This topic inspired by moif’s Somalia thread. The last post regarding Bosnia, specifically, the line that the "air campaign solved nothing", made me think. I do believe that NATO (heavily US) airpower made the difference there...Over three years of negotiated approaches failed to stop the conflict (because the Serbs refused to give up territory they had won by aggression). The air campaign allowed the Bosnian/Croat Federation to regain a sufficient amount of territory to agree to a cease-fire, virtually OVERNIGHT. Without it, this would have never happened (and lots more innocent people would have continued to be slaughtered in the process). It seems that the only outcome the US can get, even if the outcome is good, is one of the following:

1)The US was too aggressive because its service members don’t wish to risk themselves enough
2)The outcome would have been the same regardless
Or, if we do nothing...
3)The US should have done something. The US government isn't willing to risk its forces.

I'm not expecting thanks, but even a "that was damned adequate" might be nice occasionally.

In Somalia, most recent example, depending on whose word you wish to believe, the US attack was marginally successful and killed no civilians. Or, it was a bloodbath and we made many attacks. However, the president of Ethiopia himself has said that his own military performed the attacks. A Somalian lawmaker claims they were US attacks, but apparently he doesn’t know the difference between a US aircraft and a Russian made one. Now the media is compensating by calling all air attacks “US/Ethiopian”. Ethiopian troops have been in Somalia for weeks and we haven’t heard of civilian slaughter, though doubtless it occurred.

I believe that it is a foregone conclusion that without the one (even if bloodless) US air strike this would not have made the news in the first place. The question bares asking, “Do non-American induced civilian casualties matter?” Somalia has been a war-zone with child soldiers and mass civilian slaughter for years and years. Ethiopia addressed a very real security threat. Now, Somalia warlords have agreed to disarm. This is a good thing, and I believe we went about it all in the right way (supporting Ethiopia unobtrusively and largely indirectly).

I look back to what happened in Rwanda while the world stood and watched. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt that, had the US become involved in any meaningful way, scores of those deaths would have been on our hands. There is absolutely no way around it. We would have been responsible for “creating Rwanda terrorists!” Just as we are somehow responsible for creating Bosnian terrorists…though we fought on their side and defended them, giving them back territory (which had been violently taken) a few short years ago. This really begs the question: What are we supposed to do? Why are we bad no matter what we do?

A while ago, I read a book review of Überpower," by Josef Joffe, and thought about making a thread on it, but never did…probably because I have never read this book myself, but I thought the summary is interesting. Now I think is a good time.



Do you agree or disagree with this article and/or my sentiments above? Please explain. Is there a solution?

Damned if you do and Damned if you don't.
I would agree with you Mrs P. We are the only current superpower--with China on a fasttrack for 2nd.
I think we could have made a huge difference in Rwanda as well we could in Darfur.
Bosnia seems to have worked out and if the plan for the M.E/Iraq had been better thought out an executed I think it could have been very successful. Obviously our soldiers beleive in it--or did because in all honesty I am hearing a LOT from guys who are home they don't beleive in it anymore-and simply because they dont think Iraq can pull it off. Although that sentiment is new to my ears.



For one Mrs P, Bosnia vs Iraq is not the same game. The Middle East is far more volatile and capable of quickly becoming a World War type fight than Bosnia could have become--Russia is gone. What worked in Bosnia was a much bigger maybe in Iraq. How we handled Iraq was poorly done from the beginning. I think it might be a better idea to just appoint a general to run the war and cut all the politicians out of any decision making.

Consistency is missing from people Mrs P.
Those against aid in Rwanda and Somalia are the very same who jumped in with both feet supporting Iraq. As for "No matter what we do" it seems to depend on who you are when you do something. All the criticism about Bush was leveled at Clinton during Bosnia and Somalia.

You also have the fear of the weaker towwards the stronger. Imagine your hometown on the border of larger country. you would be afraid your neighbors might one day decide your freedom was over--even if they had never shown an inkling before. because how could you stop them.

You would think not from the coverage they get. As civlians are butchered dayly in Iraq when stats are done it’s the US that gets the major attention. And its not just casualties caused by others but the fact that they TARGET them that should engender world outrage – yet the number and degree of critism falls heaviest on the US.

This is why IMO we stay the heck out of places like Darfer. LET THE UN and EU and the African governments do the heavy lifting for a change. Lets see if they can save the world while never injuring a civilian , or garnering distain

The incredible incompetence of anything done or neglected by the UN only adds to the worlds problems and begs for US “intervention” The current situation in Lebanon is a perfect example. Charged with keeping Hezbollah from being rearmed by Syria and Iran they do close to nothing and Hezbollah may yet topple the government in Lebanon.

While the current UNIFIL force boasts a contingent of some 6,000 ‘blue helmets,’ to be increased to a total of about 12,000, bolstered by 14,000 Lebanese armed forces, their performance thus far is worse than that of the UNOGIL force of 1958.

The current UNIFIL force has an even smaller area to monitor, an 18-by 31-mile region of southern Lebanon. They have more troops than in 1958 or in 1978-2006. And yet, the United Nations itself has admitted that Syria is still successfully smuggling arms to Hezbollah, which neither UNIFIL nor the Lebanese army plan to stop. Following a UN Security Council meeting on November 1, 2006, UN envoy to the region Terje Roed-Larsen explicitly admitted that Syria was actively smuggling weapons into Lebanon. He said that Lebanese government officials "have stated publicly and also in conversations with us that there have been arms coming across the border into Lebanon."
Turning to the interdiction of weapons smuggling via sea, the UNIFIL has at its command a multinational flotilla of German, Danish, Dutch, French, Greek, Norwegian and Swedish warships. Their mission is to prevent arms smuggling. However, this international flotilla remains outside of Lebanon’s 12 mile limit, thus enabling a virtual non-stop flow of weaponry from the Syrian ports of Latakia and Tartus, along the Lebanese coast to Hizbullah strongholds in southern Lebanon.

In short, far from disarming Hizbullah, Iran and Syria have continued to re-arm and re-supply Hizbullah

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/article.php3?id=6693





The thread is a good one. The ideas are powerful and IMO accurate:
It does not matter what the United States does, Mr. Joffe argues. The mere fact that it can act with impunity causes alarm. To Europeans, the new United States looks like Gulliver did to the Lilliputians: a giant whose intentions are uncertain and whom they would prefer to see bound by a thousand little ropes. "Their motto is: let him be strong as long as he is in harness, be it self-chosen or imposed," he writes.
European opposition to the current Iraq war, in this analysis, becomes clearer. France and Germany, joined by Russia and China, joined forces to frustrate American designs, not simply on the merits of the case, but also as a matter of principle or instinct. Success in Iraq would only make the United States more powerful and therefore more unpredictable and threatening: "America's triumph would grant yet more power to the one and only superpower — and this on a stage where it had already reduced France and Russia, the E.U. and the U.N., to bit players," Mr. Joffe writes.


