America's Antagonistic Allies
 

This is a good piece about America's so-called "allies" in Europe. The title is "America's Antagonistic Allies"
The author is George Handlery

http://www.politicallyright.com/article155.htm

This is a quote from the article:

"America and a number of her nominal allies, first and foremost the states of the Western section of the European continent, glance at the vicissitudes of the world through differently colored lenses. This makes popular attitudes fundamental. To many Americans who wish to qualify as part of the cultured cluster, Europe has a “snob-value.” America's view of Europe is determined by a prejudice that those sophisticated Continentals are worldly, politically wise and as such superior to barefooted US clod hoppers. To hell with the blunderers which made two world wars possible."

I think all this means is that they will be ever so formal, diplomatic and polite when they come begging us to kick the next conquering force out of their oh-so-superior-and-cultured countries.

Re: America's Antagonistic Allies
 

Its really a subtle explanation of how America now must make the same mistakes that Europe made. Suddenly America must save the world from itself. If they don't conform to our standards, then we will force American standards on them. They must want democracy because all people must want democracy - and to be saved by Christianity?

If some actually think, then we will bury them in rhetoric about patriotism, flag waving, speeches from a drug addict called Rush Limbaugh, and 'gods chosen people'. Those alone prove the Europeans must be stupid.

Once Americans were smarter which was why Americans were admired virtually everywhere. America even stopped Britian and France from attacking Egypt - because such war solves nothing. Americans could walk into a war zone as friends of both sides when Americans did not force American values on everyone. When America did not try to save everyone from themselves. When America was not a world policeman. When America did not spend more money on military adventures than upon anything else.

Today, Americans have a testostertone complex. We are right. Then we seek facts to justify that conclusion. Everyone who thinks differently must be America's enemy or a fag. No wonder American popularity dropped from 70% numbers to single digit numbers throughout the world. So many actually think this George Handlery nonsense makes sense - a classic example of reliving the mistakes of history. What happens when Americans are so superior as see enemies everywhere - even among America's closest allies? Its called McCarthyism.

These young studs never learned from VietNam or Somolia. We are right because we spend more on military than the entire world combined. That alone proves we must be right. Its called extremism. "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vise"? Tell that to 50,000 wasted American lives in SE Asia because we were Americans - and therefore must be right. Thirty years have passed. A new generation of Americans knows so much more because might makes right; the lessons of history be damned.

George Handlery writes reason justified by testosterone - because America is superior to all foreigners. We need kill another 50,000 American to relearn? Too many experts need not learn from history.

Actually, George Handlery's article mocks the extremist rhetoric - when viewed from the perspective of logic. Smart Americans don't see enemies everywhere - as George Handlery and George Jr does. American had friends everywhere when paranoia was not represented in the White House. George Handlery advocates that paranoia - where everyone is a potential enemy.

Just as that Wolfovich article proclaimed when it called for preemptive (Pearl Harbor type) attacks on Germany, Russia, and India. Paranoia. They must be enemies.

Nice post, tw.

If some actually think, then we will bury them in rhetoric about patriotism, flag waving, speeches from a drug addict called Rush Limbaugh, and 'gods chosen people'. Those alone prove the Europeans must be stupid.

Oh, damn, and here I thought I was being patriotic by slapping American flag stickers on my car, renaming foods to things such as "Freedom Fries", and not buying wine or cheese.

You're darn right you're not!! You're not buying domestic wine and cheese, boy ... you have to stimulate OUR economy.

But those little plastic flags were five bucks! Hey, wait a minute...

"Made in China"? Shit!

George Handlery article forgets to mention the many other 'former' American friends who opposed a George Jr attack on Iraq. Add Canada and Mexico to the list. Why are Canadian companies not permitted to bid on Iraqi contracts? Because, according to the George Jr administration, Canadians, like German and French, cannot be trusted (but Rwanda and Bruendi can be trusted?). Virtually the entire world opposed George Jr's Iraq expedition (as demonstrated by the one sided opposition in the Security Council). Where America got support (ie Spain and Italy), their public was roundly opposed to their government's decision on the order of 4 to 1! More of the world acting in America's interests.

Who is providing support to Afghanistan? America is so stretched thin (militarily) that American cannot even fix infrastructure in Afghanistan years later. Germany and France are the strongest American allies in Afghanistan - doing most of the work in a country (unlike Iraq) where war was fully justified.

Rather ironic when American allies best represent American interests, then testosterone inspired flag wavers would instead blame American allies (and forget support that American allies are providing such as in Afghanistan and west coast Africa).

