freecounterpoint: thankless bastards

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

thankless bastards

25 comments:

Tecumseh said...: All groups except Americans and Germans saw the United States presence in Iraq as posing a greater threat to world peace than the threat posed by Iran

Thankless bastards or bunch of idiots? Probably both. And, either way, it's sad.; 6/13/2006 10:24 PM
The Darkroom said...: I'll agree that it is sad but I'll also submit that the fault lies square on the administration's diplomatic ineptitude with its allies.

Obviously I can't speak for the entire planet but Western Europe's concerns lie in environmental and human rights issues. At the beginning of W01, a multiplicity of international treaties dealing with such issues were discarded by the admin. Kyoto of course but also NTBT, mine-ban treaty, int'l HR court and a couple that i forget. To say that, right or wrong, the US was simply dismissive with respect to what was of concern to us is an understatement.

then comes 9/11 and the US, deeming terrrorism to be the planet's new big problem, tries to rally the world to its cause. Besides the timing bad luck, the US brought on itself several several problems at that point: first off the US failed to make a convincing argument that terrorism was a major threat to western civ comparable, say, to that from the Warsaw Pact nations (and how could they?).
Second, in typical W-fashion, the manner with which others were approached was more akin to that of a school yard bully than that of a nation seeking a consensus (you're with us or with the terrorists - as if they weren't addresssing sovereign nations). Because of the incredible ineptitude/absence of US diplomacy, the outpour of sympathy that followed 9/11 (even Le Monde had a "Nous sommes tous Americains" op-ed in September) melted to nothing in less than a year.

So there you have it in part at least - the perspective is that there is a lot more to fear from an overpowerful and uncompromising nation than from a fanaticized
government with limited fire power.; 6/14/2006 12:12 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Europe's concerns with human rights???? Thanks for lifting my mood, still dark after the Yanks taste of the Defenestration of Prague. This claim, on the care and nurturing of human rights by Euroland, we must discuss after the WC, fo sho.
As for the "sympathy" you aver to have existed among Europeans, in particular among the French, for the US, after 911, it was most difficult to separate from what others would call a preponderance of smug gloating. Certainly by the time, all of a few weeks later, that the US was moving into Afghanistan, all I heard from many European governments, and most newspapers, and the bulk of expats in Asia and here, was scorn for the "cowboy" reaction and a disbelief we could be so cavalier as to strike back with serious military force, that we could be so stupid as to interpret the attacks as an act of war. Clinton, with his apologizing and base "nossa culpa", as if 911 was the result of not signing Kyoto or listening with due deference to the wisdom of Chirac, was indeed honored by the Euros, true enough. He being the way of "nuance and sophistication" that Europa finds copascetic.
It is a strange sort of sympathy that is seen as "squandered" by the victim for choosing to clobber his attacker rather than meekly bow before his fate. Spare me the "sympathy" that is conditioned on my being fixed in defeat and self-abnegation.
As for "consensus", the consensus on what? The only consensus we would ever get by trying to cast such a wide Paper Alliance that it could achieve consensus from Chirac, Schroeder, Putin, Saudi Princes, Zhao, etc.. was to continue do precisely what we had done in the 90's. We would get resolutions and sanctions out the whazoo, enforced just sufficiently to make for rich profit for those connected Euromensch who would devise ways to make the resolutions meaningless and the sanctions subverted. That the sweep of Islam Militant would only cut more swiftly and widely worldwide, and more deeply triumphant inside Islam, and that the yearly cull of Yanks and other Kufr would only grow, would have been the sure effluent of such a cloaca.
I agree that much fault lies with this administration, but where we do not agree is on why. You apparently think Bush has been too clear, loud, insensitive,and unheeding of the voice of sweet reason. I think he has been too murky, murmuring, sensitive, and unheeding of the voice of sweet reason.
By the way, much fault also lies with those who should have been our allies in our dark hour, if the word "ally" was to have any meaning, and, like France, made it clear that there are no allies in politics, only good old fashioned ubi mea interests.; 6/14/2006 1:53 PM
The Darkroom said...: >>still dark after the Yanks taste of the Defenestration of Prague. This claim, on the care and nurturing of human rights by Euroland, we must discuss after the WC, fo sho.
I have no idea wtf you are talking about.

My point is that what the US is seeking is a one-way only alliance whereby "allies" come ot the rescue when needed but can only count on the US when it doesn't trample its economic interests too much.; 6/14/2006 3:44 PM
Tecumseh said...: "allies" come ot the rescue when needed??? If there ever was a non-sequitur, this is it.

