Europeans who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

The BBQ Pit
1

The papers over here are filled with the revival of anti-Americanism in Europe. Fine, there is a lot to criticize about us Yankees, so have at it.

But please, drop the fucking holier-than-thou shtick - you ain’t.

What provoked me to post this was this Washington Post article The article documents the German courts refusal to reunite children with their American parent when their German parent has abducted them and brought them to Germany. My favorite example of the fine work of the morally superior Germans was the mother who abducted her children from the U.S., then checked herself into a mental institution and placed her kids in foster care. The father still can’t get his children back. Why? In America, we tend not to speak German, so the children would “suffer” if they were brought back to the U.S. (Bonus German moral superiority points - to avoid more “suffering” by the children, the father was directed to refer to the foster parents as his kids’ “parents”.)

Onto to other fine examples of European ethical mastery:

Death penalty - hey, at least in America, we have a trial. The British SAS action teams against the IRA? The Spanish death squads against the ETA? In legal terms, we call that conduct extrajudicial executions. At least the Spanish recognized this conduct was wrong; the Brits still haven’t. The last time the U.S. had government death squads seeking out and killing its own citizens was, er, um, never.

Kyoto - Your screaming about Bush’s rejection of Kyoto would make a lot more sense if a single European government had ratified the accord. While Bush was dead wrong, at least he acted publicly.

Politics - American politics is nasty, crude and deeply tainted by money. But at least we don’t elect overt racists (Austria) or crooks (Italy, France). And when we catch a politician on the take, we throw them in jail (unlike, say, Germany and Kohl).

And let’s not even get into the French language laws. Regulating how citizens express themselves is democratic exactly how?

I am a hardcore Europhile. I am also a hardcore hater of hypocrisy. Disagree with our policies, fine. Give Bush a nasty time, please. But don’t even think you are in a moral position to judge the U.S.

Sua

2

Yeah, sing it, baby! Canadians are the only ones with the moral right to critisize Americans! :smiley:

3

With their beadly little eyes, and flappin’ heads so full of lies? No way, Kamandi, I blame Canada. :wink:

4

Sadly, I started this thread 'cause I saw puddleglum’s thread header in GD and decided that I shouldn’t invade that thread with my ranting. Seems that I could’a waited just a few minutes.

But, while I’m here, I forgot to mention the French under the heading of the death penalty. How could I neglect the Rainbow Warrior incident and that bombing in Corsica last year?

Sua

5

And yet they don’t want to extradite the guy who assassinated the abortion provider in upstate N.Y. because we brutish Americans might give him a fair trial before executing him. Would it help if we promised to dress him up as an anti-nuclear protestor and get him back across the ocean on a Greenpeace ship?

6

The relationship between Canada and the US is kinda like one with your little brother. You may not get along with him all the time, you’ll rag on each other till eternity ends, but you’ll still get along.

That said, yeah, I’ll amen the OP.

7

This implies that he was ordered to do this for some moral reason. Actually the article says that he was advised to do this by a psychologist, after the kids had shown a marked reluctance to resume a relationship with him and a great attachment to their foster parents.

I noted that most or all the parents involved were fathers. This may explain part of their plight.

So what do think of the Ilian case now? This guy had a hard time getting his kid back from his great-uncle.

What other examples do you have of European moral superiority (other than the usual “we’re the best” mentality thaty everyone has)? I think what may increase antipithy towards the US is te fact that the US regards itself as the leaders of the world, possibly to a greater extent than the ostensible followers do.

8

Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, Bob Barr, Jesse Helms, Tom DeLay

9

Hey, sure, some Europeans look down their noses at “the Americans”, or at least the current head of the Executive branch of the government. So fucking what? Let’s not be so sensitive to banalities published in the newspapers. If we can say whatever we want about the inadequacies of European political or cultural institutions, why can’t Europeans speak out about our own?

The problem here is this constant habit of referring to “the Americans”, “the French” or “the Germans” as monolithic groups, which they most certainly are not. Lord, I am sick and tired of these sweeping generalizations about “the (insert arbitrary group here)”.

The fact that each nation, or culture, or tribe has its own blind spots does not mean that they are incapable of recognizing or responding to failures in others. The fact that some French politicians are corrupt does not mean that “the French”, whatever this term means, have no right to disagree with certain aspects of US foreign policy.