We also have to remember that the old enemy, Communism/Socialism, that made the former SU so much of an enemy is still very much alive and well in the world. Chavez is a clear Commy and hates us as Castro does. As he drives his country into the ground over the next few years the reterick will get louder. These countries and the socialistic EU envy our economic power.


There is no real solution except to IMO limit our actions to only vital national security concerns until the current war is over.

Do you agree or disagree with this article and/or my sentiments above? Please explain. Is there a solution?

I've given this one a bit of thought in the last few days, but before I answer the question I'd like to address the context...

Thanks from whom? Europe is not one single homogenous group of people where by we must all say thank you for something which happened in another country. Denmark spent far longer in the Balkans than the USA did, and no one thanked us that I'm aware of. We've also taken in many thousands of refugee's (and still are) from the region. Not only do we not receive any thank you for the actions our soldiers carried out there, but we have Muslim terrorists using Bosnia as a justification for actions against us! Only last week was a Turkish born Dane convicted in Sarajevo for plotting a terrorist action against an unspecified western target.


Furthermore, there was a greater context to the Balkans, and it was essentially the deeper reason why most European nations didn't want to get involved. Sarajevo was where Arch-duke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated by a Serbian nationalist, triggering the First World War. It was hard to imagine a more highly charged political hot potato than a new war with religious over tones in the Balkans, and especially one which saw so many sides pitted against each other. Only the Slovenians managed to extricate themselves from the wreck of Yugoslavia. For the rest, it was a bloody free for all, and what you refer to as a Bosnian/Croat Federation was nothing of the sort. The Croats were just as bad as the Serbs and the Bosnians weren't all that far behind either, they waged war against each other as readily as they did against the Serbs and the Serbs against them. The common media and political perspective painted the Serbs as the bad guys though because they were the biggest and most powerful group but no side was innocent. The Croats were shelling the Bosnians when Danish UN forces arrived to set up a buffer zone and every single Serb was ethnically cleansed from Croatia. Years passed and the focus shifted back and forth. Every initiative failed because the leadership had no control over the people on the ground. Small villages were ethnically cleansing themselves left, right and centre and it took a long time to pacify the northern regions.

That was almost done by the time the Americans entered the picture, mostly because the various ethnic groups had finished murdering their neighbours. The Serbs were still being portrayed as bad as the Nazi's though due to the conflict in the southern regions and no one cared that this was a biased perspective. Every one accpeted such an easy picture to deal with because the reality was far messier. The Serbs were belligerent, and still are, but they knew they could only lose a fight with the USA on their own turf so they swallowed the injustice and surrendered to all NATO's demands.
As far as the rest of the world was concerned that was it. Problem sorted. Hurray!

In the mean time, the Bosnians, Croats and Kosovans could get on with quietly ethnically cleansing their lands of Serbs and there was nothing Serbia could do to to prevent it. Its still going on to this day. Instead of a negotiated surrender that left peace in its wake, the Balkans were left with one defeated group bearing all the responsibility for the crimes of the many, and two budding Islamic states, already breeding Islamic terrorism.
So what exactly is it the rest of Europe is supposed to thank the USA for? Nothing the USA did has had any positive effect for the rest of Europe. Would the USA thank France for intervening in Latin America?


Anyway, on to the quoted article:

Yes, I agree. This is America's time in the sun after all. Lots of other great empires, kingdoms and states have had their day and they all learned the same lesson of loneliness it is to sit alone at the apex of the pyramid and pass judgement upon others. Look how American's felt when they were in the shadow of the British for example. How much love did the British receive? In his day George Washington was something of an ungrateful insurgent who rose up against the perceived injusticies of British royal rule. He won of course so he got to dictate the history lesson, but how many native Americans, Africans and Canadians have had to pay an unheeded price for America's rise to power. Beyond the vague metre of morality how different was Washington's attitude to that of so many of America's opponents (friend or foe) today?


Yes. The dream of socialism never died in Europe. It was not killed by the tyranny of the Soviet Union, nor broken by its demise. For the socialists of Europe, Sweden is/was the ideal role model, not Russia's jaded past.

For the European Socialists, the bipolar world of the USSR and USA was all one and the same and they looked upon the USA as a greater ideological enemy, and still do. It pleases them no end to see America's right wing attitudes reaping the disaster of their unipolar policies and throughout Europe's socilaist grass roots you can see the signs of malicious glee as the 'stupid America's bring about their own destruction, finally allowing for the rowth of a united European Union in all its socialist splendour....

They make me feel sick. These spineless hypocrites willing to destroy everything that stands between them and their great festering socialist pie in the sky, but the sad fact is, as is usual with extreme ideolgy, their crazed world vision is built on perceived and almost universally accepted truths.

Europe is probably more socialist now than its ever been in the past and the reason for this is simple. There is no frightening example to the east any more. There is only the frightening example to the west. The great towering monstrosity of the American social model with its strange attitudes towards sexuality and weaponry. Its unchecked commerical fetish and its fear of anything that seems like moderation. The machismo and military posturing. The sheer corrupting influence of so much accumulated wealth. This is what is driving Europeans to the left. If only there really was a third way but we seem to be forever stuck with this heads or tails perspective.


The only way out is to deny monopoly. The USA is caught in the web of its own success. This is what kills empire. Its never the barbarian horde. They just provide the coup de grace, the real killer is the rot from within. When people lose faith in themselves, they lose everything.

Many European intellectuals are already arguing that the USA is in its death throes and what we're witnessing today is the last spasm before the whole system fractures and breaks down. I don't know if I accept that argument, but I do believe that America's time int he sun is already fading. That a new world order with various blocks of power is approaching. It may take ten years or twenty or more, but America is going to find company at the apex of the pyramid soon.

Perhaps this will be a blessing disguise though?


PS. T'was not always thus. Once upon a time, Europe's intellectuals adored America. Just listen to the beauty of Dvorak's 'New World Symphony' and you feel the love. No one makes music like that any more.

Mrs P- I can't really top Moif's most eloquent an well reasoned response - it pretty much summed it up. I would not say Bosnia is a success- if anything, we helped the wrong side it seems- after all- Kosovo has now been SUCCESSFULLY cleansed of Serbs- correct?

I am a bit of an isolationist myself (say, small "i")- when Clinton was in, I was just as against going there as I am for going to Iraq- though, to be fair, it DOES seem to be stabilizing- but what we have accomplished is really just allowing the Albanian immigrants to take over and ethnically cleanse the area, instead of allowing the Serbs to do the same- and the Serbs have a long time claim to that area- I have a feeling our intervention there will haunt us big time in the future, just like the ME today.

I think we deserve our condemnation- intervening in places we are not welcome that does not eminently threaten the US.

