I respectfully disagree. Being raised in Russia I can't help but notice the difference. The reminders about the war are everywhere - I myself remember finding spent rifle shells in the forest. Almost every year an unexploded bomb or a shell is found somewhere. Amber Room from Catherine's Palace was reopened just last year - an entire room was taken to Germany during WWII and just recently was returned home. St. Isaac's Cathedral's columns still have marks on its granite columns from the shelling. Some buildings still bear posts indicating that this side of the street is more dangerous during the air raid. Schoolkids are taken regularly (yearly) to memorials and cemeteries and WWII studied in much greater detail in school. I don't know a single family which didn't lose a member between 1941 and 1945.

The memories of war are much, much more vivid on the other side of the ocean.

And yet English Horn you are an American...yes? You live in America. My father is an American too and he was a child in WWII and lived in London. He remembers the bomb raids and having to go to shelter..he remembers neighbor's homes being blown to pieces and playing in the rubble of the aftermath. Yet here he is..an American living in America.
My father's neighbor is an American too..in WWII she lived in Italy and when the Americans came and liberated her town she was so happy she fell in love with one and came home with him.
My old landlord was Vietnamese and she was allowed to come over to the US after the Vietnam war as a political asylum with her family.

Sorry but to claim that Americans some how are ignorant of the world and it's experiences is false..we are a country comprised of the people of the world. How could we not share the world's experiences?

I never said that Americans are ignorant of the world and its experiences. Some are, some aren't - just like some Europeans are and some aren't. But I disagree that Americans as a the whole have as much first-hand experience with the effects of war as Europeans.
I may not be ignorant about WWI but my grand-grandparents knew much more than me about its effects. Maybe they knew less about history of the war, the reasons for it and all the other stuff that one can read in the library - but nothing can substitute first-hand experiences.
American civilians were lucky to, by and large, escape direct impact of WWII. It's a fact, but nobody faults them for that. What percentage of US population comes from immigrants who arrived here after 1940? The slice is not that big.

About ten percent of American residents were foreign born. Of course, not all of them are from areas that were directly impacted by WWII. Still, that's an extremely large number of people (over 25 million). Then, there are all of the people and their families who served in WWII. I think it's fair to say the war impacted them directly. My father flew in that war. My mother lived on a little Italian farm that was raided by numerous armies, and strafed by "Tito" repeatedly. The number is much greater than you seem to think.

the question that raised this sub-issue was regarding the US's willingness to go to war, compared to the apparent reticence to do so shown by many European nations (and Russia).

It is this keenness to use a tank to resolve issues that makes the European countries jumpy. The reason suggested is that we've historically been more familiar with Tanks down our streets, bombs landing on our houses, and trenches dug across our fields. I've absolutely no direct, first hand experience. Not a bit. My grandfather did, but that just isn't the point. Its in our national psyche. It isn't in that of the majority of US citizens. Europe and Russia have historically experienced warfare far closer to home.

You happily write off the unwillingness of nations to go to war as fear, or bureaucracy, or other condescending arguments. I would state that our history has made us more fearful of going too far, too quickly, because we've been on the receiving end when the US hasn't.

That a small percentage (10%, from what was said above) have experienced it means little. Ask them whether they'd jump into war: their response may be more telling than the keenness of the other larger percentages to give them some "good old American justice", and other supposed (and incorrectly dedicated, for that is exactly the opposite of the true cowboy) "cowboy" attitudes.

edited for grammar, and following text

I would say that the US doesn't have enough fear or respect (or insert term here) for the effects of war on a country, having not been on the other side. Likewise, i don't have enough fear of guns, and gun shot wounds, because i've never been shot...

A few people here seem to be missing the point with regards to suffering the consequences of foreign policy and the impact of war.

The point is not that Europeans as individuals have a greater understanding of the consequences of war than individual Americans.

The point is, that Europe, as a whole has experienced the consequences of war. That European society, and political philosophy are a direct result of the devastation and misery caused by the wars we have suffered and the social repercussions that these caused.

For example, Europe has a strong socialist tradition, and this tradition was born from the misery of the first world war, and the pre war society that caused that war. It is doubtful that communism, socialism or social democracy as we understand these political principles, would ever have had any impact on political thinking if these had not been born from that period of European warfare

Another example is the Holocaust. Not only did this take place in Europe, and in Europe's 'history', but its physical presence in Europe ensures its lessons be heeded.

The difference between Europe and America, is not that Americans do not understand the consequences of war. Any Vietnam veteran can enlighten you as to the reality of war. The difference is, in Europe, the wars were not only experienced by the individuals fighting, but also by the society that was bombed, gassed, slaughtered, driven, enslaved and so on. A lot of Americans put great store in America's liberation of Europe, but very few acknowledge that the Third Reich was not defeated by the USA, but in fact by the USSR which fought, and defeated 80% of Germany's fighting forces. What these same Americans also forget is that D-Day, the Battle of the Bulge, the fire bombing of Dresden, and Hiroshima, were all places people lived. The US soldiers who are buried in Northern France are not the only one's who died in the second world war. Thousands and thousands of civilians were slaughtered. Any one who argues that Europe can suffer such slaughter as we have during the twentieth century and not be profoundly affected is wrong.

Any one who claims that America has suffered anything at all comparable to that, is simply a fool who needs to walk the fields of the Somme, or visit the gas chamber at Auschwitz and reflect upon the horrible stupidity they represent.

I personally have no experience of war. So what? As a European I can walk my city and still see the scars of the war. Even here in Denmark where there was no fighting as such, buildings still bear bullet marks. Grandparents still refer to certain buildings as 'where the Gestapo were', 'where the RAF bombed', or 'where people disappeared'. Germans are still forbidden to own land in Denmark and the west coast of Denmark still bears the vast concrete defence bunkers laid down by the Third Reich because to remove them would require so much explosives as to be economically impossible.

When I was 18 I was taken to see Auschwitz. How many America school children get taken to see a death camp in America?

