Anti-Americanism- the return

[Bradylama]

You got me there.

Indian Territory tribes loved the Confederacy. They were confident they wouldn't screw them over like the Union.

 

[welsh]

Interesting but this Bush trip to Europe seems very conciliatory.

I wonder what gives.

Let's see- So far Bush policy-
spend more on defense,
get aggressive with Iran,
shut down N. Korea,
secure oil fields, and
rebuild alliances over fundamental interests.

 

[Elric]

All I wonder is, do you really belive in this war-on-terror thing? Do you really think America is the paladin of freedom and democracy?
Are you really that naif?
I don't hate America, I hate all nationalisms and provincialisms, thus I hate most people. Am I saying I hate most americans? yes, as much as I hate most italians, russians, etc...

And you know why? Because usually most people think their way of doing things is the best, and if the have the numbers to force others to follow their rules, then they must be right. This is called prepotence, and it sucks - really! The majority is dumb, but has the power, is that fair? Fuck, it's not. Schopenhauer said: "A thousand idiots aren't worth one intelligent person" and I like to think he was right, though in practice it's the other way around.

The US has always interfered in other nations politics since ww2, from the Marshall plan to the war in Iraq, but why? I don't think it's because they had this unstoppable urge to help weaker or smaller states, perhaps it's something to do with imperialism. Ever thought of that? "We cant conquer them all, but we can control 'em, so we can be safe". It's a subtle way to gain power and control, but only for own interest, nothing more.

We have american military bases here in Italy, why? I say, get the fuck out of here, I don't like cops, am I supposed to like US soldiers, known to be the biggest shitheads in the world? And trust me, they are. You may misuse terms and speak of heroism, patriotism and that kind of stuff, but there's nothing good in making a job where you have to kill another person, actually I think you cease to be a person when you do that. It takes a real idiot to go thousand miles from home and be dropped in a swamp and risk life only because the government/country asked for it.

Besides, the US is complaining so much about this wave of anti-americanism without making a minimal effort to understand why so many people from so many places are against them. Could it be that there's something true, not all of it, but a part?

 

[Bradylama]

All I wonder is, do you really belive in this war-on-terror thing? Do you really think America is the paladin of freedom and democracy?

The War-on-Terror is really a politically correct way of saying "stabilizing the Middle East because oil is good." You don't see the Americans intervening in Indonesia.

And as for a paladin of freedom and democracy? No. But we are the closest thing to it, I'll give us that much.

I hate all nationalisms and provincialisms

I'm a nationalist. Well, not really. I mostly say I am because its in my best interests to do so. I see nationality as an opt-out situation. But then again, I'd probably never opt-out on the US, so I guess I am a bit of a Nationalist.

And you know why? Because usually most people think their way of doing things is the best, and if the have the numbers to force others to follow their rules, then they must be right. This is called prepotence, and it sucks - really! The majority is dumb, but has the power, is that fair? Fuck, it's not. Schopenhauer said: "A thousand idiots aren't worth one intelligent person" and I like to think he was right, though in practice it's the other way around.

Ever considered reading up on the Libertarian Party? Not that its a rebuttal or anything, but it looks like you have the makings for a fine Libertarian.

The US has always interfered in other nations politics since ww2, from the Marshall plan to the war in Iraq, but why?

Communist containment, security of resources for western use. And the Americans have intervened in the affairs of other nations since Roosevelt's presidency. Roosevelt used the navy to coerce Latin American nations into paying off their debts. That way we wouldn't have to worry about the Europeans coming into our own backyard.

A few of them still hate us for it. Over a century later.

You should also go as far back as the Monroe Doctrine, which forbade European exploitation of the Americas.

known to be the biggest shitheads in the world?

*sigh*

Italians.

I say, get the fuck out of here

You know, we really should. European consolidation would imply that Europe no longer requires our protection from... Serbians. You decided to throw your lot with Europe, we shouldn't stay there. It costs us money to do so.

It takes a real idiot to go thousand miles from home and be dropped in a swamp and risk life only because the government/country asked for it.

Because soldiers have the last say in where they're deployed. Or is it that you think people are dumb for joining the military in the first place?

Maybe, sure, I'll grant you that. I wouldn't get indignant about the people that protect your nation, however. Because stupid people that join the military would include Italians. Or does Italy not have a military?

Hello, US Air Force Base, how are you?

Besides, the US is complaining so much about this wave of anti-americanism without making a minimal effort to understand why so many people from so many places are against them. Could it be that there's something true, not all of it, but a part?

If only a part of it was true, would it justify the seething hatred?

I say I hate the French, but I don't really. France to me, is more of a running gag than a world power. And the French are just dandy. On French soil.

