WHO CARES WHAT EUROPEANS THINK?

Jewish World Review ^ | 3/4/02 | Charles Krauthammer

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...Ok, I'll admit that we're not "going to fight terror wherever we find it", if you'll admit (or learn to understand) that there is nothing wrong with this. There is nothing wrong with a government looking out for its own citizens first. Indeed, that is the freakin' purpose of a government. Why is this concept so difficult?....

Because if the reason/pretext for the planned attack is Iraq's refusal to admit UN weapons inspectors, then shouldn't the decision to attack be made by the UN?

[Dr. Frank fan]

Because if the reason/pretext for the planned attack is Iraq's refusal to admit UN weapons inspectors, then shouldn't the decision to attack be made by the UN?

I'm not picky.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...P.S. Still waiting for your brilliant explanation of why Europeans should have a say in the policy of the government of a foreign country (the US)....

Because they're your allies, Doc. I guess the real question the White House wants answered is, 'can we get away with dropping the usual pretence of cosmetic allies, for the Iraq campaign?'

That's the real issue, isn't it?

[cicero's_son]

"I think those European socialists and radical-Islam-appeasers are abandoning their European heritage..."

Well you'll find no argument from me on this one! It started a long time ago, but it is amazing to see how thoroughly decultured and un-European they have become.

"Europe is the Faith, and the Faith is Europe" a wise man once said. Anyone saying such a thing in European politics today would be about as welcome as an lactose-intolerant Albanian at a Swiss raclette party.

I'm not sure we're much better off, fwiw. We are evolving into the "military arm" of the same culture that has absorbed Europe. Vampiric, secular, materialist, ahistorical, and utterly cold. I do not speak of the average American, mind you, but of the future culture our elites have planned for us.

[cicero's_son]

LOL.

My girlfriend puts away all the sharp objects after I read certain books...

[Dr. Frank fan]

[...why Europeans should have a say in the policy ...] Because they're your allies, Doc.

This is my fault because I misspoke. "Have a say" is a poor choice of words. Sure, they can "have a say". Everyone can "have a say" for all I care. But if they speak their mind, and we listen, and then decide "Naw, we're still gonna do this thing, and not that thing you want us to do", then what's the problem? Without going into more specifics, what can you possibly object to?

Instead of "have a say", I should have said something like "have veto power over", or "be totally obeyed in all things". Should Europeans be totally obeyed in all things by the US government, simply "because they're our allies"? That is a very strange definition of "allies".

I guess the real question the White House wants answered is, 'can we get away with dropping the usual pretence of cosmetic allies, for the Iraq campaign?' That's the real issue, isn't it?

If you say so. I wasn't even aware that many of these European countries (other than perhaps England) were such great "allies" of the US in the first place, so if you are going to now insist that such alliance is a mere pretense, I won't argue too hard.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Believe it or not but I have essentially no argument (for once ;) with your #124. So does this mean that you take back what you wrote in #112,

I am one who believes that US interests are best served by maintaining our status as, essentially, a European power. Hard to do that while constantly thumbing our noses at the Europeans themselves.

After all, you and I now (seem to) agree that, in this situation at least, we are "the Europeans", and the socialist bureaucrats who happen to live there are the ones thumbing their noses at us.

Conclusion: they should pay attention to what we think, case closed. Agreed? :)

[Mom_Grandmother]

I read quite a few UK papers, mag, and watch the parliment debates from time to time. Europeons are the most fickle folks I have ever seen, but when push finally comes down to shove, they come around, at least they do today.

I remember back when Reagan wanted to use the air-space over France to get to Libya and bomb their arrogant butts, France refused. Well, it's different today, everythings different today. Our nation realizes this is do or die, our very existence depends on our government putting their money where their mouth is. Bluffs won't get it anymore.

I don't know what is said behind closed doors to our whinning allies but whatever it is, it works, they eventually do a 180% about face and stand beside us. France likes to talk tough but they will be there, they have to. We can do this unilaterally, but we would rather have our allies there with us and I don't think they would care much for the backlash if they chose not to.

They like their tea and crumpets too well to take a chance on losing them. TALLY HO!, and all that ROT!

I agree, Who Cares What Europeon's Think? It is their actions that matter in the end.

[cicero's_son]

Do I agree with you that we're more "European" than the "Europeans?"

Well, not exactly. They are Europeans. We are Americans. We are both becoming unmoored from our history and from the traditions that made us great. In that respect I'm afraid we'll "hang together." We've got more muscle than they do and more willingness to use it. Whether in the long run that is a "good" thing, in keeping with the classic liberal tradition of Europe remains to be seen.

Anyway, your post #126 clarifies your position and brings us into accord. You do not object to their "having a say," which was all I objected to in my original post. It may sound silly, bit make no mistake: there are some allegedly freedom-loving conservatives (even here on FR) who think that the Europeans should be "muzzled," along with anyone else who disagrees with our foreign policy. As annoying as, say, the French might be, it's not such a bad thing to have allies around who yet dare disagree with you.