BTW, a trusted George Jr ally is Pakistan - who provide N Korea and Libya with nuclear expertise. Both countries received massive technological advances from Pakistan only in the past few years. Pakistan - a country that George Jr would call a better ally than German and France? Where does George Handlery mention that part (that would undermine his entire premise)?

That George Handlery article lies by telling half truths: to inspire those who use testosterone as knowledge. He probably would have you believe that Al Qaeda and Saddam were potential allies - another outright lie that even Colin Powell just exposed as such. Another way to decieve a public that does not first learn the facts - forget other important facts that those high on testosterone would not know anyway.

We need to re evalute those so ill informed as to not understand the joke written by George Handlery. We now know that Saddam posed no threat to Europe or America - as most of the world - especially American allies - suggested. We now have the quagmire created by a president who lied much like Johnson did in 1964 to justify a war he wanted - facts be damned.

"In terms of intention, he always had it," Powell said. "What he was waiting to do is see if he could break the will of the international community, get rid of any potential future inspections, and get back to his intentions, which were to have weapons of mass destruction."

A report released Thursday by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace said that Iraq had posed no imminent threat to the United States and that there was no solid evidence showing cooperation between Saddam and Al Qaeda.

Powell said, however, that he was "confident of what I presented last year" and added, "This game is still unfolding."

http://www.iht.com/articles/123906.html

The latest fold is bringing home the crew.

Washington -- The Bush administration has quietly withdrawn from Iraq a 400-member military team whose job was to scour the country for military equipment, according to senior government officials.

The step was described by some military officials as a sign that the administration might have lowered its sights and no longer expected to uncover the caches of chemical and biological weapons that the White House cited as a principal reason for going to war last March.

Usually, I find it difficult to stomach tw's posts.

but this:
...is an insight that struck my heart.

But is there anyone that really wants to be friends with us anymore?

Romania does!* Qatar does!

*I think it does.

I guess the question really boils down to this:

How much of a threat is radical Islam?

No really. On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is "radical Islam is a minor group of assholes who just got lucky on 9/11" and 10 is "radical Islam represents the world's next big cultural collision with the possible repercussion of the collapse of the USA", where do you all stand?

If we continue to nurture it with our foreign policy/wars it could be an 8. If we didn't give the nuts (over the course of decades its not all on Bush) so much recruitment material, we'd be at 1.

Is, who knows maybe a 3?

6. It will continue to be a threat to Isreal. That will drag us in, repeatedly.

Radical Islam will be a significant force for some time. It very well may drag our prosperity under.

We should be trying to subvert and weaken it, not to conquer it. We could win this struggle if we made them placid -- give them free TV, not guns. Let them make money, not war.

An aside: After reading a few sections of The Prince, I was thinking that it would be very difficult for the United States to succeed as a conqueror: in order to succeed as a conqueror, you need your citizens to colonize the new land.

Right now, Pakistan, India, and China are very good colonizers. They are exporting people to do hard work in our countries. The United States would have a difficult time colonizing because life in the United States is so good that people will find the better life here than elsewhere.

The only of our people that would want to leave and struggle and colonize someplace else are the Zionist Jews of Israel.

Islamic extremism is a regional event that resulted in an attempted murder of Nasser, the murder of Sadat, fall of the Shah of Iran, unrest in the Stans (former Soviet republics), Georgia, Turkey, etc. For the most part equivalent to domestic violence. Left alone, they will usually resolve the conflict. But if an outsider tries to impose a solution, then all will turn on the outsider.

However the world does have some responsibility to the region. For example, the invasion of Kuwait received proper responses. But one must be careful to not remain or get involved beyond limited events. It was where we made a major mistake when our civilian leaders failed to plan for Iraqi surrender in 1991 - leaving Schwarzkopf to jury-rig a solution. As a result of mistakes made in Washington, we stayed and became a target of regional extremists. We made another mistake when we undermined the Oslo Accords and supported the most right wing Israeli extremists at the expense of Israeli centrists.

Muslim Brotherhood is the enemy of non secular governments such as Turkey, Egypt, Saddam's Iraq, and Asad's Syria. Leave local powers to their local conflicts and America can leave the French as a more hated western power. But we did not do that. When we don't act as honest brokers between Palestinians and Israelis, then we too become targets. When we favored Maronites in Lebanon over Druze and Shities, then again, 200+ American Marines died.

Important to represent our interests while not taking sides. How we deal with Saudia Arabia demonstrates the need to understand a potentially unstable situation. The mistake is when our leaders express everything in terms of black and white - as Oliver North would do and George Jr does today.