It'd be asinine for me to say I'm anti-French, though. Why would I be? France tried to keep us out of Iraq, but they had a pretty good reason for it. Its not like they succeeded either, so why should I hold that against them?

How has America succeeded in fucking the Italians?

 

[calculon000]

If America didn't need foreign oil, it would probably be in their best interest to be isolationist again.

 

[welsh]

THe real reason the US is in Italy?

It's simply not fair. We got Deniro and you get Monical Belluci.

No the reason has, as Bradylama points out, a mix of the hold-over from the Cold War (let's deter the Commies) as well as the "two world wars in 50 years is enough, thankyou," thesis.

Europe has always been of central importance to US national security by virtue that the world could conceivable be split between the developed world and the dependent world. And there are too few of the developed world so we need to protect our developed buddies. One look at the flow of international trade reveals that much of the business of globalization actually happens between a small minority of states- Europe, US, Japan and China.

I actually think the US presence has paid off handsome dividends over the last 60 years (for example- no more major wars beginning in Europe) but also the basis of the slow attenuated process of the EU. To me, you can't understand the EU without appreciating NATO. SImply, countries first worry about their survival, then their prosperity.

That said, evidence that the partnership is becoming undone has been going on for years.

The question is whether that's a good thing or not?

Let's talk—but where?

Feb 24th 2005
From The Economist print edition

Are NATO and the European Union partners or rivals?

IT USED to be said that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and the European Union were in the same city, but on different planets. As George Bush will have noticed this week, the two Brussels-based organisations are just ten minutes apart by motorcade. But they have always had different missions and cultures. NATO is a military alliance, invented during the cold war to deter the Soviet Union; the United States is by far its biggest and most powerful member. The EU grew out of the European Economic Community, a title that encapsulates everything that sets it apart from NATO: it is purely European and its business has always been primarily economic.

Even today, the cultures of the two organisations are different. The EU is based in a string of grandiose offices in the centre of Brussels; its operatives are technocrats in suits; and its administrative culture is built along French lines. NATO is based in a compound in suburban Brussels that looks like a cross between an office park and a military base. Like the EU it is full of civil servants and diplomats, but they rub shoulders with a lot of uniformed officers with crew cuts. The atmosphere is brisk, military and American-accented.

Socially, the two remain worlds apart. NATO people mix with NATO people, and Eurocrats hang around with fellow Eurocrats. But with the end of the cold war, the missions of the two organisations began to change—and to bump against each other. After the demise of the Soviet Union, NATO lost its original raison d'être; prompted by America it has sought a new relevance, partly by taking on such “out-of-area” operations as Afghanistan. Meanwhile the EU has been developing a common foreign and security policy and even a fledgling military arm. Both NATO and the EU are now creating “rapid reaction forces”, potentially drawing upon the same pools of soldiers. Britain's Tony Blair, who has backed the EU's military ambitions, has repeatedly assured the Americans that they are intended to complement—not duplicate or rival—NATO.

Yet an implicit rivalry remains, and was a subtext underlying Mr Bush's visit to Europe. For the Americans, NATO is still, as Mr Bush put it in Brussels, “the cornerstone” of the transatlantic relationship. But just before Mr Bush's visit, Gerhard Schröder, the German chancellor, appeared to put the opposite view, when he said that “NATO is no longer the primary venue where transatlantic partners discuss and co-ordinate strategies.”

This contradiction is about much more than which set of Brussels offices has the most congenial meeting rooms. It is ultimately about how the transatlantic relationship is structured, and whether the Europeans will deal with the United States individually or as a single block. A senior French diplomat explains that his country sees NATO as so dominated by the United States as to be little more than a tool of American foreign policy. France's vision is that the EU should develop its common foreign and defence policy to the point where it speaks with one voice within NATO. At that point, the French hope, the transatlantic alliance would become a partnership of equals. This idea skates over the fact that there would continue to be a huge mismatch in military might between the United States and Europe. But its political implications still make it deeply unpopular with the Americans. A senior American diplomat in Europe has gone so far as to say that the formation of a European caucus within NATO would be “the death” of the organisation.

In a presidential visit dedicated to celebrating a renewal of the transatlantic relationship, both Europeans and Americans were anxious to avoid pushing too hard on this sensitive spot. Mr Bush was careful to pay his respects to both NATO and the EU. He attended a NATO summit on the morning of February 22nd, and moved on to a conference and dinner at the EU headquarters later the same day. His European hosts noted delightedly that this was the first time that an American president had stepped inside the European Commission—and they lapped up Mr Bush's every reference to his support for European unity.

