I do not understand how these world leaders, who were once against Bush winning the election and who were against the war in Iraq and who had given up on the current adminstration, are today rushing to congratulate Bush and willing to cooperate with international issues. The image in my head is of the Godfather. Don Bush having his hands kissed by the world leaders as he says to Laura "never ask me about my business."

QUESTIONS:

1. Based upon the past couple of months, will these world leaders truly help in Iraq and other international issues?
   
2. Could this be the beginning of positive world view on America, or just window dressing?

I think you are so far off-base that it is hard to know where to begin.

First of all, just because these leaders would have (in some cases) preferred Kerry win the election, it does not mean that they would have refused to work with Bush. They just recognized that Kerry would have probably allowed for smoother relations, in some cases. More importantly, they all recognize that it will be easier to get done what they want to get done if they are nice to the guy. It's not a matter of sucking up, or placating, it's maintaining open communications.

Based upon the past couple of months, will these world leaders truly help in Iraq and other international issues?

Will they help in Iraq? Probably not, at least not as far as troops are concerned. I don't see any evidence of that. "ther international issues" is a whole other bag of cats though. What do you mean by "help"? Here in Canada one "international issue" that will be pursued is the American practice of ILLEGAL trade tarriffs on softwood lumber; and the protectionist restrictions on Canadian cattle imports.

Could this be the beginning of positive world view on America, or just window dressing?

It's neither. World leaders still recognize that Bush has been one of the most hostile and difficult American Presidents in a long time, and until he changes, their estimation will not change. You are mistaken if you think that world governments (and populations) look at the U.S. government, and it's people as one in the same. We don't. I despise Bush for the way he has helped to jerk my homeland around... but I don't despise America or Americans. In fact, I've been known to even like a few, here and there.

At the same time it's not window dressing. It's polite political communications.

Its called diplomacy.


Based upon the past couple of months, will these world leaders truly help in Iraq and other international issues?

Nope. In the 'international vote', Kery picked up 77% and Bush picked up 9%. Japan and mainland Europe will continue to nod and smile and do nothing. GW Bush's victory/ validation/ mandate means nothing to us. It will be business as usual and the majority of Europeans will continue to watch US troops dying in Iraq with some incomprehension, some amusement, but mostly just indifference.

No matter what any of the worlds politico's say. I do not believe any one outside of the USA, Israel and Tony Blairs cabinet is bothered by this election vote.

All day today I've been picking up the vibe across Europe and I have not heard one single person express anything but dismay at this election result. I can't say how it is in Japan or Russia or China. But in Europe I am seeing a very definiate shift in affections away from the USA as an ally. It may be that this will die down again as the dispointment turns to acceptance and life returns to normal, but I think, yesterday, the people of the USA gave the trans atlantic alliance the coup de grace.

I know that its hardly fair for the US citizens to have to take the sensibilities of other nations into account, but the fact is, when you are as big and dominant as America is, then your domestic policy IS international policy and it will be watched, judged and reacted to.


Could this be the beginning of positive world view on America, or just window dressing?

This question is actually so funny, its sad.

For the last century, America has been the gold standard for democracy, liberty and freedom over here. Sure there has been plenty of political differences, but these have seldom if ever affected people's affections for the United States of America.

What is destroying that affection is the same sense of betrayal and division that has so clearly divided America.


Today, I am very very happy I was born a European!

Not if President George W. Bush conducts the diplomacy himself. I see no reason why the leaders of the other nations would want to help him. He has already proven himself to be bull-headed, and he has just been re-elected, so he doesn't even have to care about what the American electorate thinks about what he is doing with foreign diplomacy.
No, the world just knows what side their bread is buttered on as far as America goes. It is "window dressing." Two of the most important nations are North Korea and Iran--does anyone think that either of these two nations is particularly disposed to speak with this President on matters of any importance?

Based upon the past couple of months, will these world leaders truly help in Iraq and other international issues?

1) Which world leaders?

2) Do they truly have the capacity to help in Iraq, or on other international issues?

3) Has the election made any difference in what sort of help they might provide?

In the case of France and Germany, the answer is to #2 is some capacity, but not nearly as much relative to the size of their economies as the US is already dedicating, whether you speak of help in rebuilding, help in securing, whatever. Setting aside their military weaknesses, both countries have so much going to their social welfare systems that they can't dedicate a lot to foreign activities, except for jaw-jaw. As for other international issues, whether they "help" the US will depend largely on whether or not they're is even a convergence of interests. Illegal immigration is a significant international issue for the US, but OUR border problems have minimal impact on France and Germany. In contrast, Canada's leadership, due to both their change up there, and the re-election of Bush, is likely to be more cooperative with the US on tightening up security as it relates to baddies getting across the northern border. Especially since the US is more likely to consider that we CAN work with the Canadian gov't now, as opposed to wasting our breath with Cretien. My guess is that this will go both ways, which means that progress can be made on the lumber brouhaha.

Could this be the beginning of positive world view on America, or just window dressing? The world view on America has been spiraling downward for far longer than Bush has been President. It goes back to before Bush Sr., before Reagan, before Nixon, ... Electing Kerry would have made no difference except for a slight bump. The congratulatory calls are diplomatic civility. More than simple window dressing, but not much.

Sigh... somehow, I find it incredibly ironic that the "gold standard for democracy, liberty and freedom" is somehow tarnished because we, for the 25th time in the last century, have managed to conduct a rip-roaring nationwide electoral campaign where pretty much anybody who wanted to be heard could be heard, where each voter had the liberty of voting their own conscience, and then followed up with an election that is legitimate. You don't like the results? Fine, but to translate your distaste for the results into an attack on our democratic process, which, BTW, has continuously and peacefully transferred power longer than any European democracy has existed, is not worthy of you.

Really? What trans-Atlantic alliance? The one where the United States carried the bulk of the military and economic burden of defending and then liberating Europe from the Soviet threat? Or are you referring to the trans-Atlantic alliance where the United States carried the greatest burden for intervening in the Balkans, where no American interests at all were at stake? Or is it the trans-Atlantic alliance were European investigators refuse to investigate mass grave sites in Iraq because their findings may be used in capital punishment proceedings? If its that trans-Atlantic alliance that you're talking about, then you may be right. There's a lot of Americans who feel the same way about it as they do about the UN. There isn't anything in it for us, except for costs, costs, and more costs...