When I was 19 I joined the military and served four years in a unit that was founded as a direct result of the invasion of Denmark by Germany. Our training was not to fight against another such invasion, but to carry on the fight once the invasion had taken out the Danish state! Thats the difference between Europe and America. We've been invaded, bombed, displaced. We've seen our cities razed to the ground and had to build them again. Again, not I personally. I have never seen a bombed city, but my nation has and the political reality that I live in is the direct product of such destruction

I grew up in Lancashire, in North West England (near Liverpool). My favourite place to go fishing was a field that had four huge bomb craters in it from the time a German bomber dropped its load in an attempt to destroy an AA battery. We used to go playing at the concrete bunker where the AA gun emplacements could still be seen. During the summers I used to work for an old lady who grew tomatoes and during our tea break, she'd point to the the damage to the church where the Germans machine gunned people in the church yard.

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


bucket

To which wars do you refer? Which European wars have Americans fought?

The first world war? The second world war? Note the names bucket? Those were not 'European wars', they were global wars. America has never fought a 'European war', it has only participated in some of the same wars.

And if we are honest and brutally so, then America's contributions have always been slow, to their own advantage and present no obligation upon Europe other than to ensure such wars do not happen again.

Let us not ignore the truth. If Europe 'owes' America for its participation in the two world wars, then Europe also 'owed' the USSR.

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


Bikerdad

Its an interesting link but I think the conclusion is flawed.

Of course we are obsessed with America. We are dominated by America, and saturated by American culture. Every aspect of our lives carries some aspect of your nations influence, whether it be the Coca Cola bottle on the dining room table, the eternal sitcoms, or NBA game on our TV screens, or the latest global squabble with the Bush government.

One paragraph in particular made me chuckle :
(This reminds me of why I don't bother to read blogs)

This stereotype attributed to the Europeans by Herbjørnsrud and Bromark is in fact a global stereotype that is just as popular inside the USA as anywhere else. US culture is full of iconography that makes use of the fat American trailer trash and seldom with any fondness.
To argue that many Europeans regard Americans as overweight and insular is correct. To argue that this is a European trait alone, is disingenuous in the extreme.

And, as a side note, let me add that I find it amusing that such a critical view should come from Norway where the people are so insular as to be the only state in Northern Europe to refuse to join the EU for fear of losing their oil revenue's. In Norway the big bad bogeyman is not the USA, but the EU.

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


lederuvdapac

I'm not going to disagree with you (yet) but I'd like to know just how do you feel Europe 'needs' the USA?


I didn't say it was the sole reason for a lack of progress. I said the USA will not commit to any international initiative that it itself did not initiate. The ICC and Kyoto are dazzling examples of what happens when the USA is not the prime mover. The UN has become another such.


Actually the EU's GDP is greater than the USA's.

link

...but that really makes no difference. The Kyoto agreement would not change much in its current manifestation. Even if implemented it would hardly scratch the surface of the worlds pollution problems. It is only an attempt to get the worlds leading polluters to an agreement.

But, thank s to the USA, we (as a planet) can't even do that. America, it seems, is more inclined to ignore the consequences of its pollution as it is its wars... just as long as they don't affect the American electorate...


Because this planet is rapidly losing its bio diversity due to the problem caused by human pollution and over population and if we all don't change our ways then we face extinction when the eco system breaks down. There is more to all this than just simple 'climate change'.


It doesn't matter what your motivations are, or how noble you think they are. The bottom line is, your nation cannot cooperate with other countries on any significant level because you (as a nation) are not willing to compromise or make the needed sacrifices. Your nation has an imperial attitude that puts itself before all other considerations.

Your justification (the constitution) is merely a human institution and is thus subject to the will of the people. In other words, it could be adapted to the reality of the modern world if only you could get over your selves.


What does selling arms to the Chinese matter? (and just how is selling weapons to the Chinese any different from selling weapons... LOTS of weapons to the Egyptians?)

The problem is not in the details of who's experienced what, or why one country is doing one thing where as others disagree. The problem lies in the lack of cooperation that exists as a direct consequence of the policies of GW Bush.

It doesn't matter now whether or not the Bush trip to Europe to was a political success.
What matters is that GW Bush and his unwillingness to cooperate or compromise has pushed Europe so far away from the American position that nothing Bush receives in Europe now is ever going to bridge that gap.

When the American electorate put GW Bush back in power, they burned that bridge.

I'd have to say I think Moif has a very good point here. I, for one, as an American, feel that I can understand the consequences of war, but I also have to admit I don't get daily reminders of it. Take a look at the casualty lists during WWII...it is difficult to see where we, as civilians, can have a frame of reference. Those that fought in the war would have that reference...the rest of us would not. Most European countries suffered hundreds of thousands to millions of civilian casualties.. we did not. I hadn't thought of how that would affect the entire fabric of European society, but as Moif elequently states, it surely would, and did. I have a much better appreciation of the European point of view now. I think Genisblade also gave an excellent description of this earlier in this thread, which also helped to elucidate, for me, the European perspective.

.

It does make sense that those who have experienced the horrors of war first-hand would be the same ones most reluctant to engage in it again. Our soldiers and veterans might have perspective on this, but, as civilians, those of us who live in America simply do not. We have been blessed with not having to suffer a war in the last century on our home soil, and so cannot really claim to understand the consequences. I don't think this makes us naive...merely inexperienced. I am also not sure that this is what is causing us to take the actions we have taken. Rather, I would throw this out for our European friends to consider...while we feel blessed that we have not suffered such atrocities, on your scale, on our home soil, we also seek to keep that record intact. So, while your perspective might be different than ours, don't think we don't reflect on your experiences when making decisions. In fact, it might be those very experiences that lead us to take certain actions...the very actions your experiences would make you treat cautiously. It would be like putting out a fire in your home. One who had been extensively burned before would probably be very cautious about approaching the fire. One who had not, while still wary of the fire, might be more willing to take the actions necessary to put it out. The other side, of course, is that they might also then be more likely to get burned. It wouldn't be until after the fire were out that one would know whether the actions taken were proper or not. Our fire is still burning, but it does at least appear to be localized. I think any fireman would say that is a good thing, and demonstrates progress.