There was a real threat though, Moif mentioned it- but it could have gone the other way- I mean- the ARchduke thing DID have a real threat of engulfing Europe iF WE didn't go in- I belive Montenegro, Greece, Albania, and possibly even the Russians might have got involved had it gone beyond (the former) yugoslavia's borders

I have seen first hand our terrorist activities in central America, and I know from my own eyes that Reagan is no different than OBL for his backing of right wing death squads there. The contras were easily as bad as any ME "insurgent" you can mention. Decapitating contract workers (who, at least, happen to be adults) are nothing compared to the atrocities we backed in central America. The death squads would kill every man, woman and child in that region, lest we forget?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contras

The Nicaragua conflict claimed an estimated 30,000 lives. The Sandinista government, its supporters, and outside groups such as Amnesty International and Americas Watch frequently accused the Contras of indiscriminate attacks on civilians. The Contras and their backers, especially in the Reagan Administration, dismissed these accusations as a propaganda campaign.

The Sandinista government claimed in November 1984 that since 1981 the Contras had:

assassinated 910 state officials;
attacked nearly 100 civilian communities;
caused the displacement of over 150,000 people from their homes and farms;
damaged or destroyed bridges, port facilities, granaries, water and oil deposits, electrical power stations, telephone lines, saw mills, health centres, schools and dams.
A Sandinista militiaman interviewed by The Guardian claimed that Contra rebels committed these atrocities against Sandinista prisoners after a battle at a Sandinista rural oupost:

Rosa had her breasts cut off. Then they cut into her chest and took out her heart. The men had their arms broken, their testicles cut off and their eyes poked out. They were killed by slitting their throats and pulling the tongue out through the slit.[1]
An influential report on alleged Contra atrocities was issued by lawyer Reed Brody shortly before the 1985 US Congressional vote on Contra aid. The report was soon published as a book, Contra Terror in Nicaragua (Brody, 1985). It charged that the Contras attacked purely civilian targets and that their tactics included murder, rape, beatings, kidnapping and disruption of harvests. Brody's report had been requested by the Sandinista government's Washington law firm Reichler & Applebaum and the Sandinista government had provided his facilities in Nicaragua.[2] In a letter to the New York Times,[3] Brody asserted that this in no way affected his report, and added that the newspaper had confirmed the veracity of four randomly chosen incidents.

Americas Watch - which was subsequently folded into Human Rights Watch - stated that "the Contras systematically engage in violent abuses... so prevalent that these may be said to be their principal means of waging war." [1] American news media published several articles accusing Americas Watch and other bodies of ideological bias and unreliable reporting. They alleged that Americas Watch not only gave too much credence to alleged Contra abuses but also systematically tried to discredit Nicaraguan human rights groups such as the Permanent Commission on Human Rights, which blamed the major human rights abuses on the Sandinistas.[4]

In 1985, the Wall Street Journal reported:

Three weeks ago, Americas Watch issued a report on human rights abuses in Nicaragua. One member of the Permanent Commission on Human Rights commented on the Americas Watch report and its chief investigator Juan Mendez: "The Sandinistas are laying the groundwork for a totalitarian society here and yet all Mendez wanted to hear about were abuses by the contras. How can we get people in the U.S. to see what's happening here when so many of the groups who come down are pro-Sandinista?"[5]
Human Rights Watch in turn had accused the U.S. and the supporters of Contras as exaggerating and distorting the human rights abuses of the Sandinistas and purposely exculpating those of the U.S.-supported Contras against the government.



No doubt about it- we deserve our critisism for screwing around and interfering with goverments and poeple we have no business screwing with.

I mean Mrs P- you left out some of our other atrocities

Allende-Pinochet- those atrocities lay on the lap of the US

Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte[1] (November 25, 1915-December 10, 2006) was a general and President of Chile. Pinochet led a military junta to power in 1973, through a coup d'état, deposing the democratically-elected Socialist President Salvador Allende and establishing a military government. In 1974, Pinochet appointed himself President and remained in power until 1990.[2][3]

WE HELPED TO OVERTHROW A POPULARLY ELECTED OFFICIAL TO PUT IN A MONSTER- lest we forget?

Possibly one of the most evil and vile men to assume power in South America- and, we are still feeling the effects of that-


Vietnam- what- 2 million dead Vietnamese due to our intervention there? for what again?

Oh yea- we DIDN'T allow elections there- because it would have been a landslide for Ho Chi Mingh- correct?

How about this one:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guatemala

In 1954, Arévalo's freely-elected Guatemalan successor Jacobo Arbenz was overthrown by a small group of Guatemalans, MLN, backed by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), after the government expropriated by a decree (No.900), land owned by private sector and the United Fruit Company, a U.S.-based banana merchant.

I mean DAMN- we overthrew a freely elected prez to protect a banana company? I mean- how evil can you be?

Even Iran is of our own doing- they have every right to hate us- we overthrew thier goverment, placed an evil dictator in charge, then stole thier oil- we didn't even pay for it!


So, we deserve every bit of derision and condemnation we recieve- why BECAUSE WE KEEP DOING IT AGAIN AN AGAIN AND DON'T STOP.

Even our intervention in the Iraq/Iran war was wrong- after all- we backed Saddam, remember? - We are enemies with Iran, because of our own wrongdoing!

So yea- we don't have a very good track record.

I would say Grenada is the only action we have done that we were "in the right" clearly and that was one Reagan decision that was VERY black and white- they hacked up Bishop (the cubans) and overthrew a feely elected goverment.

that is about it.

All of our critisism is not only deserved- we act like spoiled brats when it is pointed out- what we do need is a good spanking, just like a spoiled brat, and hopefully, we will grow up a bit from it.

Gee that’s funny I thought we had the worlds strongest economy, and lowest unemployment rate. The EU had better hope you are very wrong since their weaker economies would surely fall without the US which is often their biggest customer, and leading source of profits. Not to mention the wars they will have to actually deal with when the world cop is gone. I think you may be a few hundred years early with the prediction.

When you say “intellectuals” you mean socialists don’t you.

That's a fair point. Perhaps ‘thanks’ is the wrong word. I’m going for something a bit short of continuous festering seething resentment.



I agree in part. But you suggest that this was "almost done by the time the Americans entered the picture" and then say that "the Serbs knew they could only lose a fight with the USA" so they capitulated. Isn't that a bit of a contradition? I submit that they would very likely not have capitulated for years, and it was not "almost over" by the time we entered the picture. Our involvement was important there. As to your overall point about 'no side being good' I think you are absolutely right. Longterm I agree that it's still a mess, we didn't ultimately solve the problems over there, but we did a fair job at forcing that capitulation in what had become a rather one-sided slaughter by that time (simply because the Serbs were better armed, not because the others were better people).

I actually find myself in agreement with the overall gist of your post. We are repeating the pattern of a fading superpower, like Britain. We are overextending resources, and a decline is eventually inevitable...and not necessarily a bad thing.

CR, I find it interesting that you’ve made a list of historical reasons to hate America here. I could debate your individual points (like you’ve indicated that Allende won the majority of the popular vote, but he won a plurality of 36.2 percent…and he himself appointed Pinochet as commander in chief of his army. Not sure how we arranged for that, but whatever...), but per the basic point, yes, fair enough, there are historical reasons to hate us. So? There are also historical reasons to hate EVERYONE. America overall isn’t half bad by comparison. There is an abundance of internet propaganda that skews history to the point of urban legend in that regard. And I can't help but notice that the world generally seems perfectly willing to excuse all types of wickedness from everyone but the US. I'm not asking for excuses, but just a modicum of consistency.

