A question to Americans : How do you think Europeans should change ?

Many Americans view the French as rude, stuck-up, spitting, dirty, anti-American, hypocritical in world affairs, etc.

*mild surprise* But it's true!

As for the real issue - I think a lot of Americans over-value their contribution to Europe, whereas a lot of Europeans under-value it. Oh well. We shouldn't let that affect our international relations.

- Scarlet.

 

My question to the Europeans, and to other nations, would be--what exactly do you expect us to do?

Did you ever stop to think that there might be 2 factions in this? One that wants America to back off and one that wants them involved?

 

I think a lot of Americans over-value their contribution to Europe, whereas a lot of Europeans under-value it.

I think you hit it right on, there.

Anyways...now, when we talk about America and Europe in world affairs, that's a different issue. First of all, many Americans, especially post-9/11, don't give a hoot what Europe thinks when it comes to our actions against foreign threats. I'd say that this is probably a bad thing, but almost every American feels, now, that it is better to do what we collectively feel is right, rather than what the U.N. does. And on the whole, I'd have to agree with that. I think there are a lot of problems with the U.N. which, although perhaps overexaggerated at times by Americans, are ignored altogether by Europeans. The growing concerns of anti-Semitism and bureacuracy seem to be ignored by foreign nations who yearn for more control over international affairs. I'm not saying that that completely invalidates the U.N.'s overall opinion on international matters, but it does make many Americans wonder whether or not they truly want what is best for the world.

Did you ever stop to think that there might be 2 factions in this? One that wants America to back off and one that wants them involved?

Well, based on what our media tells us, it seems as if Europe always wants us to back off. Would you care to elaborate?

 

Unless he thinks Iraq is evil because they are not cooperating with the UN's weapons demands and might have plans to attack us.

Theres supposed to be humore in there. Iraq ends in q and isnt followed by a u. It pokes fun at the Emperor, oh forget it.

 

TheScarlettBanner: Good points, especially about moderation in how/when we interfere in world affairs, and about the fact that we also have to obey U.N. laws if we expect other countries to.

My only argument there is that I would not expect my President to wait around for the U.N. to "discuss the situation in a committee" before taking action if there were evidence that our security as a nation were threatened.

As far as the stereotypes about the French: it's sad that Americans have them, but it's true, and I can give one reason why: This is one of the things I hate about my home country. Too many of our citizens travel abroad without bothering to learn the language and the customs of the countries they're travelling in. They go to a country like France and expect everyone there to speak English (I've even heard of some moron tourists expecting foreign merchants to accept American dollars!); they get shunned; immediately the opinion is formed that the French are "rude." I spent a month in France; I had no problems with anyone being less than friendly to me. (BTW, TheScarlettBanner, everyone thought I was a Brit until I corrected them. They were still just as friendly after they found out I was American, though.) However, there are factions of people here who are highly less-than-tolerant of people who enter our country not knowing English.

 

I think Europeans should mind more of their own bees-wax.

My biggest problem is the fact that they don't take care of their own situations. They should have stepped in much sooner in Kosovo and Bosnia. That thing about the French is right on, I still don't get what they were objecting to when the US wanted a tough resolution on Iraq, other than they just don't want us to take him out because he is lining their own pockets.

If they love Clinton so much why don't they marry him? We elect our own president, and the fact that Bush is fighting for American interests is a very good thing IMO. Bush is very popular here, and that is what is important. And BTW, Bush had done far more to invigorate the international process than what Clinton did.

 

As far as the stereotypes about the French: it's sad that Americans have them, but it's true, and I can give one reason why: This is one of the things I hate about my home country. Too many of our citizens travel abroad without bothering to learn the language and the customs of the countries they're travelling in. They go to a country like France and expect everyone there to speak English (I've even heard of some moron tourists expecting foreign merchants to accept American dollars!); they get shunned; immediately the opinion is formed that the French are "rude." I spent a month in France; I had no problems with anyone being less than friendly to me.

You don't seem to understand, anakin_girl.

If our citizens feel uncomfortable in a foreign country bcause they don't know the language and people are rude to them, we can blow them up. If they feel uncomfortable in our country, what are they gonna do?

Kidding.

 

And a question for Coolguy, or anyone else who cares to answer it, regarding the general European dislike of Bush due to his policy of looking out for American interests:

Should Jacques Chirac, for example, be expected to look after German, Spanish, Italian, Romanian, and Hungarian interests, or should he just be expected to look after French interests? IMHO, and I could be wrong, I believe that the French, by electing him, expect him to look after their interests, not theirs and other countries'. And I'm just using the French as an example--I could have just as easily used Spain or Italy.