..and, not suprisingly, I would disagree.

I think English Horn hit upon the biggest problems with this perspective with one sentnce.

To which I must answer, absolutely false.

1. The "first-hand" expiriences of the horrors of war add very little to consideration of action. Any intelligent human being knows that war causes massive human suffereing. All that first-hand experience adds is emotionalism, which isn't constructive anyway.

2. There are relatiely few Europeans who have had first-hand experience of the effects of war. Old Bomb craters do not equate to first-hand expirience. When I was a (younger) kid I remember trips to Civil War battle grounds and forts. The old fort was of historical value and a great place to play freeze-tag, but it wasn't first hand expirience by a long shot.


Europe as a whole is simply a congregation of individuals. One could just as easily say that American society is shaped by war, the most brutal of these wars just happened to be internal.

Here is the biggest problem, the cureent difficulties cannot be laid only at the feet of Bush or any recent American administration.

There have been some pretty non-cooperative moves from bith sides of the Atlantic. Simply because Americans have chosen a foreign policy that Europeans tend to disagree with does not mean all cooperation should be considered dead on arrival.

Consider this: one of my favorite authors, Jules Verne, the father of SciFi, wrote dozens and dozens of books about various remote parts of the world. He never left France during his lifetime. While his books are well-researched and entertaining, you surely wouldn't use them as a reference. Surely David Livingston's writings about Africa are much more scientific (although not nearly as entertaining) than Verne's since he (Livingston) has actually been there.
It's one thing to know about something and totally different to experience it. Yes, old bomb craters and bullet-ridden walls do not equate to first-hand experience by itself. But in conjunction with History of Holocaust classes (my sister in law who attend a Gymnasium in Germany had this class), yearly visits to war memorials such as Auschwitz, big old cities such as Dortmund or Koeln which have less than a dozen buildings built before 1945 still standing, lost family members virtually in every family... all that together creates a national mindset, which is what we're talking about here. Yes, it's emotionalism - but many deeply held convicitions are emotion-based anyway. There's nothing wrong with that.

P.S. Correction: Jules Verne indeed travelled outside of France, but all his travels took place after his most famous works have been published. So I wasn't that far off.

Not really the same thing. The empirical knowledge of war is available to any nation, particularly one as wealthy as the US. There are many US soilders who have "been there" likely more than their conterparts in Europe if we are to consider those who are still alive.

At least you acknolwedge that most Europeans haven't "experienced it".

Emotionalism can be a very dangerous obstacle to policy making. It is one thing to have values. It is another to let irrational emotions drive what should be the rational process of foreign policy descision making.

I fear this is exactly what is happening in Europe.

Hi Hobbes.

I was so busy typing I forgot to include you in my reply!


I think what the majority of Europeans feel is that the USA is too quick to go to war. Whether or not they are actually justified in this perception is difficult for me to see. There is support for the US attack on Iraq, and perhaps more so than is apparent. The instinctive distrust (and thus dislike) of GW Bush that permeates Europe and the European media clouds the issue somewhat. I think there are a lot of people who would probably support the war if it were led by some one like Colin Powell GW Bush's attitude is probably the biggest problem right now. In America he may be regarded by many as a 'down to earth' type. But to a great many Europeans he is reminiscent of the cavalier leaders who once happily sent young men to their deaths at Verdan and the Somme whilst they sat safe and snug at GHQ. A smug smile of sincerity, or telling the Iraqi insurgents via the media to 'bring it on' only hammers that perception home.

As for the 'war' on terror. If you initiate major combat operations then it automatically becomes a war. Simply doing that though is not going to stop the terrorists. In order to do that by military means you might have to kill hundreds of thousands of Muslims which would then mean you'd have to kill millions more since the remainder would not likely sit idly by. It simply can't be done. Violence will always breed more violence.

Military power, in a democratic world, should only ever be used for defensive purposes, and no matter how you look at it, waging war in Iraq does not constitute a defensive war (regardless of what Dick Cheney* may claim)

Granted. you got me with that one.


As did Ghaddafi...


It depends on which angle your looking at the problem from. You could be correct, but some one looking from the other side could argue that the USA is itself using violent methods to achieve its own political agenda and forcing its (US) will upon the people of Iraq. (in fact I'm pretty sure that a good many people in the middle east share that perspective)

However, I'm not saying that either perspective is correct (though I'm inclined to agree with you) and I think this is how many in Europe regard Iraq. For Europeans Iraq is not a simple black and white issue of; we're the good guys and they're the bad guys. The problem being we don't really know who they are! Sure there are terrorists abound, but how many of them are domestic terrorists? how many are related to al qaeda? and more frighteningly; How many joined al qaeda as a result of Iraq being attacked?


I can't speak on behalf of the Germans and the French, but I suspect your not far wrong. Denmark's electorate refused to ratify the Maastricht treaty because the Danes refused to accept the notion of an EU military/ police force/ common coin.

However, I do think that if interpol was strengthened and given more authority and autonomy to conduct international investigations against suspected terrorists, we'd see better results than we do now.


I have to agree with you on this.


yeah...

...but which terrorists?


Yes... well... I don't disagree with you, but I would refer you back to my original point in this thread.

GW Bush can get the political leadership of Europe to go along with him on certain issues. He can do this just by virtue of being the president of the USA... but nothing he says or promises or debates will change the common perception of him and the political leadership of Europe, is bound to the political will of the people. If it were not, then we'd all have become citizens of the USE by now

Agreement, cooperation, even acceptance of GW Bush are all possible... but they will depend on his actions, not his words.

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


turnea

Any four year old can tell you that if you've been stung once, then you don't go playing with wasps a second time.

Experience is everything. A decision based on theory alone, unproven, is doomed to failure.


I never said it was. Read my post again. Its not the individual experiences that matter. We don't have a monopoly on that account. Its how the lessons were learned and shaped us into who we are today. Its how Europe has been formed through almost endless wars and brutality and how the consequences of being subjected to all that formed our social and political ideologies.

Now, you could argue that Europe is become gun shy, and I wouldn't fault that argument. But in my opinion, Europe is like the old reed that bends with the wind and survives. We may be slower to act now, but that is not a liability. The prudent mind thinks before it acts.