Here is a heads up for the Europeans, and the American Left. Try to step back and take a hard, long, objective look at the paths that y'all have taken, and the American center has taken. You'll find, if you look clearly, that the American center hasn't moved all that much. We blithely move along. You folks have "divided", veering further and further onto a different vector. Most Americans look at this and shrug their shoulders, returning to watch another intellectually stimulating episode of reality TV. Yet, every once in a while, we get really annoyed with being accused of being "divisive" when we know that we haven't changed course.

You want some examples? Lets start with capital punishment, always a great one for illustrating how we barbaric, uncouth Americans are "divisive". Every country in Europe used to have capital punishment. Every one. So did the US. Now, who changed? You did Whether its for better or worse isn't the subject at hand here, simply the fact that the US sits in pretty much the same place as it did on this subject 50 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago. Same with universal health care, Israel, the ICC, and a myriad of other subjects. On all of these, the US is pretty much exactly where it was when the subjects first came up. But y'all have moved.

And we're the dividers?

The American Left and their European counterparts, as well as lots of Europeans, seem to view the American populace as simpletons, unsophisticated, sometimes even stupid. All that may be true, but there is one thing, one characteristic that the American populace possesses in aggregate that is utterly lacking from the Left. Pragmatism. Americans embrace that which works. I'll venture to say, because of our lifelong immersion in a culture which, more than any other, rewards success, we are far more attuned to distinguishing between what will work from what won't.

Chirac has held the Presidency in France for 9 years now. In that time, he has managed to grow the French economy by how much? Bring the French unemployment rate down by how much? Improve freedom of expression (Brigit Bardot anyone?) by how much? Schroeder's record is similar, but at least he has the excuse (wearing thin by now) of dealing with reunification.

Now, regardless of whether one chooses to credit (or damn) the national leadership with the unemployment rates, one thing is clear. The American system works better. Our unemployment rate is lower, our economy grows at a better rate. The Democrats tried to make the unemployment rate a major factor in this campaign, unsuccessfully. Ours is at about 5.6%. France's and Germany's? Both, IIRC, are over 8%! Bush would have been given the bum's rush with those numbers, but Chirac and Schroeder? Both get re-elected! Like I said, pragmatism.

So, when faced with a big problem, let me ask you: are you going to go with the folks who have a track record of solving problems, or the folks who have great theory, but few successes?

There comes a time when all alliances pass away. Perhaps that time is upon us. I hope not, but the toxic attitudes of many in Europe may insure the demise of the trans-Atlantic alliance. You don't like what we're doing? Well, if so, then allies disagree in private.

I don't buy the whole "America should care what Europe thinks because what America does affects the whole world." You know why I don't buy it? Because Europe doesn't care what America thinks . . . What America thinks is denigrated, dismissed, and trivialized. What motivates such wilfull blindness on the part of Europeans and the American Left I'll leave to another thread, another day, but it is blindness.

America works better than any other country in the world. It ain't perfect, not by a long shot, but it seems to me as though Europeans and the Left would be far better off looking at where America succeeds, and figuring out how to emulate that in their own way, rather than relentlessly, and often vicously, attacking it.

Bikerdad

Does that period include the civil war? Cause if not, then I think Britain's got you beat

Seriously though,



Well, I agree with Bikerdad in that the costs involved and the degree of interest are the main factors. Many European countries are finding their social models increasingly expensive to fund and do not really have the money to spare to fund military adventures abroad. (I might add that, given Europe's historical standing as the continent most likely to go to war - this isn't necessarily a bad thing!)

Also, is helping in Iraq in anyone's interest? In a purely mean-spirited way, by not helping the US, they increase the likelihood that the US goal of creating democracy will fail. If this happens, then the US will perhaps be less likely to attack other countries without international approval....which then reduces the risk of America harming the interest of the lesser powers.



If you're talking about Europe's view of America, then it really fluctuates with administration. Under Clinton America is liked, under Bush it is disliked - unfortunately there is too much name-calling across the Atlantic really. It is in our countries interest to work together - and the re-election of Bush has sent a clear message to Europe that there is not going to be any immediate policy changes. In this case, most European leaders will be pragmatic and work with the Bush administration - as they should have been doing in the first place.

As for the rest of the world - I guess it depends on where the WOT takes you. America needs to promote democracy in the Middle East, but to demonstrate to Muslims that it is not anti-Muslim. I think an emphasis on democracy and Islam being compatible should help.


Moif

I think that really depends on where you consider 'Europe' to be. Britain certainly isn't going to shift away from an alliance with the US, neither will many Eastern European countries. France might, Germany might - but they are increasingly irrelevant on the world stage anyway. Yes, most people would have preferred Kerry to win - but we are not so stupid as to turn away from an alliance where, frankly, we need America to help keep the peace in the Balkans, just as we needed America to help us prevent a Soviet invasion and we needed America to lend a hand during WW2. I think your view of Europe as some 'uber-liberal' paradise is very miopic - and insulting to many of the countries in Europe which support America regardless of the administration.

3) Has the election made any difference in what sort of help they might provide? I think it is impossible to tell....hopefully a degree of pragmatism and willigness to help ensure that Iraq becomes a democracy will prevail in Europe.

Bikerdad - I was going to respond to your post and I can understand a lot of your points - but really I would just say that you are treating 'Europe' to be synonymous with 'France & Germany'. There are another 36 countries in there, with wildly varying cultures and views on America. Many have adopted the American economic model and are doing very well as a result and many are supportive of Iraq, or at least not openly critical. Few have troops to contribute, but troops are expensive - especially if they are to have a level of technology which would make them able to work with American troops without being a burden. Germany and France are economies with will either reform to adopt a model nearer to America, or will become moribund and will be overtaken by the other countries in the EU that have done and become irrelevant.

IMO American and European relations will improve, regardless, as Europe accepts that the American model (although probably tailored to European ideals of social equality) is a better way to run an economy and that terrorism is a potential threat to all of us, rather than just to America.

Bikerdad



I'm not attacking your 'democratic process'.

I am merely pointing out the obvious implications for us, here in Europe, of the choice the American people have made.




