Europeans: Weak, petulant, hypocritical, disunited, duplicitous, sometimes anti-Semitic and often anti-American appeasers?

Seriously though, I've skimmed that and I'll have to read it properly when I have more time.

europe follows national interest the way america does, sometimes the national interest coincides, sometimes it doesn't. i long for the day when america learns to stop whinging so much about europe. get over us already! we're really not very important or worth worrying about you know!

blair has been asked this question:

is the war morally valid enough for britain to fight without UN backing?

he should be being asked:

is the war morally valid enough for britain to fight without AMERICAN backing?

i'd like to see him get out of that one! can you imagine britain going off and sending troops to their deaths alone, if america decided it wasn't in their national interest anymore? hahahahah

What is needed from global politics is a global interest. its quite clear that existing international strcutures fail to provide this and until politicians can look beyond the narrow boundaries of there constituencies (as interestingly Tony Blair seems to be fairly unique in doing).

We need a reform of international structures to better reflect the need of the world and its the US and france (and UK Thatcherite tendencies) that are going to be the stumbling blocks, because they are the most unwilling to cede political power to supra-national bodies.

Multilateralism can work but only it is truly multilateral.

(n.b.: i know that mr. ash's linked article is criticizing these attitudes, not defending them nor espousing them.)

An army of one? What? Is American public opinion, in general, REALLY that anti-Bush, really that anti-war? Or is this just selective rhetoric? Isn't anyone else finding it annoying that their anti-war stance is being undermined by rubbish like this?

yes.

It seems ironic that the majority of the American Euro-hate is coming from those Americans who are of European descent.

My answer to those who claim that the Jews own all the money: "Then how come I don't have a bigger house?" Seriously, I need to get on the phone to the ZOG loan dept. to discuss this. :)

it's also interesting how, in all the France-bashing and Bordeaux-dumping and "freedom fry"-ing being perpetrated by American wingnuts, no-one mentioned that the French overwhelmingly rejected a notorious anti-Semite's bid to be their President (on the order of 85% against, 15% for). and how the current occupant of the White House (who's there because of 5 partisan judges), upon a visit to Israel, is purported to have joked about "informing the Jews that they were going to Hell."

I don't know if I agree w/the first statement, but I am giving it a ponder.

Anyway, the reason I mention all this is that this morning I thought I'd check him out on the web and was relieved to discover that he is at least not a mainstream commentator but is affiliated to a think tank that seems somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun. And that the latest National Review column I can find by him suggests that Chirac and Shroeder cut secret post-Cold War deals with Islamist extremists to bring down America.

http://www.nationalreview.com/ledeen/ledeen.asp

an excerpt:

Like his father, Bush failed during the campaign to win over neoconservative Jewish intellectuals—most notably William Kristol, who openly backed John McCain. The problem wasn't just the assumption that he shared his father's coolness toward Israel. It was also his perceived insensitivity toward Jews, as characterized by the only-Christians-in-heaven remark. Bush later joked about the uproar caused by the exchange. Asked by a reporter what he planned to tell the Israelis as he prepared to embark on his 1998 trip to the Middle East, Bush replied, obviously in jest, "Go to hell." Gore got 79 percent of the Jewish vote. Bush got only 19 percent.

take it for what it's worth

-- oops

Constitutionally the US and France are very similar, at least at national government levels. Foreign policy has squarely been based on national self intrest in both nations. Both countries are culturally very nationalistic. The similarities outweigh the differences.

The difference in franc eis a much stronger working class left.

Gore Vidal's Interview on Dateline - Comments Please

even if that were to happen politically, between the elites, would distrust at europe dissipate? if so, what timeframe?

is europe better off with closer ties to america, or a more distanced relationship?

blair has thrown his lot in with bush (against wishes of british people, i would say?), where do you think this would leave him in the event of a kerry victory (i think, no weaker, because of political situation at home, surely this was calculated beforehand?)

what positives can europe (or britain) take from a bush victory?

yes.

even if that were to happen politically, between the elites, would distrust at europe dissipate? if so, what timeframe?

dunno, if you're talking about at the street level. Would take some definite actions by Kerry.

is europe better off with closer ties to america, or a more distanced relationship?

Closer ties are better, I think, for both parties.

blair has thrown his lot in with bush (against wishes of british people, i would say?), where do you think this would leave him in the event of a kerry victory (i think, no weaker, because of political situation at home, surely this was calculated beforehand?)

Blair is toast no matter who wins. I think if Kerry wins he'd try to continue the "special relationship."

what positives can europe (or britain) take from a bush victory?

a weak dollar.

I think there will be challenges from within, yes, but, i'm not sure they will be succesful. The labour party is stuffed to the gills with blairites, but brown may feel he has to make a move at some point

the british public are far from happy with blair, and he is distrusted, definitely, and will almost certainly be distrusted and disliked byt the time of the election also, but, they will still vote him in, i would put money on

if the recent bi-elections were anything to go by - and they are, then Labour still look on for a third term with the margin possibly still big due to momentum of UKIP)

i think one of the things that is missed in distrust of blair, is that no postwar british leader would have done different, and neither would brown. but perhaps, some wouldn't have done it in the same zealous fashion

do you really think wilson is maligned? or do you mean he was maligned at the time for that?

i have a horrible feeling that blair will have pegged it just right, and that despite public distrust and antipathy, history will look at the landslide elections and view him favourably

no postwar british leader would have done different, and neither would brown. but perhaps, some wouldn't have done it in the same zealous fashion

probably true but this seemed like an unprecedented situation difficult to measure against the past (which has seen unprecedented situations and decisions before granted), it all boiling down to the 'fact' that hard evidence constituting justification of occupation and coup was not presented adequately (if it even existed) and this remains the case. I shudder to think how Major would've gone about it (Gulf War 1 more easily explainable I suppose) - ran out of town by press and Parliament?

yes, though i would call it a return to "normal" relations rather than anything special.

even if that were to happen politically, between the elites, would distrust at europe dissipate? if so, what timeframe?

no. none of us will outlive the "jokes" about europeans "would all be speaking german now" if not for the usmc, etc etc

is europe better off with closer ties to america, or a more distanced relationship?

were the u.s. to continue the policies of the last four years, i would think europeans would be glad of distance. though europe is hardly a single entity, particularly on this point.

blair has thrown his lot in with bush (against wishes of british people, i would say?), where do you think this would leave him in the event of a kerry victory (i think, no weaker, because of political situation at home, surely this was calculated beforehand?)

don't know too much about uk politics, but i would think blair would be relieved at a kerry victory. has blair thrown in his lot with bush or with america? my sense is the latter, in the vain hopes that he could moderate its excesses. i would think that he wants to stick with america, but would rather it not be so far out on the limb.

what positives can europe (or britain) take from a bush victory?

the smugness of being correct?

Anyway, the reason I mention all this is that this morning I thought I'd check him out on the web and was relieved to discover that he is at least not a mainstream commentator but is affiliated to a think tank that seems somewhere to the right of Attila the Hun. And that the latest National Review column I can find by him suggests that Chirac and Shroeder cut secret post-Cold War deals with Islamist extremists to bring down America.

Jesus - having just watched the fascinating part of The Power of Nightmares on BBC2, Ledeen was again the one who stood out as the scariest neo-con of all. I didn't realise he'd actually had been so involved with the Reagan government, pressing the theory that the Soviets were orchestrating all terrorist movements in the world, contrary to CIA evidence, resulting in Reagan adopting a more hawkish attitude to foreign policy. Thanks Michael! Kissinger started to look quite saintly by comparison.