As for Kyoto accords and the rest, it's all hogwash. WTF does this have to do with anything? Looks to me like a lame excuse for the Frenchies to sit on their fat asses, sipping Perrier in their Rive Gauche bistots, waiting for our boys to deal with the real dangers we all face. The excuse is so risible and cousue de fil blanc, it's not even worth commenting on.; 6/14/2006 11:02 PM
Tecumseh said...: Except one more point from that laundry list of perceived offenses of the US, as seen through the self-serving lens of the Euro-lefties: mine-ban treaty. Don't really know what this refers to, and I very much doubt anyone can pin the problem of land-mines on the US (unless one is an anti-americain primaire, for which logic does not apply). But for the sake of argument--how on Earth would have a piece of paper dealing with land-mines help with the real problem we face in Iraq, viz, the proliferation of IED's, whihc kill both our boys, and the Iraqis? After all, IED's are nothing but old-fashioned land mines. And you'll never, ever hear a gauchiste denouncing the use of IED's by the head-hackers in Iraq. Or, did I miss the denunciation is a recent issue of LeMonde or Libération? Hah, that will be the day--of course, it's much more satisying to the leftie mindset to yap at the cowboy kapitalist Ricains.

Nothing new under the sun -- has absolutely nothing to do with W, or anything we could do (short of mass hara-kiri). It's just the definition of the Left.; 6/14/2006 11:14 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Pepe, the first part was connected to the cause of my dark mood. If you followed the WC you might have an inkling as to what it is about.
Then "This claim.." refers to what you said about Europe being inspired by a care for the environment and a concern for human rights. It was a very funny claim, and the laughter you provided with that illumined my dark mood.
Thanks, bud.; 6/15/2006 2:24 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...: AI, I haven't read a single article in Le Monde which criticized the use of any weapon, whatsoever, employed in the purpose of killing Ricains. Although perhaps there was one guest columnist, one time...;). However, the Horror of Abu Ghraib still evokes poetic passion. What are the odds, you figure, that Villepain in his next tome will offer the world an ode on the subject?; 6/15/2006 2:34 AM
The Darkroom said...: i will answer the interesting part of the argument later today. there is absolutely a connection between the two.

ai - i didn't realize drinking perrier on a rive gauche bistrot was anything reprehensible. Is it much worse than being half-passed out on one's sofa drinking the "King of beers" while watching pro-wrestling ?

waiting for our boys to deal with the real dangers we all face.
ai - you're deluding yourself here: i don't think they are ever in anybody's thoughts. matter of fact we'd much prefer it if they stayed at home and watched pro-wrestling.

We do have a pending discussion (after the WC i gather) on the reality of the danger.; 6/15/2006 9:27 AM
Tecumseh said...: To clear up one point -- perhaps not the most burning issue of the day, but hey, might as well. No, there is nothinhg wrong with sipping Perrier (or even better, Veuve Clicquot from a baccarat flute) in a Rive Gauche cafe. In fact, I would very much like doing that. The point is that, at least while enjoying life in that fashion, one should abstain from dissing on the grunts out there on the ramparts.; 6/15/2006 11:00 AM
The Darkroom said...: >>The point is that, at least while enjoying life in that fashion, one should abstain from dissing on the grunts out there on the ramparts.

acccording to you, when would be a good time to do so (or is it inappropriate by definition)?; 6/15/2006 12:40 PM
Tecumseh said...: I think it is innapropriate by definition to spit on the hand that feeds you, or protects you. You may do so -- freedom and speech and all that -- but it sure looks like piss-ant fartsiness to me.; 6/15/2006 3:27 PM
The Darkroom said...: the gis in iraq are protecting french people sipping perrier on rue de seine ? i don't think even the present administration is claiming that the gis are saving the world !; 6/15/2006 6:24 PM
The Darkroom said...: >>The point is that, at least while enjoying life in that fashion, one should abstain from dissing on the grunts out there on the ramparts.

I should add that, unless it wasn't blatantly clear at the time, there wan't much of request on the part of the perrier-sipppers for US intervention in iraq. There still isn't - the dissing is in order imo.; 6/15/2006 6:39 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Agreed, Pepe, the French have asked for no help against Islam Militant.. After all, a spiffy policy of appeasement and accomodation is in full swing, and the track record of such efforts is remarkable. Why fight the Dane when Geld is such a sure fire winner? That's the policy Charles Martel pursued, mais oui?; 6/15/2006 11:44 PM
Arelcao Akleos said...: "I will answer the interesting part of the argument later today, there is absolutely a connection between the two"
[1] What argument?
[2] A connection between the Yanks getting a taste of the Defenestration of Prague and your claim that Europe really cares for human rights? The only connection I discern is that your claim brought sufficient merriment to alleviate the pain of the Defenestration.
or [3] You are claiming there is absolutely a connection between purported care of the environment and a love of human rights? [North Korea is a state much closer to original Nature than is South Korea....how far do you want to go with this?]
Or is this connection purely a European phenomenon?
But, you see, that is the point. Europe's governments, and its elites, care as much about the Rights of Man as the faculty of Al Azhar University cares about the preservation of the Rig Veda.; 6/15/2006 11:56 PM
Tecumseh said...: In a related theme, the US/Frenchy positions are clearly stated: Striving for victory versus abject surrender. Which approach will resonate with the public?

"Retreat is not an option in Iraq," declared House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio. "Achieving victory is our only option ... We have no choice but to confront these terrorists, win the war on terror and spread freedom and democracy around the world."