With power comes responsibility. What do you want me to say? That Europe is a guilty party in many dirty dealings with various non democratic forces?

It is.

Europe has a long and sordid history of realpolitik but do you really believe that America is any different? Do you truly suppose that the USA had no reason what so ever to go into Kosovo?

Perhaps you should consider your nations own motives for its actions before you so eagerly point the finger at us. We're not responsible for your nations actions. If America had any reason to go into Kosovo, it was certainly not because we in Europe forced you to.

What sort of power do you think we have that we can make your nation bend to our will?




You can't live in the past.

The world changes and evolves and we as people and as cultures evolve with it. This is equally true for your country as it is for mine.

Yes, we got rid of the death sentence. We had to when we realised it was more important to save the life of one innocent man than to kill ten guilty ones. There is nothing that can recompense a man who has been murdered, and life imprisonment is not so lenient a punishment that it cannot be used instead.

So, yes we changed. But we did not do so on our own. Through the past fifty years, European culture has largely mirrored American culture and our two continents have been in accord on the vast majority of issues. The same is true for Canada, and Australia and Japan to some extent.

America's conservatives are a tiny majority in America and an overwhelming minority in the western world. What we see today, is the conservative half of America, having a 1% majority over the liberal* half of America and using this tiny majority to try to halt the process of cultural evolution because they don't like the implications of the cultural revolution that has been taking place in the last four to five decades and in particular they don't like the idea of gay marriage.

Whats divisive about this is the fact that for the rest of the western world, gay marriage is not such a great issue, and its certainly not a problem large enough to vote for a man who is going to isolate America further and fracture the western democratic nations.




If you Americans were really pragmatic, then you would not need so many scapegoats to explain your world view. You would not need to point the finger at Europe over issues like Kosovo, or the cold war. Pragmatism involves looking within as well as without, and without taking responsibility for one's nations own actions, then you have no claim to being pragmatic.




All this really indicates is that the French and Germans have different idea's of what they want from their governments. It doesn't mean the US system is better. It just means that Europeans do not fear high unemployment figures as the Americans apparently do. We don't fear high taxes either. Europe has built itself a social democratic system where the individual is not left on the rubbish tip but looked after as best as possible.
In some European nations this works better than others.
In Scandinavian nations for example, despite our much smaller economies, we have a higher standard of living than the USA, so just how exactly is the US system better than ours?

We are also pragmatic. We just have a different values.




I suppose you mean the USA has a track record of solving problems?

I'm sorry, but I don't see the world in such a simplistic way (I don't mean to imply that you do, only that your question is misleading and obtuse)

If I look back at the history of Europe, I see many examples of European nations making a big difference. Examples of what I mean can be seen from Holland's liberal attitude towards cultural and social differences to Britains willingness, despite is military weakness, to risk its own independence to come to the aid of Poland in 1939.
Through out European history we have had to deal with the clash of religion and culture, kings and despots, socialism and capitalism and yet, we are still here. Denmark or example, despites its tiny size has existed far longer than the United States and through out our history we have been annexed, invaded, have annexed and invaded ourselves. We've been liberated by the British and been to war with them. We've been invaded by the Germans and have invaded Germany ourselves.

In other words, we've been solving 'problems' for longer than your nation exists. America is not our 'saviour'. It is merely an ally.




No European leader has ever told the American people, you are either with us or against us.

Europe has never made any such demand of the USA.




Does America think with one mind?




I'm sorry, but your claim is false. America does not work better than any other country in the world.
Finland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway all have a higher standard of living and rank as equals to America's economic competitiveness. The only reason why America is richer, is because it is geographically larger.

You Americans work longer and harder hours than we do and yet you have nothing that I do not have. I live in far greater comfort and security than you do and what is more, my country will provide for my needs in a time of illness or poverty and I will never become a destitute or have to live in a 'trailer park'.


* liberal as in the European sense of the word

Ptarmigan



Which is weird since I do not consider Europe to be an 'uber liberal paradise' and I am unable to understand where in my original post I even made mention of such a concept. As for 'insulting', I find it curious that you accuse me of being 'myopic' on views I have not expressed and then call me 'insulting'.

For your information, I fully support Denmark's alliance and military contribution to the coalition in Iraq. I have not advocated any course of action that would withdraw our support of the United States, so kindly refrain from ascribing opinions and views to me which I do not hold.


Be that as it may. Your are correct with regards to the Europeans and the trans Atlantic alliance. No European nation is going to willingly give up the alliance with the USA which is why I do not make that claim.

My post referred to the European people's attitude towards America. Not to our official political positions. What I am pointing out is that where there once was a trust and respect of the Americans, there is now a fear and distrust.

I don't see much reasons to be proud here. Do we want to stand on the same positions we were 200 years ago on issues such as slavery, women's rights, segregation, etc. ? The society (thankfully) evolves, and that's called progress.


So what if our unemployment rate is lower? The true measure of society's success are the standards of living and life expectancy. Scandinavian countries beat US handily in those categories. What's the point of having everyone employed if the jobs that we are able to provide are minimum wage positions? Can you survive on a minimum wage full-time job? Not around here in Connecticut. Forget about health care. The unemployment could be higher in Germany than in US, but the nation is healthier, because the health of the nation is a priority for the government.
American system works better for those who succeed. I consider myself a success, and most people on this board succeeded as well. Unfortunately, the society can not consist of winners only. When there're winners, inevitably there're losers, too. And it's tough, tough to be on the losing side in America.

Moif



You claim to speak for Europeans when in fact you only speak for a vocal minority. I find that dismissive of the opinions of the majority who generally support American policy. Sure, many people marched against Iraq in Europe, but an even greater number DID NOT.

However I retract the 'insulting' comment as it was over the top.



I have not seen that - I see mistrust of Bush and perhaps a feeling that his agenda is not in the interests of the world - or even the USA - but this does not translate into fear and distrust of Americans as a people, or as a country.



I did not make any comment on Iraq relating to your posts or your opinion. I said that I disagreed with your analysis of European sentiment.




Semantics possibly - but to me it does look like you are contradicting yourself. A shift in affections away from having the US as an ally if expressed politically would have to result from European governments turning their back on an alliance with the US.



Surely in any democracy, the attitude of the people affects the official attitude of the government. Isn't that the point of voting?