P.S. Obi-Zahn: regarding your sig, specifically the "underfinanced and outnumbered" part--you should have seen the campaign for the House seat in District 9 in North Carolina. Sue Myrick, the winner, a Republican, spent approximately ten times more on her campaign than her opponent did. He was trying to campaign the old-fashioned way, but she refused to debate him--I think she was afraid she'd lose, myself.

 

I know that the under-financed part isn't true, but it sounds better.

Anakin stinks.

I want to find out what it means to "go Dark Side on your ass". . .

//whimpers

Let's stop hijacking the thread; shall we?

 

"Let's stop hijacking the thread; shall we? "

Fine--for one, I was kidding around with you--that's what means--and two, I was trying to get you to back up what you were saying.

 

My only argument there is that I would not expect my President to wait around for the U.N. to "discuss the situation in a committee" before taking action if there were evidence that our security as a nation were threatened.

Of course not. I agree entirely. I even think there's a clause in some UN charter or other (correct me if I'm wrong, Ender_Sai, Ye of Much Un Knowledge), that allows member states to act without UN notification if it believes itself to be in imminent threat or danger.

I think Europeans should mind more of their own bees-wax.

Well, this is immature.

My biggest problem is the fact that they don't take care of their own situations.

I think we do, generally. We just aren't quite as... immediate, or gung-ho, as Americans are, or expect us to be.

I still don't get what they were objecting to when the US wanted a tough resolution on Iraq, other than they just don't want us to take him out because he is lining their own pockets.

I think their main objection was the fact that most of its citizens didn't support the war, and because it didn't enjoy the idea of being manouevered into it, by threat of action irregardless of its consent.

If they love Clinton so much why don't they marry him?

Yay for more maturity.

We elect our own president, and the fact that Bush is fighting for American interests is a very good thing IMO.

Eh, not all Americans support the Iraq war. In fact, a recent anti-war rally in Florence attracted a significant number of Americans. A couple of my girlfriend's friends flew out, just for the occasion (under the pretense of visiting Florence in a tourist sense ).

Bush is very popular here, and that is what is important.

Well, I dunno know whether or not Bush's popularity in America is more important than the wishes of the rest of the world.

And BTW, Bush had done far more to invigorate the international process than what Clinton did.

Well, warmongering is bound to. Clinton never had to deal with anything like Sept. 11, or Iraq. He did project an image of a good statesman, though, and a lot of Europeans feel that he really did America proud abroad.

- Scarlet.

 

I'd appreciate it if some of the other points I touched on would be responded to. Other than the French stereotypes, that is.

 

I'd say that this is probably a bad thing, but almost every American feels, now, that it is better to do what we collectively feel is right, rather than what the U.N. does.

Perhaps you interpret listening to the rest of the world as listening to the UN. We interpret listening the UN as listening to the rest of the world. You might see bypassing the UN as merely skipping restrictive international laws; a lot of Europeans see it as skipping international opinion entirely, and doing whatever America feels is right for America. I understand where the conflict comes from, and it isn't a pretty one.

And on the whole, I'd have to agree with that. I think there are a lot of problems with the U.N. which, although perhaps overexaggerated at times by Americans, are ignored altogether by Europeans.

That's probably entirely true. Wouldn't the best solution be for Europeans to acknowledge the non-infallibility of the UN, and for the US to make some kind of promise to follow what it says, barring the need for immediate action?

The growing concerns of anti-Semitism and bureacuracy seem to be ignored by foreign nations who yearn for more control over international affairs.

We under stand the issue of anti-Semitism. However, we also want to look at the causes of it, particularly where the Palestinian cause is present. A lot more Europeans feel pro-Palestinian than Americans do, as opposed to pro-Israel. It isn't the same as ignoring it - we just see the issue differently.

I'm not saying that that completely invalidates the U.N.'s overall opinion on international matters, but it does make many Americans wonder whether or not they truly want what is best for the world.

"The human animal cannot be trusted for anything good except en masse. The combined thought and action of the whole people of any race, creed or nationality, will always point in the right direction." -- Harry S. Truman.

A lot of people here think that the UN represents, through its idea of member states, the combined thought and action of the people it represents. I don't see how that's wrong. America can disagree with the UN all it likes, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong. Nor does it make it irrelevant, if it decided not to take the American point of view. The UN probably does want whats best for the world.

The point is that Europeans need to stop believing in the infallability of the UN, and the US needs to start believing in its occasional correctness.

- Scarlet.

 

I think they should remain who they are.

And one day the United States of America will stretch from the Yukon in the North to Cape Horn in the South. That is the real future of the U.S.

