TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Interesting Article about the US and Europe
Pages (2): [1] 2 »
Interesting Article about the US and Europe
a friend sent me this, thought yall might find it interesting.
(Allan Little is a BBC presenter and reporter.)
| quote: |
Lyndon Johnson is not normally a poster boy for the American right. But Washington has become fond of repeating one of his rare quips. In 1966, when De Gaulle kicked Nato out of France, he called Johnson on the telephone and told him that he wanted all US soldiers removed from French soil. Johnson replied: "Does that include those buried in it?" America is feeling very superior about the 20th century and - to paraphrase Churchill - it has a lot to feel superior about. These days you can taste the disdain in the clean, cold DC air. The dominant national narrative is simple and appealing: "We bailed you out twice, selflessly, and now, in our hour of need, you don't have the guts to come to our aid. Fine. See if we care." The long, dark months between September 1939 (Nazi invasion of Poland) and December 1941 (Pearl Harbour) have disappeared from this narrative. There is no mention of the plain fact that when Czechoslovakia, Poland, Belgium, Holland, France and the Balkan peninsula fell like dominoes to the Nazi juggernaut, American public opinion was uniformly hostile to US involvement in a "European civil war". No mention of the summer of 1940, when it seemed that even Britain would succumb. No mention that Churchill begged the US to come off the fence. No mention that he even stated it in terms of America's own security interests: if the Nazis invade Britain and get hold of the British naval fleet, he told Washington, then the US itself would be no match for the combined might of the Axis powers. No mention that the US ambassador in London, Joseph Kennedy, repeatedly warned the British that continued resistance was futile, repeatedly urged Churchill to reach a deal with Hitler, repeatedly told the White House that the British prime minister was a drunk and a dangerous fantasist. No mention that when Franklin Roosevelt laid the foundations for what would in 1942 become a decisive US intervention in the fate of Europe - the rebuilding of the US armed forces, the lend-lease deal - he had to do so almost covertly, disguising what he was doing from a hostile public, swimming, just as Tony Blair is now, against the tide of opinion at home. No mention that in November 1940 Churchill sat alone in the cabinet war rooms waiting for the result of the US presidential election, and finally greeting the news of Roosevelt's re-election with what he called "indescribable relief". Churchill placed his faith in the eventual engagement of the US in the security of Europe, and in the end it paid off. America, he famously said, can be relied upon to do the right thing - but only after exhausting all other available options. The dominant US narrative simplifies and misconstrues the transatlantic relationship. There is wilful misrepresentation. It worries a lot of old cold warriors - men such Laurence Eagleburger, who was briefly secretary of state to George Bush Sr. He is no dove but he doesn't like this new mood. "I want the United States to be amenable to the wisdom of, say, the foreign minister of the Czech Republic," he told me a couple of weeks ago. "But it's just not going to happen any more." The mood is a reflection of what is happening militarily. Donald Rumsfeld came to the department of defence promising not reform, not expansion, but something much more radical than all of these: "transformation". In defence circles the buzz word is "integration". The four traditional wings of the US armed forces - army, navy, air force and Marines - will stop the infighting to which they have been so attached. Their equipment will be integrated. Their command and control structures will be integrated. They will be hi-tech. Their planes will be unmanned - aircraft bombing targets in the Gulf will be piloted by a man sitting in the Pentagon, working shifts and going home to his wife and kids at the end of his day. Everyone talks about US "power projection" - and it will be awesome. "The only thing I regret about this coming war" one defence adviser to the Pentagon told me this month, "is that we're fighting it two or three years too early. By 2006/2007 we could really show them". Be under no illusion. This brave new world is already in the making. And no matter how desirable allies may be politically, there is no role for them militarily. The rest of us cannot keep pace with this transformation. We will not commit the money. We lack the vision. Our armed forces, no matter how willing to engage, will simply not be up to it. We will not be "integrated". One former aide to Rumsfeld put it like this: "There will come a time soon when the allies presence on the battlefield will not just be useless, but positively dangerous. They'll be in the way." And then he added "There is of course one exception to this. Israel." So get ready for what could be the last war of the post-1945 way of doing things. The last one we get to take part in. And be aware that as the post-1945 military alliance slips away, so too might a partnership that transformed our world half a century ago. For we Europeans are misconstruing - wilfully misinterpreting - the Americans too. Bush is a gun-slinging Texan surrounded by "stupid white men". Not true. Emphatically, manifestly, demonstrably not true. "Don't misread the language our leaders use," Eagleburger implored me. "We are not good at nuance. Maybe we are not a nuanced people." I don't hear much nuance in Europe either. For just as George Bush's wild-west allusions offend European ears, the tone of effortless superiority, dripping as it is with self-righteous disdain, that crosses the Atlantic in the opposite direction, bewilders and alienates America. Where, thoughtful, progressive, decent America would like to know, is Europe's memory? Not of how we bailed you out militarily, but of how we stuck with you through the dismal years of postwar austerity? For what is happening now in Germany - a nation emerging from the decades of enforced division and enforced silence on international and military affairs - is the latest phase in the long, post-1945 normalisation of Germany, the Europeanisation of Germany. And it is substantially an American achievement. It was Washington that underwrote early progress toward European integration. When six European nations formed the European Coal and Steel Community - the forerunner of the EU - prime minister Clement Atlee described them as "six countries, four of whom we had to rescue from the other two." The rebuilding of Europe - militarily, politically, economically, culturally - was underwritten by a US that was engaged in nothing less than our deliverance. Its creator, George C Marshall, whom Churchill described as the architect of the allied victory and the salvation of Europe, is largely forgotten. His life's achievement is enormous. It transformed our world. But in this country there is no biography of him in print. There ought to be a statue in Trafalgar Square. He ought to be in the national curriculum. The transatlantic dialogue - a dialogue of mutual disdain and despair - is going to change our world. These are the dog days of the Atlantic partnership. Get ready, in the desserts of Iraq, for its last huzzah. |
Great article! Thanks for the good read.