* as much as people here distrust/ despise Bush, there are some who defend him. I have yet to see any one ever defend Cheney though. Bush by himself is scary. Rumsfeld, Perle and Wolfowitz are all scary ...but Cheney is far far worse. How any one could have put him into power is beyond me. For me, and I suspect a great many Europeans, Dick Cheney is the physical embodiment of the word 'corruption'.

I keep running out of quote tabs


turnea

How? How was America shaped by war? How many battlefields/castles/mass grave sites can you count in your immediate neighbourhood? How many times have foreign troops invaded your country? How many times have the people risen up in revolution against the political leadership in order to install a new form of politics entirely? Which buildings in your town were used to torture people?


Yeah... your still missing the point turnea. Its not about 'empirical knowledge'. Its about the consequences of war. Its about how the people in Europe today are the descendents of the generation that lived, not just through the wars, but also their immediate aftermath. Its about how our political institutions were founded as a direct result of seeing friends, parents and siblings dragged off by the Gestapo and shot in the park.

How can you learn how that feels unless you've tried it? Its not just a lesson that one learns. Its something that effects every single aspect of the world in which you live... or not.

As I said earlier, any American Vietnam vet can tell you about how the Vietnam war was, but once those American soldiers returned to the USA, they left Vietnam and never saw the aftermath of what took place and which is still blowing the arms and legs off Vietnamese farmers and their children or mutilating unborn babies. Its that political aftermath, the fear, poverty, stress, call it what you will, that separates us.

American soldiers fighting in Vietnam/Iraq/Somalia/Europe are eternally outsiders. They go, fight and bear their scars back home. But the war stays behind them. It never goes away. It lives on in the bodies, hearts and souls of the people. The second world war is alive and well in my mothers mind. She was born after the war, but the consequences of it, the hunger and rationing of post war England, the political turmoil of the nation struggling to rebuild itself, the emotional scars and her fathers long silences, still lives in her, still forms her mind and how she see's the world.

Thus it is for all people who live in a war or in a nation torn apart by war. When the US troops leave Iraq, they will return to a nation that doesn't understand what they really went though.



To which irrational emotions do you refer?

I don't see anything irrational about a prudent reserve in the face of a US foreign policy that requires thousands and thousands of Iraqi's to die and for no further purpose than to put the oil wells of Iraq into US control.

Deny it if you want, but whilst Iraq is in the grip of near civil war status, Saddam Hussein still lives, the election results are being argued over by various armed factions, Iranian style theocracy looms behind the largest segment of the Iraqi population and the country is a mess... the oil wells have been pumping out oil for over a year now... operated by Texan companies like Kellog, Brown & Root and guarded by US soldiers.

Irrational? Emotional? if thats what keeps us from killing other people for our own profit, then what of it?


Don't fear for us turnea. Short of nuclear attack, there is nothing history hasn't already thrown at us. If we really were too irrational, or emotional, then we would have erupted into war against the European Muslims by now. Thanks to history, we've managed to contain that threat so far. With luck, maybe this time we can get through a period of difficulty without having recourse to killing a lot of innocent people.

If I were you, I'd be far more worried about what America is doing than what Europe isn't.

editted to add a missing word

I also am unconvinced much like turnea.

Claiming fishing trips to craters or stories told by old ladies equates to the horrors and consequences of war that Americans have experienced in WWI, WWII, Korean War, Vietnam is absurd. Tell me in the 1960s how many European nations lost hundreds of thousands of their young men at war? The Vietnam war and the wars I highlighted before do not take place in a vacuum...the sacrifices made do not end on the shores they were made on. Buildings can be replaced..we are speaking of the ultimate sacrifice of war..life. These are brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers and husbands and their loss..which is irreplaceable...was felt and was as much a consequence for Americans as it was for any other nationality.

I am getting a bit disturbed by the need or the desperation to prove otherwise. Suffering unfortunately is a human condition and most often a result from war ..if you wish to stand your country up as the embodiment and ultimate ideal of human suffering then go right ahead and have fun with it..I just want it known that I don't wish this title for either of my nations.

This argument really seems far removed from the reality and American psyche that I myself am aware of. This desire to portray Americans as too rash or unknowing of the darker side of war in an attempt to portray our current actions as irresponsible or uninformed couldn't be further from the truth.
Vietnam forever altered American views on war and has continually framed our public debates on military action and foreign policy. To claim the consequences of this war or any other war never effected Americans as a whole on how they approach the idea of war I believe shows a deep misunderstanding of America and it's culture.

You know just two years ago..I ..as in person... took witness to a very sad consequence of American foreign policy..it was shortly after the Iraq war had begun and troops were still being deployed and my daughters and I were leaving a playgroup we attended at the community center. I asked my eldest if she had fun and she replied..Yes but my friend Michael is very sad he was crying.. I asked why is Michael so sad? And my 5 yr old daughter informed me..Because his mommy had to go to war.

And yet here we sit having others tell us that Americans just have nooooo idea what the true sacrifices or war are..apparently they are material items..buildings, structures cities...not the very raw emotional and never ending losses of ones we love.


And what America's government wasn't somehow influenced by her own sufferings of war? The war of independence does not count either I am sure. Oh I know you guys have before negated these events as being too old but it is just that America has been practicing it's current form of government a lot longer than many of the Europeans and so naturally it's conception was longer ago. We just had our democracy going and "born from warfare" much earlier. I haven't quite understood how that negates this fact for you or anyone else or how that makes what our nation's ideals and ideas on governing were influenced by inadmissable.


The Americans were in Europe at war yes? They were fighting in WWI and WWII on the continent of Europe as allies to their European counterparts. I had thought that was one of the main thesis of your argument here..that the wars happened in Europe..to Europeans.
Also let us not forget Yugoslavia.


What is so brutal about factual historical events? Yes America had a very isolationalist view back then...and?
I also take no issue in acknowledging USSR's contributions, sacrifices and consequences in WWII..why do you do so for the US?