In an international domestic conflict, the outsider is welcome only as an honest broker IF 1) it does not try to force a settlement, 2) does not try to negotiate a settlement until parties are ready to talk (when enough people have died on all sides - high death rates essential to ending conflict among extreme positions), and 3) does not overstay its welcome. A narrow path to walk - a path that requires pragmatism - and not the extremist viewpoint of 'good verses evil'.

In the Middle East, there is no good and evil. There are many parties with numerous religions, cultures, wealth, opinions, educational backgrounds, historical hatred, and needs. Some such as Sharon and 1980 Saddam are more interested in dangerous and self serving political agendas. But this only means that the outsider must tread with advance knowledge.

Unfortunately, too many with opinions of the Middle East (ie Oliver North) have virtually no knowledge of this region. Ignorance is why Americans have been killed here and there. Why does the secular government in Jordan remain so stable and so popular when sitting right in the middle of so much extremism and hatred? If one cannot answer that, then one has insufficient information to answer Undertoad's original question. What is the driving force that may only make American's an even greater target of extremist Islam? Oil in the Caspian Sea.

As usual you failed to answer the question, tw.

That's OK because I did too. I give it a 7.

About a 4. Radical Islam is a major terrorist threat, but they have too much infighting and distractions to actually become more than that. Compared to the former USSR or a hypothetical newly-belligerant China, they're nothing.

Edit: On the other hand, in terms of destroying American freedom, they're an 11; they have already won. Not that they didn't destroy something already severely weakened from the inside, mind you.

But the point is the question cannot be answered. Threat .... to what? What is considered a threat, to whom, in the short term or long term? And what is considered a threat? A loss of two buildings in downtown Manhatten is a major threat or simply an emotional event? Is it a threat if we continue to save Muslims from themselves or force democracy down their throats? One must make personal speculations as to what would happen if we just left the locals to solve their problems alone - without direct outside interference. Or one must assume that right wing extremists will make all decisions based upon their Christian biases.

The question even begs that we know what America and everyone else will do. It assumes relevant forces and parties are known - as if all Muslims think alike. Four years ago, no one would have suggested that an American president would unilaterally attack another sovereign nation using invented justifications. Again, just no way to logically answer that question - except using an emotional response. Too many variables. Assumes knowledge of future events in a region where surprise in too normal. Assumes people know about Musliim Brotherhood and other factors that local political types would rather keep an American public ignorant of.

Russotto demonstrates a problem with the question:
Define threat?

I thought I was pretty clear:

On a scale of 1 to 10, where 1 is "radical Islam is a minor group of assholes who just got lucky on 9/11" and 10 is "radical Islam represents the world's next big cultural collision with the possible repercussion of the collapse of the USA".

If you believe that there will never be another 9/11, that either our security is good enough or the will of militant islamists to bring about the downfall of the US is weak enough to say that they are pretty much powerless, you'd vote 1.

If you believe that another 9/11-scale attack is inevitable and that this could lead to a "total war" situation which requires 1940's style efforts and widespread change on behalf of the American people just to survive as a culture and nation, you'd vote 10.

If you're on the other side, and believe that the power of the US is the najor threat to the entire world, and that a nuclear detonation in a major city would be a pretty good way to cut off its nuts and ensure that no particular nation is a dominant world power, then I guess you'd vote 0.

It's pretty clear, just give us a number.

An answer for UT: a 3. Regional (which until recently is all it was) militant Islamism is just that, regional. The militants didn't really give a rat's ass about us until the mid-1990's. With that in mind, we have to realize that al-Qaeda is still basically that regional organization. We have folks that are just as dangerous that we grow locally (check out the bombing ring that just got busted in Dallas a couple of weeks ago). Now that they have the spotlight, more people know about them (shades of Fox News v. Franken) and more people are suddenly examining the US guvmint's actions and how well we treat other countries (which is a pretty abysmal track record).
Possibly a more important question is: what is the correct response to said extremism as it is now a global problem? Force WILL NOT work. We're seeing force in action right now in Afghanistan and Iraq. If you believe fighting against guerillas (the technical term, not the political one) who have the support of the populace is effective, I have a big granite memorial to show you in Washington, D.C.
Further, can anyone argue that the militants aren't getting their way? Traditional American (or, Western, to be more inclusive) civil liberties have been curtailed; a police state is past its infancy and is well into toddler-dom; record deficits are leadind us down the road to financial ruin. We can do it to ourselves just as well as someone else can.
But maybe I'm just being paranoid.

Radical Islam as a threat to the US: 6

Radical tw as a threat to the Cellar: 1

Question: How does your perception of the actual threat of radical Islam relate to your hours of tv news watching?