Europe is increasingly becoming part of U.S. history.

The future is a United Commonwealth of America of nearly a billion people.

White, black, brown, red, yellow, all Americans. All sharing a common history of European oppression.

 

And one day the United States of America will stretch from the Yukon in the North to Cape Horn in the South. That is the real future of the U.S.

Whoa. Can we say "imperialism"?

You became who you are in order to escape an Empire, why go and start another? Yikes. I wonder if this is a joke; it sounds vaguely like the 'elbow room,' 'rightful realm' ideas of Hitler.

- Scarlet.

 

"Can we say "imperialism"?"

No, you can't. That would be British history.

I'm for real on this. I believe the future for all American people is a voluntary pact between nations leading to the dissolution of borders, tariffs, and a truly cosmopolitan society.

The U.S., Mexico, and Canada are already well on their way to a common society. Canada, with the exception of the far East provinces is developing ties with the Western U.S.

I'm not talking colonialism, just the opposite.

The U.S. is becoming more diverse and more latino. Our future is not to the East but to the South.

They are White Americans neighbors and allies, not the White Anglos of a distant land.

 

No, you can't. That would be British history.

Or American future, as you wish it!

The British Empire is no longer known as the British Empire. It is now known as the Commonwealth. How strange that you should call your idea for the future United States exactly that?

Why not come out and say what you really mean? American Empire. Go on, say it. It can't be described as anything else, as I don't see Canada entering into the arrangement you just described any time soon.

EDIT: First, two things. Will you stop editting your darned messages after I respond to them? It's unnerving . Second, this is exactly the kind of talk that rifles with Europeans. Will someone sane please reassure me that this guy isn't possibly for real, and what he's saying about Pax Americana holds no real sway in the US?

- Scarlet.

 

I can't decide whether or not this scares me because I'm American, or in spite of the fact that I'm American.

And actually, imperialism isn't only part of British history. It was part of British history in the 19th century--"The sun never sets on the British Empire." Before then, it was part of French history (17th century), Spanish history (16th century), and the history of the Roman Empire.

 

Perhaps you interpret listening to the rest of the world as listening to the UN. We interpret listening the UN as listening to the rest of the world.

I'm not really sure if that's what I was getting at, because I don't personally view the UN that way, and I don't think most Americans do, either. I think the general view here is that there is a large gap between the UN and the peoples of the nations they represent. We also view the UN seperately from individual countries...I guess the whole idea of 'representation' is just sorta lost.

Wouldn't the best solution be for Europeans to acknowledge the non-infallibility of the UN, and for the US to make some kind of promise to follow what it says, barring the need for immediate action?

That sounds fair.

A lot more Europeans feel pro-Palestinian than Americans do, as opposed to pro-Israel. It isn't the same as ignoring it - we just see the issue differently.

Ah, I see. Well, I think in America the whole line between the pro-Israel or pro-Paelistinian position is just getting blurry. The media is generally always pro-Israel, but most Americans understand that both sides are suffering, and both are at fault for the current situation there. We're just fed up with it all; but killing innocent civilians, i.e. terrorism (something which, it seems, is more common from the Palestinians) is simply viewed as abhorrent. Perhaps if we could avoid taking a pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian position altogether, we could reach a solution much more quickly.

A lot of people here think that the UN represents, through its idea of member states, the combined thought and action of the people it represents. I don't see how that's wrong. America can disagree with the UN all it likes, but that doesn't necessarily make it wrong. Nor does it make it irrelevant, if it decided not to take the American point of view. The UN probably does want whats best for the world.

Again, I think many Americans feel that the leaders at the UN have little sense of their true duty of representing their people. I never said the UN was wrong, but you have to remember...the UN is run by politicans. And, as most who are given power do, politicians tend to look out for themselves and the people who provide the pay check. Now, I'm not accusing every representative at the UN of being a bureaucrat, but that's most definitely the way it seems sometimes. And it seems like you're seperating the US and the UN here. Remember, the US is a member of the UN, just like every other nation. So, therefore, the United States' own opinion contributes to the collective opinion of the UN. And I think this is where Americans see things differently. It just always seems like it's US vs. UN.

 

"Why not come out and say what you really mean? American Empire. Go on, say it. It can't be described as anything else, as I don't see Canada entering into the arrangement you just described any time soon."

You think the Western provinces are proud of the current PM? He's a joke. He's also a French-Canadian. No surprise then.

Look, Canada is fairly divided politically. We share a fairly open-border, free-trade, and from the middle provinces west, a fairly common culture. Mexico also. Chile is next for a free-trade pact with the U.S.