Quite simply I think you are hugely exaggerating anti-American sentiment in Europe. And as a European, I find it annoying that you ascribe opinions to me that I do not hold, albeit as a generalisation. As this is the case, I do not see why I should not ascribe opinions to you.

Ptarmigan


Thank you.

However, I have not claimed to speak on behalf of Europe.
My initial post was made on the back ground of my observations, as I made clear in that post;
I am an Anglo Dane. That is to say I was born of parents from both nations. My family extends throughout Northern Europe and I have an extensive network of friends and contacts all over Europe. So far, I have not spoken to one single person who views the re-election of GW Bush as a positive development. Most are indifferent, but many express the sort of anti American perspectives of which I speak.

Maybe I am speaking as a member of a vocal minority, but in such a case, how can you tell? Neither of us knows to how great an extent the people of Europe feel about America, either in a positive or negative fashion. All we can say is that those who are vocal are overwhelmingly opposed to the course of action that America has taken under GW Bush.

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



How hard have you been looking?

I have, and am seeing a growing sense of disillusionment with the American people here in Europe. Both on the mainland and in Britain. Even amongst our conservative politicians (here in Denmark, but also in Germany and Brussels) I have noted a hope that since Bush now no longer requires re-election, he will now seek to strengthen those ties with Europe that have been so badly bruised.

The implication being that if Bush does not do this, then the damage will become serious.

I don't mean serious as in open hostility, but serious as in giving credence to politicians who are directly opposed to American interference in the EU (of which there are a good many more on the mainland than in Britain) and who will gradually initiate further trade wars and indirect policies against US/ EU relations.

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




Upon what basis other than this 'silent majority' you speak of?

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




There is no contradiction. The first quote refers to the people of Europe (as I have encountered them) and the second to our governments.

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




Indeed. But how many elections have we seen in Europe since the re-election of GW Bush?

Do you anticipate the re-election of the Blair government?

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




I am sorry. I did not mean to imply that I was speaking on behalf of all Europeans. I do however believe that the majority of Europeans have shifted from a positive attitude towards the USA to a negative or at best a neutral attitude.

I have seen absolutely nothing to convince me otherwise of that.

First, greetings to all


Based upon the past couple of months, will these world leaders truly help in Iraq and other international issues?

If you mean they will follow Bush lead, then the answer is no. There is no reason to believe they will, that I can see, and the reasons not to do so remain in place.

Could this be the beginning of positive world view on America, or just window dressing?

As Moif said, it is simply diplomacy. It is to be expected. It does mean that they are willing to listen and discuss issues, but not that they will capitulate of their own positions and are willing to follow Bush from now on.

As for a more positive worldview on America. I believe it is more an issue of Bush’s image and not truly of America as a whole. If he keeps his foreign policy on the same lines, an improvement of how the world sees American foreign policy is not to be expected.

Ptarmigan
You claim to speak for Europeans when in fact you only speak for a vocal minority. I find that dismissive of the opinions of the majority who generally support American policy. Sure, many people marched against Iraq in Europe, but an even greater number DID NOT.

Hmm, I would say that, in regard to Iraq you are wrong. It was most certainly not a minority that opposed it, but a clear majority. While statistics must be taken with a grain of salt, or two, the numbers were so overwhelming that it was quite clear most Europeans did oppose the war.

Surely in any democracy, the attitude of the people affects the official attitude of the government.

Not always. When you support a party you are endorsing a program regarding a group of issues, not every particular issue in it. It is perfectly possible that a party support a position in a specific issue that most electors disagree with. So long as the issue is not considered reason enough to change the vote, the party will have few reasons to change their position.

I'd like to mention how much the title and sub-title of this thread really irritates me. Every single time I see it, I get just a tad inflamed. So I guess I'll try to relieve myself of the irritation once and for all.

The arrogance in the title is at once astounding and disgusting. Many of the "world's leaders" have also tried to warn us about how our arrogance will come back to bite us on our EDITED TO REMOVE PROFANITY, but with Bush in office another four years, I really doubt that we'll learn that lesson anytime soon. And our arrogance is exactly the kind of thinking that got us attacked in the first place. "We're so much better than you. You all hate and envy our freedom. You want to be just like us but you can't so you hate us. Nyah nyah nyah." Honestly.

Sure, okay. Whatever Bush says, now the world leaders are his lapdogs and eager roadies Look at how great and powerful we are as a nation, that we can jerk everyone else around. God bless the USA!

I agree with everyone else on this thread who has stated that the world leaders are exhibiting diplomacy, not idol-like nation-worship. Europe has a vastly longer history and subsequently, number of mistakes to learn from. So in many ways their take on the world is more mature than America's. But more importantly, I think they're being nice because they realize how rash and reckless Bush is, and they don't want to be bombed under the guise of "harboring terrorists" or "possessing weapons of mass destruction possible manufacturing machinery (or whatever he said). And that's said only slightly tongue-in-cheek.

I'd like to leave you with a quote from Busharon - I'm sorry, Ariel Sharon:

1. Based upon the past couple of months, will these world leaders truly help in Iraq and other international issues?

I highly doubt it. It may be better that they don't. If countries are using a significant amount of resources in Iraq and all of a sudden become victims of terror at home, they will pull out of Iraq faster than you can blink and may jeopardize the remaining troops. The insistence of Dubya that all country's troops be under US control is also a stumbling block since the current system does not seem to be working so well.
2. Could this be the beginning of positive world view on America, or just window dressing?
The Canadian view of the American people has not changed. By a large margin we consider Americans our brethren. The same majority thinks Dubya is an idiot and doesn't trust him one bit. We were nearly universal in our hopes for kerry...not tha he was much better but he could not have been worse.
No president has done more to harm Canada/US relations than Bush. His two faced approach to trade is mind boggling. In spite of losing each and every battle over tarriffs inflicted on Canadian goods at the WTO he continues to add more and more to satisfy a bloated list of lobbyists. US companies complain they cannot cimpete with Canadian goods. The problem lies in the top-heavy corporate system, not in the way we manufacture goods. Of course our softwood is cheaper...we have a gazillion trees.