Thier point being- many empires enjoy thier best days not long before thier decline- some declines are slow and painful, some are quick and painful- but they all end.

However- America is a fairly new concept as far as governence, in the scope of human history-

most empires that faded and died couldn't adapt to the new reality of the world. Rome's fatal flaw was no stable succession of power. America, and Europe now, have solved that, in fact, the model of the northern europe liberal goverment is the best of what representive goverment can obtain in today's reality.

That being said- we seem to be regressing, instead of growing. Case in poibnt- the only talk of amendments to the constitution is to TAKE AWAY rights- NOT increase freedom. For example both the flag burning and gay marriage debates are calling for an amendment to take away freedom- not give it.

We are doing wasteful, corrupt, needless wars in foriegn country mostly to benefit special interests- NOT for the good of the country- all the actions I have mentioned in the last thread exemplify that in a text book fashion.

We are spending away the economy with reckless abandon- yet we have a sizable portion of the population that doesn't even think spending over a trillion dollar on another country, without a single return, while degrading our military by expending them needlessly in a country that doesn't want us there.

Maybe it won't happen in my lifetime, but yeah, America is headed for a fall, if we don't start adapting more common-sense instead of on the evil hybird of the worst of the liberals and worst of the conservatives in the "neo-con" label.

So though, Mrs P- I mean- why don't those pesky Chilleans, Vietnamese, Iranians, Guatamaleans and Nicaraguans thank us? Might be the fact that they had to pay the price for our intent to rule thier countries by proxy?

You posted before I did- but yes, many countries are far worse than ours- but those countries don't mess in OUR affairs for the most part-nor, do they make a point over and over again, shouting it at the world "we are the moral center of the universe, and we will dictate your new freedom, you must capitulate to our single super power now!"

It is one thing ot have bad behavior- but, like a preacher that is caught with crystal meth and a gay hooker- after preaching his whole lifetime,condemning others behaviors- we tend to like to see them brought low, because of thier hypocrtical posturing.

I think a comic said it once best "You know if a guy comes to work, and ya, he is a pretty good worker- but he kept telling you this all day, wouldn't you love it when he falls off a pier"

Pretty much all of our external problems, as far as they affect the US, is of our own doing, nation building, cladestine involvement in coup attempts and successes etc.

Strangely, I actually know some Vietnamese and Chilleans who thank us. They happen to live here and oh, boy they do have stories. People don't seem so interesting in hearing them, though.

This seems like a good way to express my thoughts on the matter...not picking on Moif here. I think he does a good job here of indicating why other European nations didn't want to get involved. Why then did the U.S.? I think the 'danged if we do, danged if we don't' is even more potent before we get involved than it is afterwards. The Muslim community was very upset that we weren't getting involved, stating it was for religious reasons: ie, we don't care about Muslims. Then, when we get involved, we're instantly anti-whatever side that puts us against. The point being that all too often the world looks to the U.S. to resolve an issue--an inherent position for any country considered the sole superpower.



A worthy sentiment, but one which I can explain, I think. Denmark (or any other country) is not under the spotlight the U.S. is, as explained above. When other countries do (or don't do) something, they won't receive near the world wide scrutiny as anything the U.S. does, or doesn't do.

As to predictions of the demise of the U.S.A., I think they're premature. China has an awfully long way to go to succeed the U.S. economically...far enough, in fact, to where one can legitimately question whether they ever will. Personally, I think it will eventually (inevitably) happen, but not nearly as soon as the people simply looking at China's current growth rate and projecting forward think. One thing is certain about any trend, historically. That being that it will change...and it's hardly likely that China's growth rate will increase. However, the influence of the U.S. may wane before then. Personally, I think that would be a good thing.

Yep, as Nighttimer once pointed out- in Lousiana- David Duke garnered 2% of the black vote.

I don't think those folks that did okay under Pinochet are a good source of "thanks".

The upper middle class in Venezuala are quite angry with Chavez right now.

But he won by a landslide, destroyed the opposition in open elections, elections at least as free and fair as our own.

But, like the corrupt Cubans that had to flee Cuba, I bet there are tons of pro-Batista folks when they left for Cuba-and then, past on those stories of the injustice done to them by Fidel- ignoring the fact tha Batista's goverment was so thouroghly corrupt and brutal. And of course- what, over 75% of the land prior to Fidel was owned by foriegn nationals?

And of course- our own corporations and mobs had a big hand in that Batista goverment.

And, in each case America interfered (well, almost each) the situation worsened after the US pulled out- Cuba got Castro, Iran got theocracy, Guatamala got a series of coups and indiginous ethnic cleansings, Chille got Pinochet, Iraq kept Saddam. Vietnam got a "communist" genocidal leader, and on and on.

We interfere, it gets worse. Usually alot worse, with someone that is not too friendly to the US.

Even if our intentions were noble- the ending almost never is. And then ya, it is damned if you do, damned if you don't- had we just not gone all "church lady" on the world, we might not be in the position you are talking about.

Yes, my husband's family (farmers, not elites incidentally) were among those "corrupt Cubans". His aunt (a teacher) was sent to prison for twenty years for dissent, and her son was dragged to his death, pulled behind a car by a rope. The pieces were brought back to the family's doorstep. We sure are bad here in the USA.

Edited to add: You are really demonstrating a point here.
Anything pro-US=bad.
Anything anti-US=automatically better, apparently.

Anyone who is against the regime the US is against is corrupt.

No, I am characterizng US foriegn policy = very bad, usually for corrupt reasons masked as noble intentions, pretty much with every time we have mobilized troops in harms way post Korean war. We became a super power and used that power badly.

What- you don't think Batista was equally brutal as Fidel? Where do you think the new dictator learns this stuff? Usually at the hands of the vey poeple they overthrew- great example is Iraq- the shia's and sunnis are torturing each other with the very techniques they learned under Saddam.

The US is a great country- and I am mostly proud of it- but I am realistic with what we have done as far as foriegn policy.

Fidel was a product of failed US policy and ethics, as was Khomeni, Saddam, Pinochet and the various military juntas that ruled central America for years.

Even the conditions that allowed an OBL to exist in Afghanistan is failure to follow up on our covert aid to Afghanistan to real aid to Afghanistan and a civil war that lasted for what, 20+ years?

I mean, Mrs P- how do we justify Guatamala, Cuba, Iran, Chile and on and on and on?

What- are ANY of those countries better off because of our interventions- not only no, but hell no. How many hundreds of thousands of dead poeple has our foriegn policy as a blood toll?

I don't hate America- I just want the US to stop being the world's policeman

And I don't expect the world to give us a "thank you" when they have paid a pretty heavy price for our meddling.