Cowboys and Indians
But did these genuflections mean that Mr Bush—through either naiveté or conviction—has suddenly accepted the idea that the Europeans will henceforth deal with the United States as a block, even within NATO? Hardly. It seems more likely that the Americans are adopting a wait-and-see attitude. They know that any overt American attempt to thwart European unity might play into the hands of “Euro-nationalists” like France's Jacques Chirac. And the administration also knows that the Europeans are less united than some of them might wish.

The European split over Iraq went far beyond the merits of deposing Saddam Hussein. It showed that there are two broad approaches to security within the EU. One group of countries believes that their security ultimately depends on the United States. As a senior Czech diplomat once put it: “One lesson we learnt from the 1930s, no more security guarantees from France.” These instinctive Atlanticists include Britain, Poland and most of the rest of central Europe, as well as the Netherlands and Italy (at least when the centre-right is in power). Another group, which includes France, Belgium and (in certain moods, and under certain governments) Germany, wants an autonomous European defence identity, as a key to achieving the “multipolar world” that Mr Chirac so often praises.

In Brussels, Mr Chirac met Mr Bush for a dinner, accompanied by an exaggerated (and unconvincing) display of friendship. Mr Bush was asked whether he intended to invite his guest to his Texas ranch. He laughed and said he needed a “good cowboy”. Mr Chirac smiled back. But it is precisely because the French fear that, within NATO, they will always just be cowboys on an American ranch that the rivalry between the EU and NATO will not disappear anytime soon.

 

[Elric]

Brady: as I said, I'm not against the US army, I'm generally against armies, police and bureaucracy.

You should also go as far back as the Monroe Doctrine, which forbade European exploitation of the Americas.

??? You're a real sport, man!

*sigh* Italians.

I don't give a damn about nationality, boss. Is it too hard to understand? Actually, for the majority of Italians, I agree with you, they're some of the worst assholes in the whole world, especially those with a "national conscience" or those who declare themselves "patriots": I fuckin hate them, like all other countries' patriots and natonalists. A "sheep" is not a person, it's simply an animal, or at best a tool for real people. Blind obedience/belief is plain stupid. Go read some Thoreau, or some Montaigne. It's a good thing to read, you know, you learn a lot of interesting things...

I wouldn't get indignant about the people that protect your nation, however

I don't need anybody to protect me. And from what? From those that hate the country I live in? And why do they hate this country so much? 3 cases:
a) they may have a good reason (for example: the italian army during ww2 had a holocaustic policy towards Jugoslavia, so in 1945 jugoslavian army systematically responded with extended reprisals against italians who participated to said racist war), so no reason to complain, what goes around comes around (and it's the case of US, too);
b) they are evil motherfuckers, (nazis, for example, or the terrible al-Q), so kill'em but just them. No need to enslave and murder those that have nothing to do with them (what's the point in killing hundreds of women and kids to capture 1 terrorist?);
c) they discovered you have useful resources, and envy you! If so, the US is the one that hates you, and you better pray to whatever gods you believe in, and get ready to go 6 feet under horse shit, cause no one's gonna save you from those power hungry bastards...

Anyway, I'm no libertarian, I like anarchy, in a marxistic sense and with illuministic spirit. With a touch of nihilism. I'm confused, most of the time, but having doubts is good, it means your brain is still working, unlike that of those with certainties.

Because stupid people that join the military would include Italians. Or does Italy not have a military?
How has America succeeded in fucking the Italians?

Again, I DON'T GIVE A FUCK ABOUT ITALY! Got it?

And I don't consider myself stricly anti-american. Simply the average american incarnates all things hateful for me. But I feel this way also for the average guy-from-any-country, only not as often as for the american. It's just a matter of statistics, I guess.

welsh: If you reduce it to a matter of good and bad, then everybody's right and nobody's wrong, since moral and ethic are very different from place to place not to say from individual to individual.
No major wars here thanks to the US? Your opinion. The EU started because we had someone watching our back? That don't make sense. The only objective thing you pointed is the cold war thesis. Actually that's how it all started IMO. But, do you know anything about the cooperation between US and neofascist political formations in Italy and other euro states for the sake of anti-communism? Now that's a great way to protect your buddies! Eliminate your foe saying it's a menace to everyone, while planting a worse political disease from which you consider yourself immune (see central and southern America). Don't make me laugh, everyone's after his own gain in the game of nationalism, and the only friends are the ones you can manipulate for you purposes without any expense. Ant, I'll give you credit, the US are great at this game, but only because of the great economic and military potential they had in the last 60 years, though I think it won't last much longer. We'll see.

Btw, adhere to the Kyoto protocol, evil empire of globalization, otherwise we'll hate you even more!

And about Monica... it's a good reason to hate French, who stole her from Italy!