And yet you say this to a country with currently how many men and women serving abroad? We do have citizens living in this country who have had first hand experience with war and believe it or not but our citizens here in the US contribute to the nation's psyche as much as they do in any other nation.
You claim you come here and visit plenty well next time have a drive by the Arlington Cemetery..or take a walk down the Mall and visit the WWII, Vietnam or Korean memorials.


No I already explained my belief on what the distinct differences of views from some European nations compared to the US are on war and why. I will use the quote again because I think it is very befitting
“Militant Islamism is only a tiny force in Europe”, wrote the conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, “yet it is dangerous, because many societies on this continent have elevated their defencelessness into a virtue.”
We all have different virtues. Perhaps did you ever think to consider that Americans might be proud of their military might and the changes it has made around the world? Or that American society has a very warrior mentality to it and bravely going..or to fight the good fight..or don't tread on me..might in fact be an American virtue?

moif



Aha! Here is where we turn things around. The whole reason our troops go overseas and fight on distant battlegrounds...is so that those wars do NOT carry over into US soil.

I understand what you are talking about...the US hasnt had modern warfare on our soil...how could we possibly understand war? But you have to remember one thing, especially WW2. After we and the allies liberated Europe, we helped rebuild the entire continent. It was OUR money and OUR reasources that did it. I am not going to say it was because of our good nature because that was only part of it. Obviously we didnt want Europe to fall to Communism. So not only did we rebuild the continent...we protected it.

In the modern world...war will not leave political turmoil, or hunger...it will leave dead bodies from nuclear holocaust. That is what we are fighting to prevent. For years history scholars have begged the question of, what if we prevented hitler from gaining power in Nazi Germany...what if we did something? We continued to ask those questions until 3000 souls were suddenly taken from us by an unseen enemy. Now...it is the dictators that must be afraid...its the tyrants who must sleep with one eye open...its the terrorists who are on the run.

The US woke up on 9/11. Threats will NOT be allowed to develop and we will NOT appease our enemies. The way i see it, europe is repeating its own mistakes. Is it not in europe's interest to rid the world of the saddam husseins and osama bin ladens of the world? Is it not better to have two full democratic nations in Afghanistan and Iraq? How about killing all terrorists that wish to do harm to the free world?

It would seem to me that Europe knowing the full effects of war would make it even more likely to join us in our fight for freedom around the world. Allowing nations like iran and nkorea to acquire nuclear weapons and then allow them to build up their resources for an extended period of time until they finally decide they should attack is not working towards stabalization of the world. he world is stabalized when kim jong il and those ayatollahs are 6 feet deep with democratic roots growing above them.

You don't want nkorea, iran, or even terrorists to acquire nuclear weapons...but you want to do little about ENSURING that it doesnt happen. By a lack of action...you are allowing for the threat to manifest into something greater.



Sooo the purple fingers waving in the air and the dancing in the streets did nothing to affect you? No inkling into the belief that perhaps what was done in iraq was a GOOD thing? Perhaps saddam hussein in a jail cell is better than in his billion dollar palace? No...you just revert back to the ole' OIL OIL OIL argument. Your ideology teaches you that war is bad...no matter the justification and no matter the desired outcome. Yet suddenly, war has produced two democracies in places where you and other europeans said it was impossible! IMPOSSIBLE. If there is anything we learn from history it is that human nature and the will of people to be free is more powerful than any rational reasoning for what is "possible."

Bush has succeeded...and it kills many people to see it. He has done better than anyone could have possible imagined...even me. You parade the number of iraqi deaths around like it is some sort of banner to disprove what we are doing in iraq. However, i believe that if you truly cared for the iraqi people, that you would want them to be free and have the same fundamental human rights you have. Thousands have died? Its war! Thousands die every week in car accidents, obesity related deaths, exc... Maybe we should ensure that those who have died are not mourned or used as a political tool but rather remembered and honored for their courage and sacrifice.



That is what the British and the French said while Hitler was building panzers and bombs. That ...eventually all the bad will just go away. That is ideology...not reality. You hope that if you appease long enough and if you just let them do what they want, they wont bother you. But thats not facing facts. Iran doesnt want nukes to protect itself. Nkorea doesnt want nukes to protect itself. They want them because it gives them a hand in the big game. If Nkorea is allowed to amass stockpiles of nuclear weapons and sees skorea and japan just sitting there...they would not hesitate to use them and take what they want.

Bottom Line: If we let threats develop, then they grow beyond our control. We let Al Queda go unchallenged for two decades and then they hit us with a sledgehammer. It wont happen again. Maybe many europeans think it should. We should just wait until innocent life is taken until we act. But we just dont see it that way.

Thanks for proving my point. That's exactly the kind of attitude I was talking about. "Thousands die? Big deal!". They didn't just "die for freedom"; we killed them. When people die for freedom, they make this choice conciously. For example, if you, like fierce protector and promoter of Democracy and Freedom, would go to the nearest Army recruitment center tomorrow, in a few short months end up in Iraq and get killed there - then people can say that you died for Freedom, because this was the choice that you made. (Some people may even say "Soldier died? It's a war!"... but I won't be one of them).
However, thousands of people that have been killed by us, did not make this choice. We imposed our will and our thirst for Democracy on an entire nation. Ask this girl, whose parents have been killed by American troops at checkpoint, whether she would prefer to have Saddam at his "billion dollar palace" but her parents safe and sound, or Saddam in jail and her parents shot in a freak accident. You just don't get it - when given a choice between living under a totalitarian regime and being shot dead in the name of Freedom, overwhelming majority would chose to live. And if somebody's heroic enough to chose the latter, it should be their own choice.
Those who've been killed by us, didn't have that choice. We made it for them.

We could play these games all night. I am saddened at the loss of life. But i am not going to make the mistake as to believe that they died in vain. I bet that little girl WOULD rather have her parents still alive. However, there are stories of TORTURE that probably send the same emotional effect that you are trying to put on political display for all of us.



Parading a little girl as if she was a front for your cause does nothing. There are plenty of people out there who are happy that this murderer is gone and that HOPE, HOPE is replaced him. i am saddened by the little girl's case but put in that situation...anyone would want their parents and under a totalitarian regime then death. But the question you fail to bring up...is what would the parents of that girl of rathered for her? Freedom or tyranny?

Choice? You want to talk about choice? Its easy for you or for me to talk about choice because we are allowed to make it. Its not as easy when you are under an iron fist. How about the choice of 8 million iraqis to ignore the threats of terrorists and thugs and take part in a free and democratic election?

I believe it is you who do not get it. War while tragic and horrible...can bring about good. And i believe it has. I believe a free Iraq and a free Afghanistan is better than what you would have if you had it your way.

I probably mentioned it before quite a few times - I lived "under an iron fist". In "Evil Empire" itself no less, the Ground Zero of Tyranny and Despotism, if we're to believe Pres. Reagan. I had a fairly happy childhood and, while indeed lacking many freedoms and material goods that I enjoy now, my family had a fairly "normal" life. Maybe that's because we didn't bother meddling with political processes that we going on in the country. We didn't touch communists, communists didn't touch us. The "Evil Empire" was scary enough that nobody came to "liberate" our country - and eventually we liberated ourselves. I can only imagine all the slogans and pathos about spreading Democracy and Freedom for opressed Russian people that would be going on while bombs would fall on our heads if USSR was just a bit less scary...
I can only assume that life was like that for an average Iraqi kid as well... until we showed up.

We better not start on the topic of "democratic election" in which just 5 percent of Sunny population participated

But, English...that's not the choice. The choice would be between living under the totalitarian regime and being shot dead, tortured, and in constant fear, or having the occasional freak accident when there was hope for freedom. Your analogy completely misrepresents what the situation was there prior to our arrival. The scale of death was much higher before than it is now...and all with no hope of imp-rovement. Given THAT choice, most would, and do, support the action that was taken.

I'll give my quick thoughts on the questions posed here for debate first, and then I'd like to expand a little bit on some of the comments made here by various people concerning the attitudes Americans have towards war. This from an American who has lived it, breathed it and experienced it up close and personal. First the questions for debate......

Will this trip improve US/Europe relations, or is it all just window-dressing?

Trips like this are more about personal relationships between leaders I think. Along those lines, I think anytime President Bush gets together with other leaders, those personal relationships are strengthened. Even Bush's harshest critics who have met him admit that he's a difficult person to dislike on a personal basis. This may indeed be considered "window dressing", but then again I really question the concept that US/Europe relations are in terribly bad shape anyway. Certainly there have been public disagreements over specific policies, but when it comes to the actual cooperation between the US and Europe, things remain pretty much the same if not better than they have been in the past. I think all parties concerned understand that we need each other's help.


If the EU Constitution passes (and Spain has already voted for it), how will that affect relations with the US?

I don't know enough about what the EU really means to make a judgement on that. I doubt that it will really mean a whole lot to Us-Euro relations. The same nations are still involved and the same issues will confront each relationship that have always been in play. I see the EU is more of an effect to issues between nations within the EU than it is between the EU and the US.

Now, on to the points made here about war and Americans' attitudes towards it.....

Moif has offered the perspective that Europe has been more effected by war than the US in recent history because it happened there. In this, he is absolutely correct. Along this line of reasoning, he then tells us that Europeans are more reluctant to go to war than Americans because they understand war better than we do. This perspective may very well indeed make sense on the surface, but I would add that there is a different perspective and conclusion that can also be supported by history.

I would ask people to consider that perhaps the reason that Europe has had so many wars on their soil in the past century is that they have failed to recognize until it was too late that sometimes war is inevitable. They have sought diplomatic resolutions to situations that diplomacy simply won't solve in the long term. They appease tyrants and hope they will be satiisified only to find out that the tyrant wants more. They bury their head in the sand and hope that as long as it isn't happening to them and their family, everything will turn out ok. But, it does eventually and as has been pointed out, Europe pays the price for it. A price paid for waiting too long perhaps? It is something to consider.

Trust me, there are few things worse than war and anyone who has ever experienced it will tell you that. There is nothing good about seeing children killed and maimed, villiages and towns destroyed and your friends killed. Nothing good about that at all. It haunts a person for their entire life. This is something I know. However, people will notice that I used the qualifier "few" in my lead sentence to this paragraph and that is because there is something even worse, something that the Europeans know first hand, and something that many Americans understand second hand. What is worse is to have it happen in your own neighborhood. That is why Americans take arms, leave their families and go off to foreign lands to fight. They do this because they don't want to have to fight at home. If I'm giong to fight to defend a school in some town from destruction by the enemy, I'd prefer to do it in the jungles of Vietnam or the city of Baghdad or Kabul instead of my daughter's school in Glendale, California. I would prefer it this way because if I fail in that defense and I die, it won't condemn my daughter to the same fate. Some may consider this selfish and that's perhaps one valid view of it. I consider it part of being a father. To many of you who perhaps don't understand why so many of us went to Vietnam to fight, I offer you this as a reason. We went there to fight so we wouldn't have to fight here. Maybe we were wrong and it wouldn't have happened here and I don't want to divert this thread into a nam thread, but I would ask people to consider that perhaps we were right in fighting there and recognize that we didn't indeed have to fight here. That is a fact of history and perhaps those 58,000 plus names on The Wall are there for a reason.

Well, America was attacked on 9/11, our own people on our own soil and we got a taste of what Europe has endured over the past century. Our reaction has been the same it has been in that past century - we took the fight to them. Tonight the fine young men and women in our military are are fighting evil in the streets of Mosul and Kabul. And, they are fighting it there so they don't have to fight it in the streets of New York or Madison, Wisconsin.

I want to make myself clear that I don't blame the soldiers for the accident with a girl. In that situation - who knows? - probably I would do the same thing, knowing about all the suicide bombers and seeing a car failing to stop and going towards me. I'ts not soldiers' fault - it's the fault of people who put soldiers in the position to make those accidents happen.
Frankly I don't know what the scale of death was before our invasion. I know that many kurds were slaughtered in the 1990s after their rebellion, and this number skews the averages a great deal. I think that among kurds the excitment about our arrival is much higher than among the rest of country's residents.



