the ground, local farming populations were deported and put into concentration camps. Women were raped, burned and killed. Men were arrested and tortured. A flow of protest emerged in France itself and the government replied by censoring newspapers and banning a lot of books. In the United Nations, France was systematically condemned.
And during the same time the US dropped Agent Orange in Vietnam and bombed Kambodia. Should we also discuss the indians? I don't think so. Using the past as an excuse is pointless. Otherwise, those Scandinavian dudes are pretty shameless talking about human rights, what, with the vikings pillaging europe and all.

*edited, because although Agent Orang would be a cool title for a kid show featuring a spy simian, it was not something dropped by the US on Vietnam*

Reply
post #28 of 46
2/12/03 at 2:28pm
Let me get this straight.

Back in the Gulf War, the US called on its European allies to assist them in attacking a country, Iraq, because it had invaded a smaller country, Kuwait, to seize its oil assets.

Now, the US is calling on these same allies to assist it in invading a smaller country to seize its oil assets. You can't blame the Europeans for being reluctant here. These are some very damn mixed signals we're sending.

In short, we're asking our allies to help us do the exact same thing we first attacked Iraq for, back in the Gulf War. Plus, we're pushing the importance of the UN resolutions in support of our argument for war, yet we're willing to completely disregard the opinion and sanction of the UN and attack Iraq completely by ourselves.

IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!
Reply
post #29 of 46
2/12/03 at 2:34pm
Thread Starter 
It's not supposed to.

To paraphrase a french (evil turncoats all of them!) minister, it's a throwback to the times of the caveman with the bigger club stealing the bearskin of another caveman.

A little sidenote, I remember Colin Powell saying a few days ago that he doesn't believe that all wars are fundamentaly bad. I'm sorry, but this assumption is the one the international system is based on for the last 60 years.
Reply
post #30 of 46
2/12/03 at 2:44pm
Nice job of dodging Clinton bombing Baghdad.
Reply
post #31 of 46
2/12/03 at 3:27pm
Quote:
mastronikolas the butcher:
Quote:
Majin Kronos:
Quote:
It's in the interest of the American public to have, say, diplomatic relations with other countries.
Actually it's in the interest of the American public to have our Government do it's primary job...to protect and defend the American People.
Isn't it easier to do this job by having allies rather than being alone?
Do I need to list the nations who support us again? That list is far larger than the list of nations who have opposed us.
Reply
post #32 of 46
2/12/03 at 3:32pm
Quote:
Englebert:
Let me get this straight.

Back in the Gulf War, the US called on its European allies to assist them in attacking a country, Iraq, because it had invaded a smaller country, Kuwait, to seize its oil assets.

Now, the US is calling on these same allies to assist it in invading a smaller country to seize its oil assets. You can't blame the Europeans for being reluctant here. These are some very damn mixed signals we're sending.

In short, we're asking our allies to help us do the exact same thing we first attacked Iraq for, back in the Gulf War. Plus, we're pushing the importance of the UN resolutions in support of our argument for war, yet we're willing to completely disregard the opinion and sanction of the UN and attack Iraq completely by ourselves.

IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!
If you really believe this war is about the US hegemon stealing Iraqi oil, there is nothing I can do for you. Every indication is that this is a small war now to prevent a large war later.

US foreign policy should not be held hostage by nations who have economic interests in Iraq. Those nations are preventing us from working within the UN to have a UN sanctioned invasion. If these decisions were made by impartial nations, I'd be more wont to agree with you, but we cannot and should not give up our sovereignty to someone who does not have our best interests in mind. I recall it being the same way back when the Soviets were veto wielding members of the UN Security Council.
Reply
post #33 of 46
2/12/03 at 3:42pm
Quote:
mastronikolas the butcher:

To paraphrase a french (evil turncoats all of them!) minister, it's a throwback to the times of the caveman with the bigger club stealing the bearskin of another caveman.
that just goes to proove that you can take a man out of the stone-age, but never the stone-age out of a man.

Reply
post #34 of 46
2/12/03 at 4:12pm
Something about this statement bothers me:

...a small war now to prevent a large war later.

War prevents war? Forgive my possibly naive logic but, no.
Reply
post #35 of 46
2/12/03 at 4:21pm
Quote:
Now, the US is calling on these same allies to assist it in invading a smaller country to seize its oil assets. You can't blame the Europeans for being reluctant here. These are some very damn mixed signals we're sending.
I love the way people believe bumper stickers.
Reply
post #36 of 46
2/12/03 at 4:27pm
Quote:
Tony Bag o'donuts:
Something about this statement bothers me:

...a small war now to prevent a large war later.

War prevents war? Forgive my possibly naive logic but, no.
What everybody seems to be missing here is this: The battle we seem to be moving toward is simply Battle 2 of Gulf War '01. We stopped, agreeeing to coalition rules in hopes of UN enforcing it's edicts and Saddam obeying. Hell, we even gave him an entire decade to do so.

This is part 2 of the same war.
Reply
post #37 of 46
2/12/03 at 4:28pm
Quote:
Majin Kronos:
I love the way people believe bumper stickers.
Could be worse. I hear some people actually take this president on his word.

Reply
post #38 of 46
2/12/03 at 4:46pm
Quote:
sorropa:
If you really believe this war is about the US hegemon stealing Iraqi oil, there is nothing I can do for you...US foreign policy should not be held hostage by nations who have economic interests in Iraq.
Seems to me that if oil interests are not allowed to be considered as reasons for the war, they shouldn't be allowed to be used as criticisms for those who are against the war.