Europeans will just have to face the fact that people in the U.S. are becoming truly diverse and that will change our perspective of how we view the world.

Oh, I see you obviously think so lowly of the latino peoples of America that obviously they are incapable of entering into a VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION with their other American brothers and sisters. It must be white-man oppression. What a joke.

As Americans, we all share the past history of European colonialism, exploitation, and oppression.

Funny Scarlet, you use anti-nationalistic rhetoric until someone calls you on it. Then you rally around the Union Jack real quick.

I'm not talking conquest. Don't be naieve. I'm referring to an evolutionary process of the American people coming closer together, not a takeover. [roll_eyes]

 

You think the Western provinces are proud of the current PM? He's a joke. He's also a French-Canadian. No surprise then.

This has no bearing on the matter.

Look, Canada is fairly divided politically. We share a fairly open-border, free-trade, and from the middle provinces west, a fairly common culture. Mexico also. Chile is next for a free-trade pact with the U.S.

Trade and lax border controls do not a Commonwealth make. I doubt Canada wants to give up its sovereignty any more than the US would willingly become another Canadian province.

Europeans will just have to face the fact that people in the U.S. are becoming truly diverse and that will change our perspective of how we view the world.

Actually, the US is much more homogeneic than a lot of Western countries (consult Almond and Verba's Civic Culture and Civic Culture Revisited).

Oh, I see you obviously think so lowly of the latino peoples of America that obviously they are incapable of entering into a VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATION with their other American brothers and sisters. It must be white-man oppression. What a joke.

No. I think so highly of them as not to expect them to fall into an American Empire. You're the one who wants to colonise them, bucko.

As Americans, we all share the past history of European colonialism, exploitation, and oppression.

So, that's why you want to repeat the process? Hypocrite.

Funny Scarlet, you use anti-nationalistic rhetoric until someone calls you on it. Then you rally around the Union Jack real quick.

What the HELL are you talking about? When did I "rally around the Union Jack"?

I'm not talking conquest. Don't be naieve. I'm referring to an evolutionary process of the American people coming closer together, not a takeover

You're the one being naieve if you want to suggest that the people of North America would ever enter into any kind of American Empire, irregardless of what you dress it up as.

By your own admission, North America is becoming more diverse. Homogeneity would be the only reason for Mexico, Canada and the United States to enter into a one-billion-person Empire/nation-state/Commonwealth/etc.

Is it just me, or is this guy completely insane? Ye gads, will somebody PLEASE reassure me that this guy is a loose cannon, and not representative at all of American thought?

*sits on the floor and cries*

- Scarlet.

 

Well, I'm not really sure I know what ShaneP is talking about...but remember, the U.S. is a big country. Americans have very different opinions.

 

The relations between Europe will most likely continue to be one of reluctant reliance.

Europeans (in general) realize the need for American resources in terms of military and economic might, yet don't want to subordinate themselves to American leadership, especially on matters involving the European continent. It's sort of a deal where if America needs to involve itself in Europe, European leaders want them to play by their rules.

The United States, on the other hand, has been the world's lone superpower for just over a decade and is still adjusting to that role. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there can no longer be an "Us versus Them" approach to European politics. The playing field has become much more fragmented because the one goal which united us during the Cold War is no longer there.

Throw in the experiment of a unified Europe, and the puzzle for America gets even more complicated.

 

An aherent to Marx after it gave us hundreds of millions dead and oppressed is calling me insane?!

Now that is REALLY a joke. Sad too.

EDIT:
SB "...considering I believe in a federal Europe. I believe that a French guy suggested a while back it be called the United States of Europe - the idea was right, it would form a superstate.

The political centre would probably be Brussels, and each member state would have a different number of people representing them, dependant on population, which would be liable to change as population grows or falls; it would also have its own flag (the current ring of stars only shows the original member states, not all the ones that the Nice Treaty will allow to enter), anthem (we already have one, "Ode to Joy," though that could have been chosen more democratically), and Constitution. It would be highly decentralised, with only legislation, military and the economy etc., being decided from Brussels.

It would end conflict in Europe, and establish us a (the biggest?) superpower. It would also go a long way to preventing global conflict, by starting to weld together all the different nations more firmly,under the banner of solidarity, not conformity."

Wow. So you do understand my argument. Funny how the only difference is I'm talking about the Americas and you're talking about Europe.

Who's the hypocrite?

 

Well I am keeping to my guns: European country's are their own separate nations or United Europe as it may be, and what they decide to do is up to them, as it is really their lives and land at stake.

On the same note, however, Europeans have their obsession with hating America, with hating President Bush and loving Bill Clinton, all three of which should be played out to the US public for their own opinions to be made