Exploring Anti-Americanism
POSTED BY: Khyron
UPDATED: Monday, April 30, 2007 03:01
VIEWED: 18266
PAGE 23 of 23
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But let's take a look specifically at W European anti-Americanism. When did it become prominent?
To quote from the BBC article which is the starter for this thread,
"Anti-Americanism was born in France. And here's a fascinating fact: it was born well before the United States existed. It was not caused by Coca-Cola, or McDonald's, or Hollywood or George W Bush.
The prevailing view among French academics throughout the 18th Century was that the New World was ghastly. It stank, it was too humid for life to prosper. And, as one European biologist put it: "Everything found there is degenerate or monstrous."
And,
"But such balance is, according to Levy, missing in the French political debate on American power and American life. He describes a process whereby this antagonism to the fundamentals of the USA - to the kind of democracy that celebrates and encourages ordinariness - migrates hither and thither in the French body politic.
It began on the right but now in the shape of Jose Bove (the anti-McDonald's campaigner, and presidential candidate) and other luminaries of the left, it lives on.
And this is not a recent migration brought on by Mr Bush. In May 1944 (just weeks before American GIs landed on the beaches of Normandy), Hubert Beuve-Mery, the founder of Le Monde newspaper - certainly no mouthpiece of the right - wrote this: "The Americans represent a real danger for France, different from the one posed by Germany or the one with which the Russians may - in time - threaten us. The Americans may have preserved a cult of Liberty but they do not feel the need to liberate themselves from the servitude which their capitalism has created. "
So we got over 200 years of French attitude. They're Western European.
G'night, all.
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello ...
... anyone home?
Well, anyway, one last post before I shut down till Tuesday:
"They formed the EU for economic leverage, true." But they were loathe to do it (see who hates who, above). To put this into perspective, Europeans have been defining themselves as separate peoples 10x longer than the US has been in existence. So the Italians would have been more than happy to keep their lire, the French their small family farms, and so on. The EU wasn't (and isn't) a happy marriage, it was more like a shotgun wedding driven by fear (and hatred) of US influence. That sparked a lot of resentment. Clinton was beginning to ease the tensions by being a positive and helpful influence in Europe - with the Irish peace process and intervention in Kosovo. And 9/11 happened early in Bush's appointment by the Supreme Court. Based on the thawing of European/ US relations under Clinton and the wave of sympathy for the US, the US should have been in a position to lead the world into great accomplishments. I have to say, Bush blew it, big-time. And engendered the wave of anti-American sentiment you currently see in Europe.
As for France and Britain being nuclear powers - they have a limited number of warheads each that they carry principally on submarines. In terms of range and numbers, they pose no major threat to Russia.
Interceptors OTOH are an extension of US nuclear capability (even though they themselves aren't nuclear they are part of the nuclear game) and would change the nuclear balance between the US and Russia. The fact that they are on European soil doesn't mean that it's between Russia and Europe. Should an exchange start between the US and Russia, Europe would be unfortunate collateral damage.
Europeans know they are not targets and would prefer to stay that way. The fact that the US intends to install interceptors on THEIR soil in ITS OWN defense is what pisses them off. (BTW I think the Europeans are well aware of the capabilities - or lack thereof - of the interceptors.)
----------
edit
Oh, and before I forget, I hope your grandmother is doing well and you are merely keeping her company so that, you know, she won't be bored and lonely.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Demonstrating that competition for profit engendered in capitalism is an excellent tool for alleviating social barriers. The EU was formed for the EU’s own profit, not out of fear of the US. Competition will always exist between the EU and the US. Until the next devastating war in Europe, the US economic hegemony is vanishing and competition between Europe and the US will become stronger. This is not a bad thing, as long as the market is allowed to function. But this will cause socialists in Europe to hate the US, however socialists in Europe have always hated the US, so that’s not news.
Originally posted by rue:
"They formed the EU for economic leverage, true." But they were loathe to do it (see who hates who, above). To put this into perspective, Europeans have been defining themselves as separate peoples 10x longer than the US has been in existence. So the Italians would have been more than happy to keep their lire, the French their small family farms, and so on. The EU wasn't (and isn't) a happy marriage, it was more like a shotgun wedding driven by fear (and hatred) of US influence. That sparked a lot of resentment. Clinton was beginning to ease the tensions by being a positive and helpful influence in Europe - with the Irish peace process and intervention in Kosovo. And 9/11 happened early in Bush's appointment by the Supreme Court. Based on the thawing of European/ US relations under Clinton and the wave of sympathy for the US, the US should have been in a position to lead the world into great accomplishments. I have to say, Bush blew it, big-time. And engendered the wave of anti-American sentiment you currently see in Europe.
Quote:50 300 kt nuclear warheads would be enough to put a quick end to Russia’s military offensive. Both France and the UK have plenty more then that. If Russia launches a nuclear first strike against the US, the UK will respond by launching their nuclear arsenal against the Russian military, unless there is a huge, huge paradigm shift in international politics. France will also launch against Russia, even though they’re not as close an ally as the UK, they are still a traditional ally and, anyway Russia’s nuclear first strike will cost it almost all of its friends that aren’t flat out enemies of the US and many that are. Unless the Russians have an agreement from the French and the French declare war on the US, Russia will not risk leaving France’s considerable nuclear arsenal operational. And if France does go with Russia and declares war on the US, the US will bomb France. Either way, France is getting nuked in this scenario.
Originally posted by rue:
As for France and Britain being nuclear powers - they have a limited number of warheads each that they carry principally on submarines. In terms of range and numbers, they pose no major threat to Russia.
Furthermore, if Russia did launch a nuclear first strike against the US it would be an immediate World War III with, quite likely, all of Europe prepared to declare war on Russia. The UK, Germany, France and Italy will declare war on Russia, the very instant the bombs explode in the US. Poland, Germany, the Ukraine and the Balkans will become a graveyard as the Russian military front advances, Eastern Europe will likely want to declare war on Russia (whether they do depends on how long they last). And since Russia initiated the use of nuclear weapons, ANY nuclear weapons remaining operational after the Russian first strike will be used against the Russian offensive. If you are anywhere in Central or Eastern Europe, with the exception of possibly Switzerland, you will in a nuclear war. There is no way in hell, the UK and France will be able to ride this out.
Furthermore, why would Russia necessarily launch against interceptors? That’s like shooting a tank in the armor and hoping something gets through. The interceptors are of no military threat. The real threat will be the nuclear arsenal that will be used against Russia, the minute Russia initiates a nuclear war. Russia w
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME