Ummm, Rene, is there a consistent idea anywhere in that rant?

I can’t even tell for certain if you’re pro-Iraq war or against it… or if you’ve changed your position in the middle, now that it’s pretty much been won (if Obama gets elected, it could still collapse, of course).

It sorta sounds like you buy the whole liberal line of BS on the war, but you manage to confuse and meld so much together without actually saying anything one would expect you to be vying for Obama’s speechwriter.

Just curious.

Actually, I believe this was a mistranslation. What he actually meant to say was, “I, too, am a doughnut”.

When asked in 2006 to choose between aligning the UK more closely to America or to the European Union (not Europe, but the EU–it was a clear choice), British respondents in a poll voted–surprisingly–the EU…by 14& to 45%.

Ringing endorsement for the EU? Hardly. Damning indictment on the special relationship? Very likely.

Always interesting to see people stumble on important facts. Where to begin?

Politically speaking, no Europe or Europeans? Well, the European Union has had legal personality for some time, actually. The TEU pretty much did that, otherwise known as Maastricht. And said treaty, along with the Treaty of Amsterdam, codified the concept of EU citizenship…which means, yes, there is some vague notion of a ‘European’ out there.

Since when is Obama Reagan’s heir? I don’t have much appetite for Obama, but surely his speechifying was more JFK than Reagan. You make the point that Reagan had Gorbachev to taunt…Obama has who, Osama bin Laden? Not quite the same, really. And in his cuddly-warm all-inclusive humanity speech, he was echoing JFK’s ‘we all breathe the same air’ much more than Reagan’s ‘tear down this wall!’ (But of course, righties in the UK and US are in the business of deriving all original thought–and all political cues–to their forefathers, Reagan and Thatcher…then again, to be fair, these two were the most incestuous UK-US leaders since FDR-Winnie…so it shouldn’t be much of a surprise…though I’m sure Abe Lincoln and Pamy would have had a fit at the sight of British and Americans leaders loving it up so obscenely.)

The trans-Atlantic rift on CERTAIN aspects of the War on Terror surely does exist, and has existed. The wider war against extremism is certainly a unifying principle for the West, generally…how to fight it is the point of contention. Originally making Iraq the centre of that fight was the ridiculous part, and it was rejected by the vast majority of the PEOPLE of the world (including the majority in many of the belligerents) at the time…and the ORIGINAL premise has been rejected by an even larger majority now…especially in Europe (yes, oh my, even in the UK!), but also in the US.

As for causes one can do nothing about…I find this argument most amusing. Quite paradoxical, in fact, when conservatives in the States say we’re delusional in expecting results in Darfur and Zimbabwe–and then turn around and tout the might of th (that rather large nation of 80+ million folk) is all the rage.

The Butcher of Baghdad was powerful and a threat to global peace, and yet he was expected to put up nothing remotely resembling a fight. That was the specious logic in 2003. Helen’s laziness on Darfur, Zimbabwe, global warming and nuclear disarmament is yet another fine example of that great line of reasoning…

Some of the above goes less for the former Warsaw pact members, and Britain (England), never really “European” of course, will be the first to fully reject the “European way”. I think when someone calls himself “European” it is mostly from the West-European (old Europe) founding members of the EU. I think these self-styled “Europeans” also feel “Eastern Europe” isn’t truly a part of Europe.

“European nationalism” is absent except in the business elites and politicians and bureaucrat circles for obvious reasons. Both the populist left and right on the ground despise Europe, either for being too capitalistic/pro-business or for being too big government/elitist.

Nationalism and a looser framework that cherry-picks as different nations see fit seems a much better and more long-term stable way of dealing with upcoming problems. Perhaps under threat of a reconsolidated Russia (again..) and a Middle East that is a bit too close for comfort military spending will go up enough to create an effective combined military unit, but here also language and culture barriers and diverging attitudes and interests probably prohibit that from happening.

A pullout of all US troops except at strategically important areas seems a good idea regardless.

Shannon,

I hadn’t quite realized that Americans fought and died for “Europe”. The British fought and died for Britain first and general ideas of liberty second. That was true for many Europeans of different countries as well. Can’t quite imagine the Americans to have been different.

America had been attacked by Japan and war had been declared on it by Germany. Good enough reasons for fighting.

Though, to be fair, there was a great deal of support, political and financial from certain parts of the American government for the whole European integration project back in the fifties and sixties. Even in the seventies the “yes” campaign in Britain had some (not much) financial support from the CIA and the State Department who saw the EEC, as it was then, as a possible bulwark against the Soviet Union. Just goes to show that even then the CIA got it wrong. But that is a separate issue.

The United States is the only country in the world with the military assets needed to affect real, honest-to-goodness change in places like Darfur and Zimbabwe.

It would be more realistic to say that the German crowd liked causes where only the US would have to pay the bill, both in dollars spent and lives lost, making it happen.

James

Looks like they jumped the shark with Ireland.

How many of the European countries that committed troops to Iraq had majorities that supported the deployments? How many are still in Iraq?

But I agree that collaboration on terrorism remains quite good. In fact, there was almost no spillover from opposition to Iraq to terrorism cooperation (see Germany and France, as examples).

But “there is not is a political and social entity called “Europe”?

Depends on what you mean. I challenge anyone, however, to try to understand contemporary international political economy, particularly with respect to regulator regimes, without reference to Europe as an entity. Or to make sense of the massive restructuring of the domestic regimes that once lay behind the Iron Curtain without reference to the European Union as an actor.

Well, except Americans, of course.

No one in “Europe” itself seems willing to assume the moral burden of the grim acts needed to make a concept like “Europe” into a reality. Once “Germany” was just a theoretical land comprised of all the people who spoke the german language. It took Bismark, conquest, and war against a non-german speaking foe to create something that people would fight and die for.

Europe is yesterday in so many ways. The future of the US, whether economically, culturally, or militarily will be looking south and to the far east. Once the oil issue is resolved over the next few decades, even the mideast will be irrelevant, except for the ongoing terrorist threat from islamic loons of one stripe or another.

Obama’s another Carter by way of the cesspool of Chicago/Illinois politics and corruption. Either the voters will catch on before the election and reject him, or they’ll have to endure 4 years of incoherent, politically correct ineptness untill they get another chance. We’ll see.