I see your point, and personally I supported the war in Afganistan because that, in my opinion, what it was - taking the fight to the enemy. The problem that I and many others see with Iraqi war is that we took the pretext of 9/11 and used it to attack a country which had very little to do with 9/11. Don't want to hijack this thread to a different direction, and it has been discussed to death anyway - I think we'll just have to respectfully disagree on that one.

bucket

You can keep on trying to twist my words as much as you like bucket, but I never made the claim that fishing trips to craters, or stories told by old ladies, equates to the horrors and consequences of war.

Those are my personal experiences which I offered as a way of explaning how I live/d in a place that has seen war. Your inability to accept the difference does your arguments a heavy diservice. You should get over your hostility and try to relate to what I have actually written rather than constantly putting words into my mouth.

...and by the way, the US death toll for the Vietnam war never exceeded 'hundreds of thousands'. I believe it was something closer to 65,000. And none of those men died in combat in the USA. They died in Vietnam.


Yes. For those individuals, the consequences of the war continued long after the experience. But for the people back in America during the Vietnam war, living in the safety of their homes, never being bombed, shot at or dragged off for execution by the secret police, the consequences of the war were distant, remote and abstract. The people, as a nation, were never subjected to the consequences of the war. American politics may have been influenced by the war, but it was not formed as a consequence of domestic suffering regardless of how many combat veterans returned with horror stories or personal trauma.


Please show me where I have made the claim that my country is the 'embodiment and ultimate ideal of human suffering'.
Once again I must ask you to refrain from putting words into my mouth.


This argument only works if you believe that America is not making the exact same mistakes now as it made in the Vietnam war.


Indeed, which is why I never any such claim!


No one has said 'Americans just have no idea what the true sacrifices of war are'.
Please feel free to quote where any one said that!

If you bothered to read and respond to what was actually written rather than twisting words to fit your own answers, then you'd actually have a point worth making. As it is, no one is saying that young Michael will not understand the consequences of war.

What is being said is that Europe has a greater understanding of the consequences of warfare because Europe is largely a product of having hosted wars on its own terrirtory. That European society (not European individuals) is the end product of all these wars. That our way of life has been wittled down to where we are today.

At no point has any one said Americans have 'no understanding of war'. That you continue to assert this long after the distinction has already been made, implies a hostility that has no basis in this debate.

And, I find it curious that a person who has lived in Switzerland can remain indifferent, or ignorant as to the Swiss philosophy of neutrality which was born as a direct result of centuries of European warfare. Switzerland is the perfect example of a society founded as a direct consequence of warfare.


The war of independence (and the civil war) do count for how the USA is today... that is to say that the experiences of those wars helped to form the society which survived them.

However, the prolonged period of domestic peace and economic growth which succeeded the American civil war have long since erased the social implications of those wars and replaced them with a form of indifference to the consequences of war. Replacing the need for a 'well armed militia' with a 'freedom' to own guns.

Whilst Europe was suffering from the political cataclysm of the first world war and seeing the rise of socialism in the working classes, America was a nation sleepy with peace. The difference in how Europe and America evolved is easy to see for any one. In Europe, where the war was felt far more keenly, socialism took root and grew into its myriad forms (I'm refering mostly to western Europe here, but much of what I'm saying can be applied to eastern Europe as well).
In America, where the only experience of the first world war was removed from the general population, socialism never gained ground. The working classes (to this day) never felt the need to rise up against the social order which unleashed the hell of war upon the common people. The closest America ever came to the bitter struggle of the Europeans was the poverty of the depression and prohibition whose consequences had their own effects on American society.

The second world war, started in Europe as a direct consequence of the first world war (the Japanese had their own motivations) and it is safe to say that if the first world war had never left Germany so economically crippled, then the second world war would like as not, never have taken place... or in other words, the second world war started in Europe, because that is where the repercussions of the first world war were felt.

The Europeans, living in the aftermath of the first world war and its fininacial and political consequences repeated their previous mistakes and the second world war began.

Since that period of political instability cost the European nations so much, and left them with so little, thus they adapted and changed and became the Europe of today inorder to ensure that such death and destruction should never happen again.


I've already made this point very clearly. The Americans participated in the world wars. That such wars began in Europe does not make them European wars. Africa, America and Asia are not Europe.

As for Yugoslavia... what of it? American aircraft bombed targets to stop the war but at no point was America engaged in a war. Perhaps you don't appreciate the difference? If not then this explains why you don't agree with me, but it makes no difference to the truth. America has never fought a European war since the war of 1812 when America sided with the French tyrant Napoleon against the British in order to annex Canada.


I don't and never have, despite what you obviously believe.


editted to change a wrong word, thus marked in blue

lederuvdapac

Apparently you don't understand what I was saying since I never made that statement.

Maybe my English is failing me, but I seem to perceive an unwillingness to accept the argument I have made in order to promote the idea that I am saying America has no understanding of war. That is not what I am saying, nor even what I meant.

I am saying that America, the nation (not American individuals) has never had to suffer the consequences of war and that Europe, has.


Well, despite the fact that this is a very simplistic argument that ignores the fact that while it may have been US money that helped rebuild Europe after the second world war, it was in fact European labour and European democracy that actually did the rebuilding, I agree that the USA, under the authority of NATO helped protect Europe against the USSR. (I say helped, because Europe did not sit idly by during the cold war).

That so many Americans today wish to take all the credit for the victory over the Nazi's and the Communists only serves to illustrate my argument since it implies just how different we (US/EU) see such things. The Nazi's and the Soviets were not defeated by the USA. They were defeated by many different inter-related causes.
We see this more clearly in Europe because after the war, and during the cold war we were still living with the consequences. The rationing, the politics, the memorials and school outings. All those little things that happened in Europe as a result of the war and the during the cold war, and which never happened in America.

And, foremost of all these post war consequences, and most germane to the differences in perception between the uSA and Europe, is the reality of political terrorism.