"Stay the course, I don't think so Mr. President. It's time to face the facts," House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California answered, as she called for a new direction in the conflict. "The war in Iraq has been a mistake. I say, a grotesque mistake."; 6/16/2006 12:39 PM
The Darkroom said...: i am surprised at your reactions as there really isn't much to disagree about here.
there is in my view no argument that the neocons were simply dismissive of a variety of int'l treaties dealing with environment & HRs at the beginning of W's reign.
There is also no argument that these were treaties of enormous importance to western eurepean voters and that the US made little to no attempt at finding a resolution agreeable to all.

I don't there is much debate either that diplomacy and politics is a game of give & take. That you see no correlation between the administration's lack at diplomatic effort and the subsequent reluctance of european nations to "join the team" is strange to say the least.

On a possibly related note I have no idea what "Defenestration of Prague" refers to.

I think this is worthy of a serious discussion though and I think it would be best to put caricature and scornful comments aside (at least for the purpose of this topic). I will do the same.; 6/16/2006 12:40 PM
Tecumseh said...: Defenestration of Prague: I think AA was referring to a bunch of commies throwing out the window the-then Czech foreign minister. (Surely, this would not count as a violation of human rights by the Euro gauchistes, since it was done by birds of the same ideological feather, mais passons.) At any rate, what this has to do with the Czechs beating the US soccer team in the World Cup is left to the imagination -- I will not attempt to explain.; 6/17/2006 1:29 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...: Actually, the "Defenestration of Prague", at least the first incident to be called that, was in 1618 and was the spark that ignited the 30 Years War [somewhat akin to how the ArchDuke Ferdinand's assassination ignited WWI]. There was strong resentment among the Bohemian elites of their treatment, actual or perceived, under the rule of the Holy Roman Emperor. The Emperor sent two governors to Prague, for a meeting with the disgruntled Bohemes, and during this meeting these ended up being thrown out of the windows of the Hrdcany Castle into the moat/ditch below. They actually survived this little adventure...not that this luck on their part prevented the start of the war.
Anyhoo, a possible use of using "Defenestration of Prague" is to emphasize humiliation at the hands of Czechs. And, in footballing terms, the USA loss was humiliating. That is all I meant.
I take it, AI, that the incident you refer to was called that in honor of the first?; 6/17/2006 2:57 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...: [1] Pepe, it is difficult to answer in a way utterly devoid of "scorn" when you insist on replying to a post I never wrote. I kept pointing out that it was your claim as to the CARE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS in Europe which I found so amusing. You keep wanting to ignore this and pretend I was referring to the environment. It was in trying to see what you were getting at with this that led me to that post/comment above which asked the questions aiming at clarification.
As for "caricature", I would not dare compare my humble talents to those of one so skilled as you. Particularly when you do not point out what you claim is caricature.
Finally, all this ostensibly started in relation to the "working at cross purposes", to phrase it gently, between our erstwhile/former European allies, and ourselves, post 911. It is very difficult to discern where NaturPhilosophie is behind this discord.
To be precise, since you wish to relate Kyoto to it, what exactly does Kyoto have to do with the war against Islam Militant?; 6/17/2006 3:13 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...: [2] What treaties on Human Rights are you referring to?
[3] Compromise only makes sense if there is a meaningful, and viable to one's purpose, middle ground. Between the USA's insistence that "This is War", and the Chirac/Schroeder et al insistence that "This is Not War", right after 911, never mind four years later, what "compromise" do you then have in mind?
If an Alliance is to have meaning, its members must be united on the purpose, the goal, of their joint efforts, even if they have need for ample discussion as to means. If they do NOT agree on the goals, and are each convinced of their very different goals, then the alliance can do nothing positive. Of course, what such an alliance can do is be used negatively as an instrument of prevention, wherein Member F seeks to encumber Member A in such a way as to make F's desideratum actualized. It is exactly this which France& Germany sought to do within NATO and the UN [most saliently with Saddam Hussein, but by no means limited to his case]; 6/17/2006 3:28 AM
The Darkroom said...: >>Pepe, it is difficult to answer in a way utterly devoid of "scorn" when you insist on replying to a post I never wrote. I kept pointing out that it was your claim as to the CARE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS in Europe which I found so amusing.

AA- I am refering to the int'l HR court in the Hague and the reach it has. Or could have had if it weren't for the admin's strange objection that its citizen's not be held accountable before this court.; 6/17/2006 8:46 AM
Arelcao Akleos said...: This Hague international court is what you meant by care for human rights in Europe?....So seeking to to do Justice what the UN has done for honest international parley is what you construe as an advancement of human rights? I'll think I'll go now and share this tidbit with Hirsan Ali and Orianna Fallaci, never mind those Brits recently fired for daring to raise the flag of St. George in honor of their own nation's football team.; 6/18/2006 12:52 AM
The Darkroom said...: I am not sure I understand what raising the flag has to do with the Hague. However, I do believe we would all benefit from having a supra-national HR court. Belgium has successfully prosecuted Rwandan Hutus inadvertently travelling through their country for crimes committed at home - expanding this can only advance HR throughout the globe IMO.; 6/19/2006 12:27 PM

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)