[Dr. Frank fan]

Well, not exactly. They are Europeans. We are Americans.

But, but...you assured me that we are a "European power", and should be "maintaining" that status. Now I'm confused. Either we are "Europeans" or we aren't. Which is it? :)

Anyway, I thought I made sure to specify that I am talking about "on this issue", in particular. The cowardly reluctance to anger "the Arab street" and the temptation to try to appease is not especially "European", just because many espousers of these views happen to live there, is it? Or if it is, then (in this case) reasonable people can certainly argue (as I am) that this particular "European" view (if that's what it is) is not worth emulating. Either way I still say that here we have a case where the (geographical) Europeans are wrong, and should not be listened to (in the sense of doing what they say).

Let them speak? Hell, sure. But do what they say? In this case, I'm afraid: Hell No. Which, I hasten to add, was the actual point of Krauthammer's article....

You do not object to their "having a say," which was all I objected to in my original post. It may sound silly, bit make no mistake: there are some allegedly freedom-loving conservatives (even here on FR) who think that the Europeans should be "muzzled," along with anyone else who disagrees with our foreign policy. As annoying as, say, the French might be, it's not such a bad thing to have allies around who yet dare disagree with you.

I see, yes that does clarify things. I see what you mean if you've seen people truly objecting to Europeans merely voicing their opinions....

Actually, my primary irritation is not with Europeans who Speak Their Mind, but with Americans who, upon hearing such opinions, point at "Europeans" and say to the rest of us "we should be doing whatever they say! Why aren't we doing whatever they say?? They're European!!!" ;) My main objection is to the idea that complete obedience, rather than merely an open ear and channel of communication, is somehow required, even (startlingly) independent of the merits of what "the Europeans" are actually arguing for, quite often (cf. "Kyoto Protocols"). That weirdly obedient idolizing attitude towards Europeans, and not the Europeans themselves, is what truly bothers me.

[DB]

Actually he does. I live on the West Coast of America. He's threatened to nuke the west coast. His missile making goals are to reach America. South Korea is not the target goal though it maybe indirectly.

I see, every injustice in the world is America's problem... If we don't stop every atrocity then we are at fault... If we try to stop some and not others we are at fault... Grow up.

We spend billions a year separating North and South Korea. We've had thousands of troops on the front lines there for decades. The North continually threatens us there and elsewhere. The dictator there has starved hundreds of thousands if not millions of his citizens over the years to pursue his military goals. The North exports long-range missiles among other things to our enemies in the Middle East.

And you say Mugabe should get our attention first… And condemn us because he doesn't…

Since Mugabe is such a "tinpot" why don't you and your fellow countrymen lead the way. I would bet if you asked, our country would help you in you cause.

Only one question, do you really think getting rid of Mugabe would change anything? I'm not so sure he doesn't represent the majority population there as it is…

[cicero's_son]

"Actually, my primary irritation is not with Europeans who Speak Their Mind, but with Americans who, upon hearing such opinions, point at "Europeans" and say to the rest of us "we should be doing whatever they say!"

Indeed. They're really just the flip side of the equally annoying types who say "if the French are for it, then I'm pretty sure I'm against it." There's ample room for independent thought in between the two extremes.

I'm under no illusions about the wisdom or beneficence of the Europeans, as should be clear from my posts. But before we send our military a-marauding around "making the world safe for" Democracy, Sodomy, Free Trade, Feminism, Porn, or whatever the cause of the day might be, I can certainly tolerate some pointed questioning by our allies, however lily-livered they may be!

[cicero's_son]

"Only one question, do you really think getting rid of Mugabe would change anything? I'm not so sure he doesn't represent the majority population there as it is."

Of course he does! Ain't Democracy grand?

[fire_eye]

You should really have a close look at what you wrote in #103. You haven't (apparently because you can't) responded to a single thing I said. Every comment you made amounts to "We're worse than they are", or "This is worse than that".

You sound like a Demoncrat defending Clinton... I'm reminded of a Jewish comic I heard excoriating his fellow Jews who supported Clinton, saying, "I tell them, Look, he raped this woman! and they respond, Yes, but look at all the women he *didn't* rape!"

Maybe you're just hanging bait, but if so, at least use something attractive...

[cicero's_son]

"This" [late 20th century-style, corporatist/socialist, secular Democracy] is worse than "that" [pre-WWI Christian monarchies].

[Excuse_My_Bellicosity]

Whatever. World War I and II were the result of America hanging back and letting Europe dictate affairs. Their idea of "taking care of business" was appeasement until the evil regimes fortified themselves and were emboldened enough to start a world war (twice).

Aside from namecalling and some obtuse reference to Jerry Springer, what is your specific complaint with the article? Feel free to humor me with specifics.