CruisingRam

Don't hang too much on Arch Duke Franz Ferdinand. I was not saying there was risk of a repeat of history. The problem with the Balkans lay in its inter connected relationships with the surrounding countries. Most specifically, the Serbs had a good standing with the Russians and what was feared in Europe was a political confrontation with Moscow on the one hand and the spread of ethnic tension from the Balkans on the other. It was just too much bother to get involved with and too much trouble to not get involved with. Damned if you, damned if you don't. That sort of thing. Despite the claims, the EU does not unify Europe and there was/is no clear leadership here. Europe is still a crowd, each pushing another to go first and the bigger nations are always the most hesitant whilst being proud and loud.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Ted.

No I mean intellectuals.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Mrs Pigpen.

In all honesty Mrs P, do you think the seething resentment is one sided?


I meant that the fight was almost done in the north where the Croats had largely gotten what they wanted. The Serbs were fighting several fronts at once don't forget. They also had a serious problem with autonomous Serb militia groups doing what ever they wanted with scant regard to Belgrade where as the Croats didn't. When America officially joined the fray as a part of NATO the focus had largly shifted to the south, to Kosovo and the Albanian border regions.

But don't get me wrong here. I'm certainly not defending the Serbs. They were bastards. So too though were most every one else in that region. Decades of old resentment turned Yugoslavia into a bloodbath and if any one needs to know what the full implications of multiculture is, they need only look to Yugoslavia to understand the stupidity of ignoring people's ethnic heritage. This is something we've seen a lot of in Europe in the last few decades and it was an aspect of the conflict in the Balkans that our political leaders and social scientists didn't like to dwell on too much.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Hobbes.


You should also consider the fact that Europe, sans the UK, is pretty selfish. That what goes on within Europe often has very little to do with the outside world. In our own way, Europeans are every bit as insular as Americans, we just don't share any common national identity as Americans do. Denmark might not expect international gratitude, but its not outrageous to expect one's neighbours to recognize one's contributions. They very seldom do though. Most of the European nations are also insular unto themselves. What happens in Germany for example is of paramount importance to most Germans, Europe takes second place and beyond Europe hardly matters at all. The USA stands isolated in this regard because it is capable of projecting itself into other countries and no matter how inward a German cares to look, he will still be confronted with coca cola and children listening to 50 cent. This cultural invason breeds far more resentment I think than any military adventures in the third world or Balkans and when our German sits to watch the news of an afternoon and hears the Americans have bombed some one, some where, whats really burning in the Germans heart is not the injustice of dead Somali children, but rather the indignation of the omnipresent coca cola bottle and the arrogance of Afro American music telling him he can't dance, he is worthless, old, soon to die.


Demise is too strong. Surely the USA will not end as a state simply because it loses its position of sole super power...


Well, personally, I think that will depend on what comes after US superpower. If the Chinese take over as the domnent force, it may be we are all subjected to their morality instead of, as we are now, American morality. That won't make much of a big difference to the sense of self one has as the citizen of a small nation, but it will change the world in many subtle ways and probably not for the better.

On the other hand the Chinese are even more insular than most people and they may find they do not have the stomach for 'ruling the world'. For my part, I'd prefer the world to be governed by Scandinavian principles, but of course that wouldn't work either, because it would have to be a voluntary choice and people just aren't that smart...

There is a basic logical fallacy called Post hoc ergo propter hoc that you are making. If A occurred, then B occurred....Therefore, A caused B.

IN this case, the world is a messy place. The US has a finger in everything therefore the US has caused all the world's problems. And I should add that there are consequences for doing nothing too.

You are throwing out facts with no background context and little factual accuracy, and I certainly can't address every point without going off topic. Battista is an irrelevancy. In fact, 95 percent of what we've been batting back and forth about....all these specifics, are irrelevancies to the whole of the argument (...though I must add that Castro executed anti-Battista people too). Your argument, which is a classic example of what I was trying to demonstrate by starting this topic, indirectly heaps scorn on even actual victims and praise on some really bad elements. All to place the blame, apparently, to whatever position the US took in whichever case. I mean, the Japanese own 49.5 percent of Hawaii. Think they might be a little sore if we arbitrarily took it away without compensation? Think that might have some effect on their economy? Do you expect they would just wave that property good-bye without trying to influence policy? How would you like to see our government arbitrarily take businesses you've invested a lifetime into? (guess I should add that those questions are rhetorical)



In all honestly, I do think it's pretty one-sided, yes. Europeans visiting from overseas don't feel compelled to sew Canadian flags on their backpacks.

We are not, to my knowledge an empire and never will be. We have our fingers in too many pies but we can solve that quickly by staying home unless our vital interests are at stake (as in the ME). Europe has less freedom, more unemployment, much higher taxes, and as we have seen even worse racial/ethnic problems than we do. Italy is a basket case. But if you like socialist governments the EU has them.




Depends on your perspective. If there is one place we need to be it’s the ME until we are energy independent (never happen). Yes you don’t like the war in Iraq but this will not kill this country. And IMO if we had dealt with Bin Laden properly in the 90s we would not be in Iraq today.

I'm not sure any one is compelled to wear any flag but I understand the point. Regardless of what America has done, the individual American ought to be able to walk the streets of Europe and not feel threatened. Though, isn't pointing out that Americans feel unsafe equally an indication of resentment? Your own resentment regarding how Americans are treated to be specific...?

I have to say that I find many Europeans feel the same way about America. They don't have to wear different flags of course, but then most Americans don't recognise our flags, or even know where our countries are anyway so the flag point is moot. European resentment stems from a feeling of being bullied in our own countries. We don't need to go to American to be treated with contempt. We get enough of that already. I suspect going to America might actually make for a refreshing change, but since I've not tried it, I can't say. What bugs Europeans is being made to feel inferior for petty political differences and of having American culture shoved in our faces all day long. It means something when you go to the corner shop and every drink in the cooler is an American brand, 90% of the DVD's for hire are American films and half the magazines are either American publications or translated from American publications. One looks in vain for some indication that one's own country is more than just a market for American commercial interests but when the political reality is as it is, then there is no conceivable solution which does not include the demise of US global hegemony. Americans might not like being considered an empire but the truth is that not all empires involve emporers, or lines on a map. The Romans for example never had any real imperial boundries. Rome was just one city that controlled a vast swath of the world around it. Most of the Caesers never considered themselves as emporers, but thats how we describe them today. When historians look back on this era, do you think they won't be just as causal with the USA as we are with the Romans?

In other words, America is an empire in all but name. Its culture dominates, its military controls and its politics are so paramount that global issues can only be debatted when the American's are not gearing up for elections and vastly important problems are put aside awaiting the indifferent attentions of those Americans who actually will bother to vote.

Americans may feel they have to wear Canadian flags, but at the same time, they're not finger printed on entry into Europe and treated like criminals from the moment they get off the plane.


edited for clarification

Why would anyone from the EU or Denmark feel resented by Americans. I have been to Europe (sadly nor Denmark) and the only place I feel resentment is in France, but that is a standard upheld for decades by the French.

The fact that we drive pop culture ad movies should not garner us resentment. Asian culture and many movies from EU and Asia or shown and appreciated in the US. To punish us for being successful in some commercial areas makes no sense but I agree with you that this may be a driving force with many in Europe and elsewhere.