Terrorism in Europe did not suddenly become real on the 11th of September, in 2001. Terrorism, political or otherwise has been a constant reality in Europe... for ever. As far back as you care to go, back beyond the Brighton bombing of the Thatcher government (when was the last time a US government was bombed?) back beyond the Night of Shattered Glass (ever had one of those in the US?) Back beyond Catherine de Medici and the mass slaughter of the Huegenots (sp?) (how many religious pogroms has the USA had?) back as far as you care to go, this continent has been subjected to war, terrorism, murder and tyranny.

We know what war leads to. We know that terrorism and death and political instability and more war is the result. We know because we've been there. We've been where the people of Iraq are now and we know that it won't work unless those people themselves really want democracy.

Its not enough to just vote. They have to vote for the right people. Putting an Iranian backed Shia theocracy into power isn't going to bring freedom to Iraq.

An awful lot of people are going to be killed in Iraq as a consequence of the invasion. Maybe it will eventually lead to freedom, maybe it won't. I honestly can't say what is going to happen.

What I do know is that GW Bush made a gamble and if he wins then he will be hailed a successful political leader who changed the face of the world.

But if he fails, then it will be the people of Iraq who pay the price and where as we will (eventually) bring Saddam Hussein to account for the killing he is responsible for, no one will ever bring GW Bush to account for the deaths he has incurred.


War is no different now than it was 2,000 years ago.

When the Romans finally defeated Carthage, their morality gave them far more power than any nuclear weapon. They sacked the city, killed and enslaved the entire population, tore down every single building, then ploughed and salted the ground that nothing would ever grow there again.


lederuvdapac: The US woke up on 9/11

moif Europe never slept.


You are right. These are in Europe's interests. That does not mean to say that we should go to war to achieve them for by war we can not bring freedom to the world, only more war. It was war and the imposition of Europe's will that led to the mess the world is in today.


Indeed, and the only reason why you can think that is because you are the product of a society that has never had to suffer the consequences of war.


Ever heard of the Atoms for peace program? Or how about the Rumsfeld/ABB connection?

Its too bad then that the USA gave those countries its nuclear capability before it 'woke up'.


Well, thats the problem with Pandora's box. Once its opened, then there is nothing you can do to prevent the chaos from spilling out.

Even if the USA does succeed in Iraq and Afghanistan, how is that going to stop Iran or North Korea from going nuclear?

War can't solve this problem. Regardless of how alluring the Bush doctrine may seem, this is not a simple case of sending in the US Marines to 'spank the baddies' and stop the bad guys. Nuclear proliferation is a fact of life that we have to deal with. Its no good pretending we can just kill all the bad guys, or pointing the finger at Europe when reality bites. What we need now is cool heads and prudence not flag waving, gun toting, jar heads driving through other people's countries and liberating them by force of arms.


That is correct. My ideology teaches me that war is bad and no good can come of war.

There is only one instance of a war producing a lasting peace and that is the second world war. If we go to war now, then we have broken that peace. This is what conservative America either doesn't understand, or refuses to acknowledge.

The idea that motivation some how justifies killing is the exact same slippery pole that led straight into the ovens.


Incorrect. The majority of European opinion did not say it was impossible to create democracy in Iraq, they said it was wrong to try to do so because it was unlikely to succeed.

And GW Bush has not succeeded in creating democracy in either Afghanistan or Iraq yet. One election doesn't make a democracy and neither does it create stability. It takes long term (Marshall plan style) planning and help and it takes a lot of hard work and a domestic will to be democratic.

If Iraq or Afghanistan are democracy's in 10 years time, then GW Bush will have succeeded. Claiming success now is just ignoring reality

Whether or not I care for the people in Iraq is besides the point. I do, but only in an abstract way. I'm not going to sacrifice my principles to bring my idea of freedom to a people who've never asked, or prompted me to do so and whose ideology I do not understand.


I think that what most Europeans think is that terrorism should be fought by every means possible that doesn't actually exceed the violence of terrorism.

That it is fundamentally wrong to wage a war that will kill many tens of thousands (or more) on the justification of an act of terrorism that killed far less.

I also believe however that the majority of Europeans understand that the USA will continue to do as it see's fit, and there fore so should we. I've never heard any one say we ought to act to prevent the USA from its course of action. Only that we should refuse to participate.

editted to remove a naughty word

Aquilla

I've missed you...

Its a nice argument, but its flawed.

The idea that Europeans fought two thousand years of war because we were too diplomatic is a bit ridiculous, if I may be so bold as to say so.


Which tyrants Aquilla?
Pinochet?
Ghaddafi?
Musharref?

I am sure there have been a multitude of examples where by Europe is guilty of appeasing tyranny, but this is not due to our attitudes towards war but rather the realpolitik of our leaders who (like the in the USA) do these nefarious deals with tyrants in secret.

Europe has not 'buried its head in the sand'. When the WTC was attacked, it came as no surprise to us. Shock and horror at the magnitude of the backlash, yes, but not surprise. We may be jaded and slow to react at times, but we are not so stupid with lethargy that we don't recognize the hypocrisy in America's sudden eagerness to do battle with terrorism, or the ease with which American anger towards terrorism has been diverted towards policies which seek to strengthen America rather than weaken the terrorists.


Now this is an excellent paragraph, and I'm glad to see that you at least understood my point Aquilla though of course you have the advantage of having known me for a long time now.

There is also a lot to be said for the idea of fighting one's wars at a distance in order to protect one's nation. However I would point out that this is only possible when one nation is concerned (bar civil war) Europe, with its myriad small nations bloated beyond their means by imperialism, never had the luxury of only fighting wars abroad. Like most of the rest of the worlds continents, Europe has always been subdivided into too many nations with too many different idea's to not get dragged into hundreds of petty (and not so petty) wars.

The true reason why Europe was the way it was, and thus, is the way it is, is because Europe has never had any political consensus. Not even the Romans could contain all Europe into its idea of pax romana.

The EU seeks to end Europe's division and compete with the USA. For many Europeans the understanding of the last six decades is that America 'won' the twentieth century because Europe was divided and the Soviet Union was just too corrupt* to survive