I completely disagree with the idea that we got attacked because of our arrogance. Any book that discusses Muslim (specifically Taliban) disdain for western society will tell you implicitly that capitalism is at the root of their violence. They believe Americans to be imperialistic via the dollar, which is predominantly true. There are Hardees in Saudi, Safeway in Afghanistan, etc. The irony is that their countrymen make the purchasing decisions that put coke on their shelves and levis on their back sides. Why did they choose to attack our nation's business center? Hmmm.... This doesn't even discuss the religious idealism behind it. Ever hear of the Crusades?

Bush being in office doesn't dictate public opinion. Bush alone doesn't cause disdain world wide. If you'd have spent time overseas prior to the Bush election, you'd have realized that people really didn't like us in many places long prior to 2001. How did 9/11 happen? Years of planning. What about the USS Cole (that Clinton did nothing about). What about the barracks bombing in Saudi?

Finally, if you hadn't noticed, there are many nations that envy our freedom, lifestyle, etc. Take a trip to any metropolitan area in America and you'll see endless immigration. Dallas is a huge example. We have Asians, Mexicans, Africans, etc, etc, etc. Why else would they leave their homelands and travel thousands of miles for one big gamble? Why do they stay? It must not be so bad.
This doesn't make us better. It however does make America a better place to live...

What is the most appalling portion of your statement is that you insinuate that the Jewish people control us?!?!?!?! What?
Because we protect Israel from middle eastern aggression and the fact that they're surrounded by hostile states doesn't mean they control us. I believe that their religion alone makes them targets in this area. The Egyptian war eludes to these facts. Their history is so rich and entrenched in their culture that without military assistance, and the US backing, they may be attacked. They control us? Wow... that's another one of those statements that I believe is based purely in rhetoric. Blaming it on Sharon is worse... give me a link to a reputable source please.

Arbogast

To be honest, there are no numbers than can prove your claim - or mine - around. I am going on what I see in the bits of Europe I live in and what I here from my friends who live in other parts of Europe.

Moif


Yes - without a doubt Blair will run for another term and get in. The anti-war opinion in the UK was never great enough to seriously jeapordise that and Blair knew it.



And I am a Scottish / Irish and, as you do and indeed many Europeans, have travelled and have a network of friends across Europe. And I have seen nothing which indicates strong anti-American sentiment other than the standard fears that American culture may swamp our own cultures. No-one is boycotting American goods, no-one has stopped watching American tv, everyone has American friends.



Trade wars would cause much greater damage to our own economies than to America's - and politicians of which countries? And what policies?
(Whether or not America tries to interfere in the EU is irrelevant to how Europeans feel about America - and no interference from America could possibly harm the EU more than we all manage ourselves by having so many differing views on what it is for.)



Hey - you know perfectly well that I was rebutting your accusation that I was putting words in your mouth...

Firstly I have only heard of anti-American sentiment in Germany and France, secondly I know plenty of Germans and French people (London is full of them) and they all say that America itself they like, whereas Bush they dislike. They seem quite capable of making that distinction. Secondly, I know a few Polish people, who tell me that they fully support America and that most Eastern Europeans feel the same. Are my sources wonderful? No...but then I cannot conduct a survey from here to the Urals testing European opinion. I can only go with the evidence I have seen. And I respect the fact that you are too, but I think European opinion varies much more widely than you suppose.

And secondly - silent majorities exist - if the vast majority of Europeans did not and have not expressed anti-American sentiment, or anti-Iraq sentiment, then one can only assume that they do not care enough one way or the other to make their voices heard.



If our governments do not express the opinions of the people then whose opinions do they express? Sadly waiting to see what happens in European elections will be no guide, as voters are fickle. Aznar would have been re-elected, despite his support for Iraq had terrorists not scared the Spanish electorate into changing their vote. Blair will be re-elected, the French and Germans will vote based on their economies, as will Eastern Europe - what will this tell us?

Thank you Ptarmigan . It is good for Americans here who really do not have any real life interactions with Europeans to see that Europe is just as diverse in ideology as America is. Moif is more than entitled to his views..but he is but only one representation..and I know many Americans think all Europeans feel one way or think one thing about America and it just isn't so.


You mention the fear and distrust of Americans but you forget to mention the misunderstanding of them. Much like many Americans don't understand Europeans...Europeans don't understand Americans.

You believe you live in far greater comfort..but that is just a subjective call on your part. I am sure we all have our own opinions on what is comfort. You believe life in a trailer park is destitute and somehow something Europeans must not suffer. Again all just opinion...nothing you can use to decide an honest assessment of.....Ptarmigan is right Europe is not this liberal utopia you wish to portray to Americans. Not only am I myself a European who is not so easily fooled..I am also half Romani....do you know who the Roma are? The forgotten people of Europe..they live in conditions that make life in a trailer park look like indulgence. Europe does not care for all her people...she does not provide security or alleviate suffering from poverty or illness for all her people..some people she neglects horribly.

We may not understand one another's cultural ways..but we really share much more in common then you would like to believe we do.



No I don't think so. Hungary just announced she was leaving...and altho. I don't feel this was a result of Bush winning reelection..but rather they held on until post election to make the announcement probably as a favor to the US admin. I do think in regards to Iraq..it matters little who the president is..but just the fact Iraq is becoming more and more of a security nightmare will make it more and more difficult to entice other nations to assist. Now does Iraq's security situation itself rely heavy on who the US president is...we shall see.


Well the view from who? The people or the Gov? I am only going to focus on the gov..because trying to generalize about people is just such a waste of time.
It is my view Blair will remain in power in the UK..(unless something monumentally horrid happens in Iraq) and so the British gov. will continue to have a positive view of the US.

I think Schröder will loose DE..thank goodness.. and I do feel that Deutschland will replace him with a conservative gov. I hope for this for the German people..because I have great concern for their economic health...yet at the same time I fear the divisions it will bring..but we all have to face our demons at some point in time. I think this will change DE/US relations greatly.

France I just don't really think much about..but Chirac has taken on a kind of Godfather role for the Palestinian people..which really translates to the Arab people. If only we could harness this power for good! His reelection chances all depend on who runs against him. I think Bush has really done wrong on this one tho and he should kiss and make-up with the French but I think that goes against his "moral values"

Italy's gov....already is positive to the US. Berlusconi and Bush have a lot in common... much more than Berlusconi has with the EU.

