The View from Europe

[Capt.Hunter]

And yes, the purpose of foreign policy is to look out for the interests of the country making that policy. However, one thing the US is steadily (I hope) learning (as my country did in the days of the Empire) is that, if your policies are designed to ride roughshod over the natives and you act like (even unintentionally) you feel you can get away with it because you're a superior nation, you can expect them to feel more than a bit disgruntled. Sadly, there is a tendency with any big and powerful civilization (not just America) to feel that, because it is so big and powerful, the ideas and way of life of lesser nations somehow don't mean as much. And it is this attitude, more than anything else, that angers people. If Britain tried to impose on the US the same steel tariffs that Bush just imposed on us, the US would be crying foul at the top of its voice to the WTO. But when we do the same, the WTO bends its ear to the US because it has the greater economic muscle. So if Britain can't get the US to play fair by the rules the US makes such a big deal out of (free trade), what chance do the poorer nations have?

A lot of people here have said, if poorer people want the same rights as Americans, let them become American citizens. But that's a very superior attitude. I firmly believe it's possible to afford the same rights US citizens have to other people without forcing them to assimilate to a different culture. I argued against the current British policy regarding immigrants - they have to be taught English before being allowed in. Now the idea behind the policy is not the problem - if they're going to live in an English-speaking nation it's to their own advantage to speak the lingo. However, provision should be made in that case to ensure that their children have the choice to also learn their native language at school. Thanks to a policy of dropping Welsh from the curriculum of many Welsh schools, a lot of Welsh kids grow up without having the opportunity to learn their own language even if they wanted to. The same could happen with the immigrants - why does assimilation have to destroy even the fundamental parts of a person's cultural heritage?

I should point out that, as someone on the news last night said, the term anti-Americanism is a misnomer. The majority of people do not hate American citizens, but are against US foreign policy. Even the 9/11 attacks (which none of the above is an excuse for) were aimed more at symbols of American policy than civilians - I'm sure a 757 belly-sliding through a residential block in downtown New York would have killed a lot more people than hitting the WTC.

Fortunately, it looks like the US government might be wising up to these issues with their big conference on Anti-Americanism. We might see a more thoughtful, less arrogant US foreign policy yet.

[Victory Leo]

I realized another thing about American policy when I was sleeping (don't ask why)...

point 1) When it comes to bad foreign policy, Europe needs to remember one word: appeasement. I'd prefer the US to stick to its guns than run into another Nazi Germany...

point 2) Unfair trade policy: two words: lend/lease. It seems the world forgets how many times the United States has forgiven our debtors.

Considering those two overwhelming points... I think our foreign policy is just fine. Although, I'd like to see us reopen our factories and completely isolate ourselves from the world... and yes, the US could do it... If we did it slowly and carefully and didn't try to switch over in one quick action.

[dimeboy99]

Originally posted by Capt.Hunter
If Britain tried to impose on the US the same steel tariffs that Bush just imposed on us, the US would be crying foul at the top of its voice to the WTO. But when we do the same, the WTO bends its ear to the US because it has the greater economic muscle. So if Britain can't get the US to play fair by the rules the US makes such a big deal out of (free trade), what chance do the poorer nations have?

Luckily it looks like the steel tariff issue is dying. Tariff wars are a slippery slope that benefit noone.

http://www.washtimes.com/commentary/...6-74539253.htm

I think the WTO is doing a better job of being fair in issues involving the US than it has in the past. The 4-billion dollar ruling that came down on August 30th in favor of the EU is testiment to change.

http://www.cato.org/new/08-02/08-30-02r.html

[First of Two]

Okay, J. I'll buy that, at least as regards the vast majority of Europeans. They're good eggs.

However, there's no denying that there are some people, both there and in the US (that @#$%-brained $%#@-^%#@*& Fallwell &@#$, for one) who have, in fact, said that the US deserved what it got.

These people will be among the first against the wall when I become Emperor.

First "And YOU $%@&ers deserve THIS! *Braaaaaaap!*" of Two

[Dan Stack]

Originally posted by C5


What I did NOT say (and understand the poll was about) was that the USA deserved what happened at the slightest degree nor that it partly justified the attack or wichever rubbish. If a woman walks alone at night with a TOS uniform-like dress and get raped, I may say that her actions may have contributed to what happened to her, but I'll NEVER say that she deserved or that the rapist's crime is somehow lessened.

When will people stop putting words in other's mouths ?

For what it's worth, while I disagree with your belief that US policy contributed to the attacks, I do understand what you are saying and don't feel you are blaming the USA or that the attacks were deserved. (i.e. while I disagree with your viewpoint, I don't see your viewpoint as an offensive one - how's that for an odd compliment?)

My own view is that the attacks were a temper tantrum, albeit a well-planned one. "Waahhhh, they are not virtuous, their women are scantily clad, they are not spiritual, they eat at McDonalds, they are rich and decadent, I want to hurt them." I doubt most of them could articulate why they attacked aside from pure hatred. It certainly wasn't designed to change US policy.

I'm really upset that the US government requested that the networks stop airing bin Laden's temper tantrums. I remember in his first one, broadcast shortly after the first US strikes against Afghanistan, the odd list of reasons he gave for the attacks - he claimed they were fighting for an odd laundry list of causes ranging from the Palestinians to avenging the atomic bombs dropped on Japan.

Their platform is no better thought out than the political flame wars you'll find on yahoo discussion lists.