[Xugumad]

Originally posted by MaggieL
Probably true enough. But he hasn't hit anything expensive yet.

I guess you really can't put a price on human life (or civil liberties), then. The view from Europe sees the approximately <a href="http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm">3000</a> dead Afghan civilians as being a high price to pay.

C'mon, how good a job of responding to 9/11 would Gore have done?

Speculation doesn't get you anywhere. Clinton was perfectly content to bomb Iraq whenever necessary, and to send US troops to fight on foreign soil. Since we don't know what Gore would've done (and being politically aware, he would have followed public opinion, which was screaming for blood), any further speculation invalidates conclusions drawn from it.

meanwhile there would have been Al Queda attacks in London, Belgium and Rome

I am quite baffled why you'd suggest such attacks. Do you seriously think that the attack on the US was merely the first of many on several other countries? (and if so, if those attacks had taken place in any countries that did not directly ally with the US) Was it a Belgian warship that was nearly blown out of the water and had crewmen killed? Was it an Italian border on which people were arrested, trying to smuggle components for a nuclear device into the country? Was it Belgium that is blamed (perhaps wrongly) for many of the ills of the Arab world? It is Spain who has been financing Israel and propping up the corrupt authoritarian regime of Saudi Arabia? Is it Portugal that had its embassy sacked and its personnel held hostage in Iran? Is it Italy that financed the war against Russian occupation in Afghanistan?

Was it a symbol of Jewish-American economic and political strength that was destroyed?

As I said: speculation invalidates your arguments. You are arguing from emotion, suggesting that Europe should be happy the US acted, otherwise it'd have been under attack. Instilling fear is not a valid means of argumentation; certainly not a logical one.

I'm getting less and less interested in what the mainstream European view is these days..

Unfortunately the US government desperately needs European support for any further foreign policy ventures. The European papers this week have reported in-depth on US diplomatic maneuvering, desperately trying to get European backing. (If you feel like reading German, try http://www.spiegel.de/politik/auslan...210499,00.html and http://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutsc...210484,00.html )

You may not care what Europe thinks, but unless the US is going to retreat into isolation (again), European opinion remains vitally important to US politics, and policies. This is not my opinion, but what has been demonstrated time and again by diplomatic argumentation from US; its only true ally in Europe is Britain, and even there, public opinion is slowly - but surely - moving the government's position further and further away from unquestioningly backing any US move.

It's really easy to sit in the peanut gallery and whine. And that's all they ever seem to do.

Feel free to direct the insult straight at me, as I'm European. 'Seeming' and 'being' are two different things, as I'm sure you probably know. If you have actual specific problems rather than sweeping, imprecise, (ostensibly insulting) statements, feel free to say what they are, and I'll try to address them, hoping to elaborate on and elucidate the 'European' position. (in itself too sweeping and generalizing)

Anyone?

X.