Russia...Putin seemed rather happy about having Bush back, in fact I think him and Berlusconi must have at least shared a toast over the news.

I think we are going to see a few changes in Europe soon too. So who knows how it will shift things.

I can say that I agree and disagree with you at the same time. The point you make about Scandanavian and German health is relatively near-sighted, as their cultures are extremely homogeneous, far smaller, and have the ability to address concerns with far less expense and red-tape. These nations are the size of many of our states.

On the other hand, our culture is based on individual achievement as opposed to the success of the majority. Is this bad? There are situations where people are swept under the rug, left behind, etc. How is this remedied? I see no solution without changing our national perception. Most people in America have the capacity to make something of themselves, even if it is against some obstacles. The majority of our society blames a lack of success on social woes such as racism, and fail to address socio-economics.

Minimum wage jobs? What percentage of jobs are minumum wage? How does spending capacity differ in Mississippi from it's vaildity in New Jersey? If American standard of living is so bad, why do we have the largest consumer spending base in the world? Why do we have more per capita tv's, cars, microwaves, and personal computers? Poor people in Europe and Asia really don't have cars and cable tv's, but I wonder how many people below the "poverty line" in America do?

Something to consider...

Our unemployment IS lower, our GDP is 1/3 of the world's, and our population is rivaled only by nations the size of China. Yet, our standard of living is still in the top 10 in the world... Interesting.

aevans176

Yeah... but I'd have said that these people are in America because they want money, just as much, if not more than they want freedom.

Be that as it may, I think you'll find that the same is true of all the established western nations. Europe for example now has 35 million Muslims. Did they come here for freedom, or for cash?


Surely the insinuation is Sharon's given that SuzySteamboat was quoting him.. ?

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


Ptarmigan

Well, I'll be honest and say I don't know. I suspect however that the 'silent majority' is not a majority with one shared opinion and the only thing that might save Tony Blair is the amazing incompetence of the Conservative party.*


Scottish Irish eh? I'd never have guessed

I repeat, I'm not saying people are aggressive in their regard to the USA. I'm certainly not claiming that people are manning barricades, boycotting US products or turning off the TV when ever 'Friends' is on. What I am saying is that where there was once a majority that looked upon the USA with mild and friendly eyes. Now the majority is ambiguous with a strong tendency towards distrust.

I can see this every single day. You say it is not so, and you see something else entirely. But you are not living on the mainland. What is your perspective? How often do you sit on a bus or in a café or go to work in main land Europe?


I agree. Trade wars would be a disaster.


yeah, alright. I'll let you off




Well, seriously Ptarmigan, if thats the extend of what you've heard then I'm not surprised you are disagreeing with me. A few Germans and Poles..?

I'm living here. In Denmark, which is a staunchly pro US nation and every single day I am confronted with a wide range of emotions ranging from the ambiguous to the angry.

This is not something that I am just making up for the benefit of some personal anti US bias, (regardless of what Bucket may think). I am a pro European and I want the EU to succeed, but I most certainly don't want to see the EU becoming any sort of enemy to the USA.

But that is what I am seeing. Daily.




Yes. Silent majorities exist, but your information is simply wrong. Polls in Europe have shown the majority of Europeans, especially western Europeans have negative feelings towards the USA and the policies of GW Bush


* and how did they ever fall so far!?

Bucket

Which means what exactly? That America's media is a fiction? that American made television, films, art, music and media convey an untrue image of what Americans are really like?

Nations, like people, are judged by their actions (if you don't believe me ask a German about the Holocaust) and the people of Europe, with their 24 hour exposure to global US culture via the millions of screens we are surrounded by all day long, have a far better understanding of American culture than Americans with their minimal exposure to European TV/media/ films have of European culture.

If you want to claim that US culture is some how different from the culture that has been portrayed by American TV/media/ films/&tc, then you are free to do so. But as any anthropologist will tell you, a culture is reflected in its art.


Ptarmigan, and yourself are incorrect. I am not attempting to portray Europe as an 'uber liberal utopia', and your insistence that I am only demonstrates your unwillingness to address my point of anti US scepticism amongst the general European population.

And yes I know who the Roma are. My Paternal Grandmother was part Romani. They are neither forgotten but nor are they citizens of Denmark. (In case you failed to understand, my reply to Bikerdad was a comparison of his nation and mine and it was not an attempt to portray Europe as an 'uber liberal utopia'.)

I will thank you to refrain from putting words into my mouth. Kindly deal with what I say, and not what you wish I was saying.


This reminds me of previous online debates I've had where some angry American tells me, if it weren't for us, you'd all be speaking German, or Russian, never stopping to comprehend that we are speaking in English...

You have no idea what I believe. I have not expressed any opinion what so ever that conveys the belief that Europeans and Americans do not have anything in common.

In fact, my entire point rests upon the fact that for close to a century, that is exactly why Europe and America have been so close.

As usual however, you have chosen to address what you think I'm saying reather than what I'm actually saying.

*Ahem*

I thought I'd just intervene with one point here on the "silent majority" that both sides of this argument have been harking to.

Firstly, this is the classical logical fallacy of argument from a higher power.

Secondly, majorities can (and frequently are) wrong. A majority of Russians and Chinese are self described as atheist. There are more Russians and Chinese than there are Americans. Does this mean that God does not exist and all American Christians are wrong? (I leave the answer hanging because this is no place or time to discuss the existence of God. It is a rheorical illustration.)

Thirdly, and most pertinently - nobody knows what the "silent majority" thinks because they are silent.

The absence of public proclamation of a particular viewpoint of a subject by a person demonstrates nothing at all about a them, except their disinclination to public proclamation on that subject.

So can we all stop hiding behind the idea that this notional "silent majority" agrees with us and not with our opponents in everyargument?

You are correct about Scandinavian countries being homogeneous, but not about Germany. Germany has one of the highest percentage of immigrants per capita in the world. During the last decade they took tens of thousands of Jews and ethnic Germans from Russia; they have huge Turkish diaspora; etc. During my recent visit to Dortmund, walking through Altschtadt, I realized that ALL people around me don't speak German - they were all Russians and Turks. Many German cities such as Hamburg, Dusseldorf, Dortmund, Berlin, etc. feel like New York - diverse and full of immigrants.
As for those nations being the size of many states - you are correct; maybe the problems that we are having with health care ought to be solved on the state level and not on federal level. Same applies to minimum wage issues (once again, a salary of $60,000 in Indiana worth only around $30,000 in Connecticut... ) minimum wage should be adjusted on the state level.