he makes a very good point (too many europeans have forgotten our debt to america), but i think there is one fundamental difference between WW2 and the present situation.
then, europe was fighting a defensive war, and the US intervened in europe's defense. now, the US askes us to take part in an offesive war.
so, should the US be attacked and invaded by some foreign power, i don't think many europeans would have a problem helping america, but this is not the case here.
some will say that america is under attack. look at 9/11. this is true, but it's not the same kind of war. it is an attack by individuals, not a nation, and certainly not iraq. this is why all european countries are cooperating strongly with america in investigating and tracking terrorist organizations and their countries and elswhere.
and ultimately, very few people over here trust bush, in my opinion for some very good reasons. had it been clinton or gore in charge, i believe the whole situation would have been very different indeed.
Thanx for that post, very good read. I think the very fact that Americans are largly european is kinda funny. YES they arent technicaly now but they did come from Europe at some point. This alone bonds us and the fact that we are all democratic nations. America does have all the $$ and the biggest army so it does make sense to let them battle it out.
As for the US pres being smart but looking stupid. Theres no better way to manipulate,influence and threfore control the mentality of the people than making it look like your just like them and that were all "in the know".
I have no idea why america teaches and to a greater extent broadcasts only American content. Neglecting the rest of the world. Perhaps it ties into the above about control and influence. Coming from Canada where all we ever talk about is world events makes it sort of hard for me imagine.
This military "transformation" isnt really important. We al know that with the right technology u can land a plane or drop some bombs.
YOUR STILL GONA NEED TROOPS NO MATeR WHAT. Especialy if ur gona be takign over Iran and the rest of the Arabs. If America thinks that the rest of the world wont buy into this tech as well there nuts.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by NFA the US askes us to take part in an offesive war. |
) ??? hmmm.....
| quote: |
| Originally posted by JM reaaaaaalllllly?! offensive war?! it's more of a lets take care of things before things take care of us kinda war... so you're saying let Saddam Hussein be? let that cracker jack do whatever he wants until one day he decides he wants to rule the world (and yes, the UK is a part of that world ) ??? hmmm.....as much as i'd Loooove to see all you anti-war ppl be right about the war and saddam, i dont wanna see you be wrong about all these events, and have my, and YOUR life be endangered by cracker jack. cracker jack needs to go. >JM< |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by montie Iraq take over the world????? Iraq doesn't have anything near that military might. America doesn't even have that much might. Infact thats the reason we are attacking Iraq instead of N. Korea, or Pakistan or Iran. Pakistan and Iran harbor and finance terrorism much more than Iraq. N. Korea is a major threat to south korea and to Japan along with the rest of asia. N. Korea, Pakistan and Iran all have very strong militaries. Along with known Nuclear weapons. A war with any of these countries would be catastrophic. Iraq on the other hand is weak. We have been bombing it non stop since the end of the Gulf war. A major reason all this talk and action about attacking it is going on is because we believe we can easily crush Saddam's regime. Hell in the gulf war, when Iraq was considerably more powerful, we killed more of our own men than Saddam did. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Why would we attack pakistan? |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by montie because pakistan harbors and (indirectly) finances terrorists. It was also responsible for helping N. Korea to build nuclear weapons. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Inadvertentely harbors terrorists. Finances? Maybe certain individuals but I'm certain not the government. Proof on any of this? Last I checked Pakistan was a major ally of the US ... well at least the prez. |
The taliban regime was financially supported and organized by the operatives from Pakistanian intelligence agency.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by AnotherWay83 here, read this article: http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript_hersh.html please read the whole thing, reveals sum pretty shocking info |
Besides ... the key part to pay attention to is at the end of the interview when the analyst is asked whether he has any evidence of this. I like his response ... no but he's telling us "heuristically".