We have no desire to be an empire and we do not force our culture down anyone’s throat. I suspect that there is widespread hatred or at least dislike for Israel and our support there bring us resentment. Certainly it is a driving force with our AQ enemies.

There is, of course, an extremely simple solution to this problem, and one in which each and every European is fully in control of. Stop buying those things. Nothing and no one is forcing their purchase. If indeed Europeans are resentful of this type of American influence, their anger should be directed inward, not outwards, no? It may also help to consider that just about everywhere we look, we find goods manufactured somewhere else. The strength of the American economy is a two-way street. While I will grant that it has led to the spread of our goods and influence elsewhere, it has also led to our market being the primary global 'target'. If you examined our trade deficit, I think you would find it hard to argue that we are more victims of this than beneficiaries from an economic viewpoint.

As for the cultural influence, again this seems to me to be self-inflicted. I'm not really sure how we could prevent citizens of other countries from liking American films, or why we would do anything even if we could. Again, the citizens of other countries are free to make that choice themselves. It seems this resentment is misplaced. I can understand being frustrated by one's culture being seemingly subjugated by another...but if that subjugation is willing, then shouldn't the ire be directed at those allowing it--in fact actually actively participating in making that the case by continuing to purchase and watch those movies, etc? There's one and only one reason such goods are sold over there--because the people over there buy them. I'm not really show how that's our fault, or why anyone would expect us to actively make our goods less desirable. Just as we don't really have any reason to expect foreign manufacturers to actively make their products less desirable over here.

As for America being an empire, I would agree somewhat. I don't think one can be the sole global superpower, or have the economic impact that we do in the current global climate, and not accept that we have a singularly large impact on world affairs. However, it also seems to me that we are unique in that we are the only country in history that has ever had that position and not used it to actively expand their boundaries. In fact, we do quite a bit to encourage the economic growth of other countries (for admittedly self-serving purposes). This attitude is somewhat what I think you are complaining about. America wants to trade with everybody, and the stronger other economies are, the more we can trade with them. Does this mean that we essentially view everything from an economic perspective? Certainly. I don't think it's possible to be a capitalistic society and not do that. If indeed America loses its economic superiority, this will in fact be a large reason why...because we will have actively participated in the growth of other economies. Long term, I can't see this as anything but a positive. What is the essential root of almost all wars? Economic factors. As other economies grow, economic disparity will decrease, and we will become closer to a global entity. The EU is a classic example of this. I don't think world peace is ultimately possible until economic disparities of the scale we have today are eliminated.

Hobbes- since the industrial age- we, and other "empires" have redefinedempire over and over again-

bottom line is- we DO expand our borders- by putting in evil, oppressive dictators when we lose influence throuh economic means alone in those areas- Panama, Guatamala, Iran, Iraq (we didn't place saddam there, just helped him consolidate his power further) Chile, Vietnam, etc.

Mrs P- in each and every one of those cases- your argument falls apart- we are hated because of our interference in those areas, that has caused hundreds of thousands to perish horribly, and when we lose control, it gets even worse.

It is our foreign policy that we need to permanently change to stop this, not our ideals at home, that, well, maybe very well being buried now as well. Freedom isn't such a beacon in this country anymore, though I found some hope in the last election-

however- it is very difficult to find a major operation in a foreign country were it

A) Turned out alright
Democracy riegns supreme
C) Didn't get worse due to our destabilizing the country.

Fidel Castro is in charge because we backed the wrong horse, someone friendly to US biz interests. There is no way around it. Same with Khomeni as well. And on and on.

Don't you mean resent for Americans?

I think I already answered this question didn't I? Europeans feel resentment because they feel that they are marginalized, trivialized and subjected to a veritable avalanche of American culture in the name of American commercial interests.


Well on a level playing field there would probably be no resentment for American success, but the situation for the past many decades has demonstrated to the majority of Europeans that the playing field is anything but level.

Now an African could pop into this debate right now and point out that the EU also retains its own bias against third world nations and so in effect we are no better. I would agree with that without hestitation and one of my own problems with voting right wing has always been the (Euroepean) conservative insistence on maintaining a status quo that keeps three quarters of the world (if not more) in a state of poverty and unable to improve their lot in life my means of hard work or commerical genius, but this is not to the point of this debate. Suffice to say that a great many Europeans are hypocrites in that they resent the imbalance when it leaves them inferior to Americans but indifferent when it leaves them superior to (for example) Africans.

The point of view is valid though.

...oh and it most certainly is. The disdain for Americans pales into insignificance when considered besides the political divide between the European left and right wings. It doesn't get much international attention but the blood and fur fly thick and fast here when the two sides clash, especially now we have nationalist parties emerging into the main stream. Take Sweden for example. Nice peaceful socialist paradise that it is, its internal political violence is unknown beyond its own borders. Few would ever believe that Swedish socialists look the other way when left wing extremists crash fully legal nationalist political meetings and beat the living daylights out of whom ever they catch. Read the official Swedish media (90% Socialist) and its the nationalists who are betrayed as being violent. The same is true here in Denmark where hooded left wing extremists regularly occupy buildings under the pretext of a youth movement, street fight the police and ravage banks and any American owned store. Its not uncommon for a Macdonalds or 7/11 to be trashed or even torched here.

You'll notice the emphasis on the left wing. I may be biased in many things, but the left wing of Europe is rife with anti Americanism. They're not responsible for all anti Americanism, but they stand for the most part as the main proponent of Anti American/anti capitalist sentiment in Europe and the European left wing perspective is a lot of people, at least 200 million in my estimation. Naturally not all these are directly politically opposed to the USA.

To get back to the question of American culture and its effects on the European mentality however, it is not a simple as you appear to believe. Europeans cannot simply stop buying Coca Cola or boycot American films. Coca Cola has long since used its economic muscle and bought out all its competitors and employs many thousands of Europeans and American films, maybe you've noticed this, are often made by Europeans and star European actors. Some are so quintessentially European as to defy the American label altogether, the James Bond films for example.

And even if these options were viable, then there is also the detail that a significant proportion of Europeans do not have any problem with US culture. Lots of people here enjoy it. Many look to it as being a natural part of western culture and others enjoy the whole American vibe. US style football for example is becoing ever more popular since it began showing on satelite TV.

Which is the problem in a nutshell. We sell goods there because people buy them. Other people then get mad at us because they wish we weren't there. No proble, we think...we just won't sell our goods to you. Yet we're blamed nonetheless. I guess it comes down to goods being 'pulled' instead of 'pushed'.

As to your Coca Cola example, I have no doubt that various companies do take steps to corner the market. But what gets sold in any market is still a function of market demand. Otherwise, Coca Cola would sell nothing but unfiltered water, as that would be the cheapest thing to produce.