I don't watch any tv news and do not consider myself terrorized by bin laden corporation. Take it wherever you want...

I'm absolutely certain that my constant diet of information and considered engagement with the rest of the world make me much more informed than you are on the topic and much more qualified to judge the situation.

thanks for the question

So you don't think tv news is emotion driven, making it the most effective tool of terrorists and by extention the politicians who profit by their actions?

It certainly is, but with practice one can learn to filter and get real information anyway.

If more folks would give us a number, I'd have like to see a comparison of time spent tv watching vs terror assessment number.




No Blister Gas btw

I was too glib with my last answer. In fact a large part of my number includes that emotional reaction.

If they do manage to fly a 747 into Caesar's Palace, again from the vulcan tw perspective, it's a small number of people and a small amount of infrastructure, so it's vitally important that we not give a shit. But that's just wishful thinking. The actual reaction of the country would be overwhelming, I'm guessing. The American people WOULD give a shit. A BIG shit.

The emotion of the second terrorist attack would probably be a lot shorter on tears and sorrow, and a lot longer on anger. We wouldn't nuke anyone the next day, but the resulting approach would be calculated and absolutely fierce. It might also produce martial law or legislation making the Patriot Act look like a ban on dancing.

And if there was a third attack at that point?

Too glib!? This is the Cellar aina?

Terrorism is all about the emotional reaction, so we're playing their game.

Thinking about fighting the 4th generation war.

Bingo, you hit the nail right on the head. Ultimately, terrorism is a childish act. More concretely, terrorism is the act of someone who doesn't like something (say, the occupation of holy land by infidels) and then lashes out blindly against whoever has 'wronged' them. Al-Qaeda is, in one sense, the twelve-year-old on the schoolyard who sees a bully hanging out in their playground, throwing their weight around and striking back (the WTC attack is a proverbial kick to the nuts).
My question still hasn't been answered: how do we react to being kicked in the nuts? In terms of the playground analogy; we have to change from the playground bully (who has now not only kicked the other kid's ass, but now is sitting on him and giving him a wedgie, making him angrier), but we need to become some sort of (yes, I know, vague) principal or court appointed therapist figure that removes the offending child and the bully and makes them work out their differences.
I realize that the analogy breaks down somewhat (as analogies are wont to do), but, no one can say that our current tactics and strategies are effective.
So, someone come up with a better idea which does NOT include "nuking the shit out them" as that would only provoke another emotional reaction from them, pushing them closer to another act of terrorism, continuing the cycle.

The analogy breaks down too fast man. They haven't just attacked the US, for starts. It would be easier to list the countries they haven't attacked.

Crap. You're right, the analogy does break down, in terms of the wider scope of terrorist operations.
The analogy breaks down even further in that there is no 'higher power' to which either side has recourse. In that respect, we could argue an expanded and more aggressive role for the UN, though I can't see anyone in the US govm't going for that since 'we' don't even think that an International Court should have dominion over us. Analogies are always circumspect for explanations.
However, I still argue that terrorism is an inherently childish reaction to a problem. I.e., since you've wronged me, instead of trying to sit down and talk about it like adults, terrorists lash out in tremendously destructive tantrums.

Yes but some countries don't react than USa and, not surprisingly, have less problems than USA. I think that USA manoeuvered itself in the role op world policeman and, as always, there are some anarchists who don't like the police an try to kick his ass. Maybe the policeman should bother a little bit more about his own country and own problems (like education and unemployement). Sometimes I have the impression that Dubya isn't a so good diplomat and reacts a little bit too messy and quick and so, even if he doesn't think bad, he does it bad or his ideas aren't understood as they should be.
You'll never can eradicate terrorism. Fuckuyama was wrong with his ideas about the end of History. There will always be a thesis and an anti-thesis.
Maybe mankind has a bad seed in itself and can't be happy, so there will always be terror, hate, anger, war on earth. And right now it's USA who gets it all. Maybe there will be a real war between Pakistan and India an the whole world-order will change. Maybe China will be the next superpower and the whole world-order will change.
So I'd say right now a 5 out of 10.

pi, what's your first language?


edit.....nevermind......i always forget to check profiles...german, i see

Very interesting link, Griff. Thanks.

Lumberjim, never (but I really mean never), tell me again that my first language is german! Proud not to be a kraut!
btw it's luxembourgish

You'll have to excuse Jimbo...he was just released from the state mental hospital.

As I understand it Pi, there are three official languages in Luxembourg, correct?

This is a joke, right?

That's right. Luxemburgish, french, german. Everybody does speak english an most of us some italian, portugues, spanish and/or netherlands...