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Inadvertentely harbors terrorists. Finances? Maybe certain individuals but I'm certain not the government. Proof on any of this? Last I checked Pakistan was a major ally of the US ... well at least the prez. |
this is really interesting, i think i shall come to this forum more often 
| quote: |
| Originally posted by montie haha, anotherway gave you the same link i was going to give you. Anyway, before 9/11, Pakistan was one of the countries on the top of the list that was tought to harbor and finance terrorism. If you want more info just got to CNN.com (or any other popular news agency) and search for Pakistan AND terrorism and you will get a whole slew of links about it. Also everyone was shocked when Pakistan offered its support to the US in its war against the Taliban. I think they are just pretending to be our friends to save their own skins and prevent the United States from sticking their nose up their ass. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider Well I don't doubt that they had connections with the Taliban before 9/11. However I doubt that they (the government) harbors hostility towards the US. And I REALLY doubt that they sponsor terrorist attacks against the US. That's one good way to get a solid beat down and I don't think Pakistan would take a risk like that. If they did there's no way in hell they are still doing it now so it would be pretty useless to bomb them. |
i only saw part of a 60 minutes (america) segment that had a ww2 veteran talking about war, france, iraq etc.
all i can remember was his last line
'france hasn't earned the right to oppose war with iraq, but i have'
france, germany, russia, three of the countries which probably harbour the most recent historical resentment towards the US, are the loudest voices of anti-war.
hmmmm.
| quote: |
| Originally posted by sifntj0r i only saw part of a 60 minutes (america) segment that had a ww2 veteran talking about war, france, iraq etc. all i can remember was his last line 'france hasn't earned the right to oppose war with iraq, but i have' france, germany, russia, three of the countries which probably harbour the most recent historical resentment towards the US, are the loudest voices of anti-war. hmmmm. |
my angle
This is a very new IDea to the world. No one can be 100% right, but lets consider the fact that countries that are run corruptly, that have power which allows them to do what they want, and they use that power to harm other nations or even harbour groups that harm other nations or people, then we as freedom loving people have an obligation to be involved, and go beyond our self-interests to protect the human race. We from europe, america, wherever have to realize now that the world through the internet and quick transportation are slowly becoming 1 large entity. Not as seperate as before. We now face the challange to stand up for those in parts of the world that suffer from extreme regimes. If Germany in the 30's was taken out of power, millions of deaths could of been prevented. If the extremist gov't in afgan was taken apart earlier, then 9/11 would not have happened. Similarily, if the regimes of those like Saddam and others who threaten stability of the world are not taken out, who can be accurate in guessing the atrocities and genocites that will happen?
We must work together to rid the world of countries that allow this to happen. The problem is the governments. They may release statements saying one thing, but intel and defectors and various other intelligence methods discover where they are being harboured. And a more hawkish approach must be taken now to preven the furthering of economic losses, and worsly, lives.
Shlomo Eliyahu
| quote: |
| Originally posted by montie "earned the right to oppose war" thats the biggest load of self rightous, nationalistic shit i've heard in a while. So we shouldn't listen to them because they surrendered to Germany in WW2? What are we, a bunch of children? Thats an incredibly childish way to view the world and our relations with countries. |
i agree
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider I agree that that isn't the way we should operate but show some respect for our veterans. You have no idea what he went through and if I had to fight through shit for 4 years to liberate another country, I think that I would be entitled to a little respect for my opinions. |
Re: i agree
| quote: |
| Originally posted by shlomo_hamalech I agree with Occrider (surprisingly)... war vets deserve the highest levels of respect and honor. They have real experience, and know how it is to see your friends die on the battlefield. But as an added point, I think their opinions should be added in the picture as a veterans view, but in a battle of today, where a veteran is not involved directly, there must be only the experts making the decisions, no matter how different they are from the veterans. The experts are the ones with all the information at hand to make the judgements... Also, a veteran battled in a different time, a different world. Today there are aspects that were not existant back then.... Shlomo Eliyahu |
Re: Re: i agree
| quote: |
| Originally posted by LiquidX You said it right, experts, then why is BUSH so mad at Greenspan? He's an expert.. yet Bush is angry at him for heaving him refuse his tax plan cut.. but I know, this is not that topic. I think there's 2 kinds of experts, the TRU experts, and the FALSE/INTEREST experts, the thing is trying to figure out who is the right one. |
| quote: |
| Originally posted by occrider I agree that that isn't the way we should operate but show some respect for our veterans. You have no idea what he went through and if I had to fight through shit for 4 years to liberate another country, I think that I would be entitled to a little respect for my opinions. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.