Not quite. US goods in Europe are some times the only choice, Coca Cola being a prime example. There may be as many as ten different drinks in the cooler, but look at the labels and they are all American. Is that pushing or pulling? Coca Cola has long ago bought out every competitor, using the allure of its global brand name and the muscle of its wealth. No Danish company can compete with that, especially not when Coca Cola can use tax loop holes to avoid paying any tax. Americans love to use market forces as an argument in online debates, but I've yet to see market forces prove anything except how best to screw those people who stand in an inferior position to one self. Coca Cola is the perfect example of this. Starting from America it was already a well established and very rich company when it first began to sell in Denmark. It quickly bought up all the local competition and shut them down. Today Danish soft drinks are very expensive, hard to find, niche eco products sold only in specialist shops, or the absolute cheapest rot-the-enamal-off-your-teeth rubbish, for these are all thats left of the Danish soft drinks market. It is much the same all over Europe and of course, Coca Cola is just one example. The really big point of contention is cheap rubbish American TV. Programmes so cheap and sordid that they have saturated the various channels that I no longer care to watch television.

For the majority of people in Europe, I believe American television is the real reason why so many are so opposed to the USA. Most people avoid politics, they don't care about who makes the soft drinks or the films in the cinema or on DVD. These things are marginal. Television on the other hand is not. It is still the main source of entertainment for the majority of people and the every evening, Europeans all sit down to watch CSI, 60 minutes, Desperate Housewives, the Simpsons, American idol or their local variants of the American shows that also get broadcast. The fact is, America is on display, 24 hours a day and no matter how entertaining it can be, it never ends. Day after day of watching American life with American attitudes to American problems caused by American issues debatted by Americans, nearly always utterly insular, very seldom dealing with any global issues unless these have some rellevence to the USA. Do you have any idea how oppressive this constant pressure can be on the mind of a non American? How frustrating it is to be confronted with the never ending American view regarding guns and nipples and Osama Bin Laden and the French?

And why do we buy it? Because its cheap. Because America makes its brain rot TV for its own market and can flog it to the rest of the world for less than it costs to make anything else where. The British and the French do it was well to a lesser degree and their TV is a welcome blessing by comparison because its a little more 'engaging'. Not much but a little. The British in paricular are able to make a little go a long way, the French less so, but they often have a different way of doing things that some times can be appealling.

Danish productions are few and far between. Maybe one production of quality per year. Perhaps 12 episodes of some drama that will be watched avidly by a public almost unusued to quality Danish entertainment.

What does all this griping have to do with the topic then? Simply this, that the adverse attitudes towards the USA and its culture are often formed not as a result of any current political actions, but rather from a massive groundswell of discontent that has built up of many years of being subjected to what is essentially a foreign mentality and its commercial empire.

OK, first I read the title of this about 200 times as USS Gulliver and I was intrigued as I often am by Kate Beckinsale in latex but all I kept thinking I have no idea what the USS Gulliver is... I can't even find it in Jane's and it seems to be some kind of Star Trek thing and I mean I respect the Star Trek thing but I'm really not that into and...

So then I actually read the post...

One of the downsides of being the big kid on the block is everything is your fault. Little kid gets beat up - Why didn't you protect him? Big kid steps in beats up the agressor - Why did you beat that kid up? It was none of your business. It's a perpetual state of fault. Action, inaction all result in blame. Ultimately the big kid feels that the blame from inaction is better than the blame from action and as a result begins to do nothing.

Isolationalism.

This rarely lasts because big kids understand that they have to do something. In action only lasts so long and at the end of the day big kids have friends who occasionally need protecting. Action for friends.

Allies.

And hey some of these friends may even be helpful in their fights. Helpful to you in yours. You may band together to stop one band with another big kid. Of course the winners write history so you'll get to be the good guys if you win. History gets rewritten though. Lines that were crystal clear then are blurred by time and losers. Next thing you know you're the bad guy. Just a few years ago you were the good guy doing the right thing. Sure you bloodied a few noses but you were doing the right thing... right?

Small scale.

No one is putting up with big kids having big fights. So the big kids set up proxies and have a bunch of little fights to flex their muscles. Pretty soon the biggest kid wins and there's all these proxies that are all messed up. The biggest kid feels like someone should do something and why not him?

World Police.

Now the Big Kid is running around trying to fix everything. Action breeds blame. Inaction, or Isolationism really never worked and really isn't an option now. So the Big Kid takes the blame and continues on. Even some of his friends are on his case. Do this, don't do that, why didn't you, you should've.

It's a burden to be the Big Kid. It's also an obligation.

Not really- common sense isolation is easy to do- you trade with whomever you wish, and you keep your soldiers off thier soil unless they attack you first- and stop trying to do coups in other countries just because some corporate interest gets hurt.

We do more evil than we have ever done good in the last 57 years or so- like I said- it is hard to find examples of a place where we have done good since Korea. Grenada is the only place I can think of off hand.

We just need to stop the meddlling for corporate interests and idelogy, and if a country wants to eat thier babies and massacre thier own- it is thier business.

HA! Trust me, we are in complete agreement on that. It is a running joke here how we can have so many channels so full of nothing worth watching. So, if it helps any....we are forced to watch the same shinola you are.

As for feeling like you are nothing but a commercial interest, well, you are. So is everyone here. If we are guilty of anything in that regard, it is being more capitalistic than other countries. It seems like we think of everything as a commercial interest because we do see everything that way. To paraphrase Kurt Vonnegut, though, being against that would be like being against glaciers. It's not going to change. If anything, it will spread, as globalism continues. The only thing to do is adapt. As I said...the U.S. is overrun with goods made elsewhere. The game isn't going to change...one can only figure out how to play it to one's advantage.

Do you agree or disagree with this article and/or my sentiments above? Please explain. Is there a solution?

Yes, I agree. America cannot "win", and her actions and inactions will always be critcised. This is not unique to America, it is unique to a sole global superpower (19th Century Britain was subject to similar criticisms, not least form the USA).

America's great political, military and economic strength give it power and control over many aspects of international life. In a multipolar or bipolar world, that power and control was balanced and challenged by the other great power(s).

In todays unipolar world, however, it is not balanced. Knowing that someone else has power and control over your daily life, but that you have no input into how that power and control is or is not exercised - which is the case for everyone the world over who cannot vote in US elections - is, at best, irritating.

Even if you agree with all the decisions taken, or not taken, your teeth are on edge because there is nothing you could do to stop the behemoth should it, for its own reasons, decide to do something you don't like.

And when (like Britain and Rome before it, but unlike the USSR), the great power uses the rhetoric of all men being equal, the great benefits of freedom and democracy, and so on, but when it comes down to it uses every trick of realpolitik up to and including warfare to further its own domestic interests, possibly at the expense of your own, the anger and irritation caused by simple powerlessness are compounded by anger and irritation at selfishness and perceived hypocrisy.

In America's (and 19th century Britain's) case, the additional rhetoric you sometime hear along the lines of Well, we made our nation great by our own effort - there's nothing to stop you doing the same also sticks in the craw. Even in today's globalised world, big powers have massive structural advantages over smaller ones. For all the talk about free markets and globalisation, foreign companies face much higher legal barriers when buying US assets than US companies do when buying abroad - usually as a condition of trading with the USA in the first place, especially in the Third World.