You can't have it both ways. If we're to believe that Bush wants a war for reasons other than the economic, then we should also allow that France can oppose the war for equally valid reasons. You can't cast aspersions on their motives while refusing to question those of the US.

Not that I think the conflict is about oil (although any middle east conflict is tied with oil somehow anyway) but this "our motives are pure, anyone who opposes us is not" angle is worrying.
Reply
post #39 of 46
2/12/03 at 5:09pm
Quote:
Englebert:
Quote:
Majin Kronos:
I love the way people believe bumper stickers.
Could be worse. I hear some people actually take this president on his word.
Well, that's just silly talk!
Reply
post #40 of 46
2/12/03 at 6:27pm
Quote:
Dan Whitehead:
Quote:
sorropa:
If you really believe this war is about the US hegemon stealing Iraqi oil, there is nothing I can do for you...US foreign policy should not be held hostage by nations who have economic interests in Iraq.
Seems to me that if oil interests are not allowed to be considered as reasons for the war, they shouldn't be allowed to be used as criticisms for those who are against the war.
Not that I think the conflict is about oil (although any middle east conflict is tied with oil somehow anyway) but this "our motives are pure, anyone who opposes us is not" angle is worrying.
I think that oil plays a role in this, just not the role that some people against the war think it does. I think Bush is interested in keeping oil prices down, because high oil prices kill economic growth. He is weighing that with the risk of letting Saddam loose, and to him this is the best option in that regard.
As far as Bush helping ChevronTexaco, Conoco Phillips, and ExxonMobil get the Iraqi contracts at cut rate prices, and that being why we are fighting, I think that is very wrong.
You can't have it both ways. If we're to believe that Bush wants a war for reasons other than the economic, then we should also allow that France can oppose the war for equally valid reasons. You can't cast aspersions on their motives while refusing to question those of the US.

(edited for UBB code, and again because I mixed around Dan's and my stuff)

Reply
post #41 of 46
2/13/03 at 1:08am
I believe the biggest problem with this war...is the same problem I have always had, motive. If the tables were turned, and this was a Democratic President...well I think he would be questioned just as much as Bush. I also do not see a reason that we are invading Iraq instead of North Korea. It is laughable when people point out the atrocities that Saddam has committed, how many other nations have committed horrible crimes and not been punished? If it is about the potential for weapons, well...there are other dangerous countries with weapons (Pakistan, North Korea, even India and China).

Also, the comparisons to Clinton are just annoying and are proof that many of the conservatives on these boards cannot get over an administration that is long in the past. Do you know why nobody cared when we bombed Iraq? Its because it had little or no affect on anyone else. It didnt stop Frace from trading with Saddam. There was no request for any other nation to have a large part of the attaks. Im sure a lot of European powers would be fine with us bombing Iraq, as long as it was fast and quiet. That does not mean they want a war that will alienate themselves from there own people (especially with France) or cause the Middle East to become even more destablized. I think the truth is that many European people do not want to see a war in Iraq (pretty much every person outside the US I've spoken to is not interested in a war), who are we to challenge there Democracy?

Reply
post #42 of 46
2/13/03 at 1:10am


Reply
post #43 of 46
2/13/03 at 9:32pm
Again, in regards to why Iraq and not N. Korea, the threat level is much different. N. Korea can nuke the West Coast (I think Seattle or Portland), Iraq can't. This could be used as reason for us to not attack Iraq, because they aren't a threat, but I'd prefer to attack them before they threatened us like N. Korea does. At this point, deterrance is our best chance with the regime in N. Korea, because we are certainly deterred there.

Oh, and there are no UN Security Council resolutions that need enforcement with the N. Koreans either.
Reply
post #44 of 46
2/13/03 at 11:43pm
Quote:
sorropa:
Again, in regards to why Iraq and not N. Korea, the threat level is much different. N. Korea can nuke the West Coast (I think Seattle or Portland), Iraq can't. This could be used as reason for us to not attack Iraq, because they aren't a threat, but I'd prefer to attack them before they threatened us like N. Korea does. At this point, deterrance is our best chance with the regime in N. Korea, because we are certainly deterred there.

Oh, and there are no UN Security Council resolutions that need enforcement with the N. Koreans either.
From what I've read North Korea could only nuke Alaska, but could take out Japan and China. I say we take them out before they can hit New York, because what would stop them if that happened? They could hold anything over our heads and we would have to just deal with it.
Reply
post #45 of 46
2/13/03 at 11:59pm
Quote:
Ned Fats:
Quote:
sorropa:
Again, in regards to why Iraq and not N. Korea, the threat level is much different. N. Korea can nuke the West Coast (I think Seattle or Portland), Iraq can't. This could be used as reason for us to not attack Iraq, because they aren't a threat, but I'd prefer to attack them before they threatened us like N. Korea does. At this point, deterrance is our best chance with the regime in N. Korea, because we are certainly deterred there.

Oh, and there are no UN Security Council resolutions that need enforcement with the N. Koreans either.
From what I've read North Korea could only nuke Alaska, but could take out Japan and China. I say we take them out before they can hit New York, because what would stop them if that happened? They could hold anything over our heads and we would have to just deal with it.
Yesterday George Tenet told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the Taepodong 2 has been built. This missile can reach at least to Seattle, if not to Portland, San Francisco, and Los Angeles. The Taepodong 1 was able to just hit Alaska, but it's been updated.
Reply
post #46 of 46
2/14/03 at 12:14am
It's ridiculous how Fox News is ripping into France, especially Neil Cavuto's program.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › Anti-europeanism