Yes please Suzy Steamboat give us a link for that quote....you can not can you? Because it is a lie...which is really upsetting because it appears the main purpose of your post was to criticize someone else's disgusting rhetoric. That false quote of Sharon's belongs in the file of anti-semitism propaganda along with the article about how Jews need the blood of children to make their holiday cookies.

Dearest Moif...

Yes many of our films and TV shows are fiction.

Also you assume that Americans have no interaction with the outside world..unlike their counterparts the Europeans. Well a lot of people enjoy foreign films, read foreign authors, watch foreign TV shows. A lot of Americans watch only TV, movies and follow other media that I would suspect you yourself would not even be able to identify as being an American creation. It comes off really void of understanding of what America is like to claim they have so little interaction with the cultures of Europe...a good number of us come from Europe! Many have traveled there, lived there, worked there. We watch your news, read your papers and buy your goods. We eat your food, wear your clothes, watch your shows and listen to your music. We happen to have an open society on our side of the spectrum too and your ideas, culture and "art" flows over across our borders as much as ours flows into your own.

The Roma are in fact citizens of the EU are they not? Does that not matter? Most of this debate was very generalized as Europe and the US. Oh wait tho that is not entirely true many Roma live in EU nations but somehow don't qualify as citizens...but it couldn't have anything to do with the out of sight out of mind mentality Europeans have as a whole for them...could it? The belief they are not forgotten is again your own belief. I can assure you many people in the Rom community disagree with you.

Look I have no idea what you are doing with your comparative breakdown of Europe's higher standard of living, higher social values, stricter housing regulations, state funded medical system, views on capital punishment, gay marriage, taxes and work habits or any others I have missed.
What it is you are hoping to explain or illustrate with comments like....
"We just have a different values. " or "All this really indicates is that the French and Germans have different idea's of what they want from their governments." or even.."America's conservatives are a tiny majority in America and an overwhelming minority in the western world. "
Seems to me you do in fact feel we are different and I have seen you make other such comments in other threads that supports this view too..I don't think I am putting words in your mouth..these are your own words that you put here yourself.

Julian

I disagree - if Europeans really actively disliked Americasn to the extent which has been suggested, then surely they would show that dislike in some way. My original point was that the silent majority do not care one way or the other - and if they do care - certainly not to the point of making their feeling known to the wider world.

So whilst we cannot tell what they do think, we can make a fairly good guess on what they don't think.



Aaaah - but you can say that the silent majority doesn't disagree - or at least not strongly enough to stop being silent.


Moif


Mainland Europe covers a very large area Moif. I am skeptical to say the least that anyone anywhere on the mainland (i.e. from the west coast of the continent to the Urals!) has a more accurate perspective than someone on one of the islands around Europe. It's hardly difficult to get from the mainland to the UK! (I seem to recall the Danes doing that quite a lot back in the 800s!). Do you really claim to be more aware of the opinions of Eastern Europe because there is an unbroken connection of land between Denmark and Turkey or wherever?




Well, firstly I live in London - which is one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world. And no -= my experience of Europeans (other than the British and Irish where I live) does not extend only to Poles and Germans. I have good friends from all over the continent, I just thought it would be rather pointless to list all the different European countries I know people from.
However, if you feel it would contribute to the debate, I am quite happy to make up a list of every European I know, where they are from, how I met them and their current opinion of America. If you then make up a similar list - and we could compare.
(But that might just be a complete waste of time...)


I live here in London, which has many different people from all over Europe and indeed the world living here in large numbers. I see a range of emotions too, but only the minority of views towards America seem to be negative.



I am suprised, but if you say that is the opinion in Denmark then I cannot really argue, I haven't had time to go there these last few years. But Denmark is not representative of Europe as a whole. (And no, neither is Britain - but is ANYWHERE representative of Europe as a whole?)

Perhaps it just depends where you are in Europe.



'My information is simply wrong'??? Thanks for that. Hmm, in rebuttal I can only say 'No - YOU are wrong...'

Everything I have seen leads me to believe that most Europeans have a generally positive (or neutral) view of Americans.

Politically Europe IS further to the left - so European leaders will naturally prefer a Democrat President to a Republican one - but so what? Doesn't mean that they are going to refuse to work with a Republican president if thats who is in the White House...

Beloved Bucket



I'm sorry but I have met and spoken to too many Americans who had only the faintest notion of European culture to accept your claim.

That a good number of Americans come from Europe means nothing. Just about every American I've ever met tells me that they are 'Irish' or 'Scottish' or 'Danish', and yet they have not got the slightest notion of the culture of these places. Their perception is based, like all ex pats, on some out dated, warped sense of the past.

That a 'lot' of people in America enjoy foreign films or wear H&M clothing I make no doubt.
However I do not believe that American TV is saturated with European culture the way European TV is.

If it is, then please provide me with examples of German or French shows that are currently aired on America's mainstream channels. Or how about a list of European block busters that showed in cinema's across America this year...? Currently showing on my TV we have:
The Simpsons, Everybody loves Raymond, Buffy the Vampire slayer, Angel, Smallville, The Swan, Dr Phil, Oprah Winfrey, Ricky Lake, Jay Leno, David Letterman, The Man Show, 60 minutes, 60 Minutes II, The Soprano's, The Disney hour, Batman of the Future, Roseanne, The Cosby show, MASH, Beverley Hills 90210, Dynasty, Good morning Miami, JAG, WWE American wrestling, Glamour, Chicago hope, Friends, Moonlighting, The West wing, Ruby Wax, Ally, Millennium, The King of Queens, Will & Grace, Greg & Dharma, Mysterious ways, Frasier, Singles, Hunter, Stargate, The Fresh Prince of Bell Air, Baywatch, Porno Valley, Scrubs, Pamela Andersen's 'Naked truth', The Horton Saga, Susan, ER, Days of our lives, The Witches of Warren Manner and The X files ...and these are just the shows on the main 8 Danish channels. There are also several Aussie and Brit shows as well.
I also have about five US channels I can watch and about thirty other European channels, of which only the British and the French have a predominance of their own programmes.
The 8 Danish channels tonight are also showing six feature films, of which 5 are America and the last is a part British, part American production.