In TV, European broadcasters can only really be successful in nature programmes (and are, undeniably so). Even successful comedies are more likely to be remade with American crews (The Office - An American Workplace, or All In the Family, for example), not because the accents are impenetrable or the language indecent, but because the average American is so insular that they simply do not relate to non-Americans.

The original British version of The Office was a commercial and critical success in the US on cable (HBO I think) but was never considered for broadcast by the major networks because of their assumptions about the insularity of TV viewers (pretty much no British sitcom has ever been syndicated in the USA, so how they really know that US audiences would not respond is a mystery to me - it may be that US audiences would jump at the chance to see something a bit different).

And European dramas, even if made in English (which cuts out a huge part of the EU broadcasting industry), make different assumptions about what adults would be prepared to watch. Swearing and nudity are much more common over here, which more or less precludes network broadcast in the USA. Again, rather than edit for language and sex, American networks either don't bother, or they remake the concept Hollywood style. EU broadcasters could, theoretically, make programmes specifically with these US tastes in mind, but the chances are they'd forfeit domestic success to do it, and therefore fail to sustain themselves long enough to make an impact in the USA.

Even when there is no real reason why a drama shouldn't be seen - e.g. the modern series of Doctor Who from the BBC, which is comparable in its way to Buffy The Vampire Slayer and its me-toos like Charmed, and which has a significant fan-base in the USA which is campaigning for the networks to take up the licence - the US networks either refuse, or simply fail, to broadcast it. "Too British". "too quirky" - there is always a reason why not.

So Hobbes assertion that EU viewers unhappy with US dominance should exercise their rights in a free market not only assumes there is an alternative, but also ignores that the other free market response - sell EU TV shows in the USA - is prevented by the de facto lack of a free market in network TV in the USA.

This extends to other areas - the London Stock Exchange is currently being courted by NASDAQ as a buy-out opportunity, and many of the utility companies oeprating throughout the world are owned or controlled by US utility companies. Yet there are legal barriers to selling similar US assets to foreign-owned companies. Look at the recent spate of congressional timewasting and pork protection when ports owned by P&O (British) were due to be sold to a company based in the Persian Gulf (despite the country in question being a close US ally, and despite a key part of US aid in the Middle East being an insistence on opening of markets to US companies as a precondition).

So another source of irritation - common to all cominant powers throughout history - is that America wants it both ways. When US companies stand to gain, it's free markets all the way, and anyone who objects or tries to protect their own market is a socialistic enemy of the shining path of globalisation and freedom. When US companies or workers stand to lose, there are suddenly pressing national security reasons for maintaining the subsidy, legally blocking the takeover, or banning the product.

I keep mentioning 19th century Britain and, occasionally Rome, because these problems (in both directions - the temptation to assume universality of the ideals of the dominant nation, and the temptation to grumble about it everywhere else) are categorically NOT unique to America. They are characteristic of all dominant powers, wherever and whenever they have arisen.

Indeed, one might argue that it is only America's assumption that it is somehow intrinsically exceptional which makes people assume that anti-Americanism is inspired by true malice, rather than a natural human response to perceived lack of control over ones own life. (Though I'd agree anti-Americanism can be perverted into true malice, I don't think it originates from it.)

One might argue that, except that the 19th Century British and the Romans before them were also convinced of their divinely-endowed superiority, rather than just temporarily lucky to be in a position where they had the talents and the opportunity to succeed both at the same time. The only skill involved is to recognise and seize the opportunity.

The last thing that's irritating, and which DOES appear to be unique to America, is that you are remotely surprised that the rest of the world grumbles about you. You don't just want to be the best country you can be, you want everyone else to like and admire you while you do it, no matter how much you tread on their toes in the pursuit of greatness.

When an act of self interest also happens to intersect with the self-interest of another nation or people, you expect undying gratitude and the silencing of all possible criticism in perpetuity, not matter what subsequent actions might harm or hinder their interests in the pursuit of yours.

An instructive example would be modern US attitudes to France. After two world wars, America often appears hurt and angry that France would ever disagree with any subsequent American action or decision. As if America's entry into those wars was motivated by anything other than self-interest, the pursuit of which had the side effect of French liberation.

Conveniently forgetting, of course, that America as an independent nation simply would not have existed without French intervention in the US Revolutionary War (in which France was simply pursuing their self-interest, with the side effect of American independence from the UK). If you applied the same standard to yourselves that you do to the French, America would have intervened on France's side in every single conflict they'd engaged in since 1776, which of course, hasn't happened.

Why hold France to a standard you don't expect of yourselves?

For the same reason as everything else I've referred to in this thread - human nature.

Just as "losers" and "also-rans" resent greatness because it robs them of the illusion of control, so "winners" and "the great" come to believe they win because they are inherently great, rather than through historical luck & good judgement leading to simple momentum, and the ability to tip the field in your own favour.

Going right back to Gulliver's Travels, the Lillputians wer scared of him because of his simple size - he could do great damage to them just by being big, without any malice at all. Their response to him was just plain rational.

Gulliver also travelled to Brobdingnag, where he was the small one. He was scared of the Brobdingnagians, because they could accidentally do him great harm, while to them he was an amusing but ultimately irrelevant curiosity, where he was given any attention at all. Another entirely rational response. In all this, Gulliver himself didn't change size at all.

Rational responses, however, don't preclude either big people's or little people's feelings from getting hurt, and anti-Americanism in Europe and anti-Europeanism in America as just manifestations of hurt feelings, albeit with some rational grounds for behaving the way they do on both sides.

Julian, this is a very well-stated post. I think the parallels you draw are accurate. I do think my stance is being misinterpreted, though.



I understand there is often no alternative (well, turning the TV off is always an option, but misses my point). I was trying to explain that it was through market choice that it got that way in the first place. European TV wouldn't be flooded with American programs to start with if the market there didn't watch it. I am faced with the same dilemma here. I don't have much interest in the majority of programs shown here--but they're on because plenty of other people do like it. As for the reverse not being true, I both agree with your argument, and further wish it weren't the case. Americans could use a healthy exposure to the world around them. I personally have generally found the 'original' versions of European films or shows modified for the American market have been much better--but I've also found I'm usually in the minority on that opinion. I don't think most Americans do have much interest in global issues or cultures. But this is another topic....



Oh, yes, we are a hypocritical lot, to be sure. However, this is also something that can be locally controlled. You mention that it is easier for U.S. companies to acquire foreign firms than the reverse (which I might question, but let's assume it's true)...then by all means elect representatives who would promote change in that regard. Would we still use our market power to exert our influence? Sure. As you mention, that is human nature. Irritation at this is understandable, but ultimately fairly ineffective. I'm sure most of the races overtaken by the Borg were irritated as well...but overtaken they still were. The trick is in figuring out what to do about it. I find it difficult to believe that we don't have some of the most open markets on earth, as we are simply flooded with products made elsewhere. Being foreign is usually a market enhancing characteristic here...to the point where many domestic products are marketed as being foreign. So, the influence is a two-way street, despite the insularity you have noted.