For the most part, Europeans are much the same with regards to America. But the difference is, our media culture is heavily saturated with American made and American financed films and shows.

I may be mistaken, (its happened before) but when I meet an American geography teacher who thinks Denmark is the capitol of Stockholm, when I read online messages from Americans who truly believe America single handedly liberated Europe from the nazi's, and when I come across such examples on an almost daily basis (just look at the title of this thread) then I am forced to conclude that American's are largely ignorant and indifferent to European culture and history.

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


With regards to the point I made?

No.

There are
1,750 Romani people in Denmark:As for the Romani population of Europe, given that my response was to Bikerdad's claim that America 'works better than any other country in the world', then I don't see how the plight of the Romani in Europe has any bearing what so ever on my point that Denmark, and the other Scandinavian nations are equal or superior to the USA.

According to this article, America has 1.35 million homeless children.



Yes. Most of the debate has been very general. But the point to which you were replying (my counter to Bikerdad's erroneous claim) was very specific.

And by the way, Denmark is not responsible for the ill treatment of the current Romani populations of other European nations.


The Romani are not one homogenous group with one frame of mind. Like all other ethnic groups they can be subdivided into myriad attitudes and opinions. The Romani of nations like the Czech republic and other eastern European nations have been treated with shocking callousness. In other European nations, less so. In some European nations, the Romani have been treated very well.

Whether or not the Romani agree with my opinion on this matter makes no difference to me. I believe that all people should be given the same opportunities and rights and I vote according to that principle but if people turn their backs on those opportunities and rights then that is their concern and certainly not my responsibility.

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




How do you expect me to answer this question when you've made it by stringing together various unconnected remarks to form an opinion I don't have?

All three of those examples came from separate points, but here you have welded them together to try to make it appear as if I'm saying something I've not said.

Yes, Europe and America share many things in common, and yes, we also have many differences.

But what does any of this have to do with the topic at hand? Why are you always hounding me on erroneous details of my personal opinion instead of debating the subject matter?


editted for spelling

Ptarmigan

Julian is correct. The only thing we can say with any certainty about the silent majority is that it is a majority of silence.

You can't say that because many people felt compelled by the war to actively protest against it, that this means that those who didn't march in the streets disagreed with those that did. All you can say is that they didn't feel inclined to demonstrate their feelings on the matter.

The only way of knowing what the majority feels is by observing the results of the elections. So far, since the war in Iraq, there has only been one election in western Europe, and that was in Spain where the majority voted against the war.

For what its worth, let me also add that at the time of the big demonstrations against the war, I was still actively in favour of military action and back then I felt part of a very small minority. My opinion only truly changed when it became obvious that Tony Blair had lied with regards to Saddam Hussein's WMD's. I think an awful lot of people in Europe feel the same way about this.

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




Nope. My claim rests on the nature of mainland Europe's interconnecting media culture's of which Britain is and always has been an outside element as well as my own personal friends and family who currently reside in Britain, Denmark, Norway, Germany, France, Greece and Holland.

And I've lived half my life in Britain and I know how insular Britain is with regards to the rest of Europe and also how different London is from the rest of Britain.

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




I've also lived in close proximity to London (2 years in Rochester) and I am quite familiar with how the attitudes of those in London differs from those in the rest of England. (I've lived in Liverpool and I grew up in Lancashire where I still have family)

Needless to say, my experiences have differed considerably from yours given that the majority of people I know and have spoken to in the last few months have expressed nothing but indifference through to hatred of the USA.

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


Exactly.

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




Well, I suppose one of us must be

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




...which is what I said at the very beginning of the thread...

Diplomacy.




editted for spelling

So neither of us can say anything much on behalf of Europeans.



In which case their feelings can't have been that strong.



Yes, but only because of the bombing. Before that, Aznar carried the majority, despite (or perhaps because) of his support for America. A massive terrorist bombing immediately before an election is going to skew events.



You think he lied, Brits 'seem' to be willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he was mistaken / mislead. (Although again, I can't really speak for the majority of Brits - only the ones I speak to and what I read in the papers).

The thing is - people are fickle and generally much more interested in the state of the economy at home, unemployment levels, crime, immigration etc than they are about a war very far away. The further ahead an election is, the more likely the voters are to forget. So even using elections as a guide won't really prove much.

Which I guess is what I am trying to say - that the current negative view of America held by some Europeans is transitory, because in the long term we have far too many links and similarities than otherwise. Given the current parlous state of the European social model, I would expect the EU and US to become MORE not LESS similar over time, as Europe will have to ditch its expensive welfare states and adopt a more American economic model.




Interconnecting media culture? That sounds fascinating..I'd love to hear about it. What I always find weird about that point of view is that essentially you are saying that (say) a Swede and a Spaniard culturally more in common than either of them with a Brit.


Well, to be fair, Denmark is hardly famous for being a haven of multiculturality is it? Many countries in Europe are insular, some far more so than Britain. (Britain IS sceptical about the EU - but less so than Norway or Switzerland - and they are mainland Europe. ). At best you are no more qualified to speak for mainland Europe than I...



I know..its about the only thing you've said that I agree with!
Europe is hugely diverse and opinions on America differ. That our politicians are willing to work with the US suggests that whatever divides there may be are in no way insurmountable or particularly serious.

As I am not trained as a diplomat, I can only answer this based on my understanding of human nature. When the strongest (also the loudest) kid on the playground is being a jerk, that is when I have decided, rather than being obsequious, to turn my back, walk away and not play the game. Are there any other posters here who do not respond well to chest-thumping jingoism?

The citizens of the EU in particular do not seem to respond well to "I've got the moral high ground and you don't" rhetoric, especially from someone who didn't know the capitals of their countries prior to 2000. Call it stubborn pride if you like, but it is a very human trait. An approach that acknowledges that the other party is intelligent, is pragmatic if not totally altruistic (neither are we) and possesses reasoning skills and experiences of their own, is more likely to elicit cooperation than what they have been hearing from the United States. For whatever careful, methodical reasoning Secretary of State Colin Powell has presented, his boss has likely cancelled out by playing to the American pro-war gallery.