Here’s a thought: let’s argue for or against individual issues, rather than trying to claim that a given nation must remain silent on all subjects unless they precisely match our ethical standards.

10

More Kyoto Hypocrisy- Germany has embarked on a plan to eliminate all nuclear power facilities. And so, a clean-air energy option is lost.

11

A self-created situation. Lessee - mom checks into the looney bin, dad is actively seeking to get his kids back, and has U.S. court-ordered custody. What does the German government do? Puts the kids in foster care - German strangers will raise the kids better than the foreign father. Then years go by. Absolutely, I can see the kids having reluctance to resume a relationship with a father the German government has prevented them from seeing, but it is a classic case of two wrongs not making a right. BTW, any decent psychologist I can think of would say that the important thing is to re-establish the relationship with the father, not continue to cast the father in the role of stranger.

No effect on my opinion of the Elian case. The kid should have been sent back months before.

I have no problem with anti-Americanism per se. Certainly, the U.S. has done many things we shouldn’t be proud of, and on a hell of a lot of the issues, I agree with the Europeans. My complaint is with the underlying tone that America is not only wrong, but is a brutish, primitive place. We may well be, but Europe certainly has its dark side, which the European protestors (and, more and more, leaders) conveniently seem to forget.

goboy - busted. In a pretty meaningless quibble, the American leaders you mention (a) try to hide their racism, and (b) unlike the Freedom Party in Austria, aren’t formally part of the government of the country.

Rocket88 - I think my OP makes it pretty clear that I have no objection, and indeed applaud, European criticism of American policies. What I object to is the current formulation of much of that criticism - not only that the Americans are “wrong”, but that they are “bad”. Before anyone makes moral condemnations of another, it behooves him/her to make sure that their own house is in order.

Sua
Sua

12

Goboy, in the other, less worthy Pit thread, you told puddleglum:

In this WSJ op-ed piece, Pete Du Pont demonstrated the lie of this “consent”:

In another article, Richard Mintier writes:

Contrary to your assertion, I find this chilling and repugnant devaluation of human life to be quite comparable to the Nazis’ beliefs, in that Dutch doctors and the Dutch government apparantly agree that some people are not worth keeping alive.

America has its faults, but Europe a whitewashed sepulchre.

13

You may be right, but that does not make it an example of German “moral superiority”.

My point was that the same type of thing can hapen here as well. And the way Elian’s father prevailed was through the INS which refused to grant asylum. Had it gone to family court, Jaun Miguel might be in the very same predicament as the Americans whose plight you deplore.

What I was asking for was evidence that this is indeed the case.

14

Let me get this straight:

  • if a court in one country makes a biased decision against a US citizen, then another country is morally wrong to criticise the US. :confused:

Oh, it’s a pissing contest! Righty-ho: how about those ATF ‘death squads’ - better than our SAS at inflicting casualties, but not as good as identifying US-sponsored terrorists.

I have no idea what got you so upset (you didn’t cite an article), and I didn’t enjoy typing the last paragraph.
But I like my country (as I’m sure you do), and I couldn’t think of another way to show you how unpleasant you were being.

15

Kindly read my posts. For the third (fourth?) time - it is right and good for European protestors and leaders to criticize the U.S. It is highly improper for European protestors and leaders to view the U.S. as a nasty, brutish, primitive land of gleefully polluting, death-dealing, gun nuts (to paraphrase The Economist, a British newsmagazine), when (a) it’s not true, and (b) European nations have enough skeletons in their closets themselves. My point is (and to put it crudely) the rapist is not in a good position to condemn the child molestor.

BTW, had you read the article I linked to, you would have noted that German courts have consistently made these biased decisions against U.S. citizens in these cases, in violation of the Hague Convention on International Child Abductions, to which Germany is a party. Under that Convention, the German courts have no right to make any decision in these cases, biased or not - they are supposed to enforce the court decisions made in the country of the child’s primary residence (in these cases, the U.S.)

Oh, it’s a pissing contest! Righty-ho: how about those ATF ‘death squads’ - better than our SAS at inflicting casualties, but not as good as identifying US-sponsored terrorists.
[/QUOTE]

No, it is not a “pissing contest”. It is a statement. A continuing criticism of the U.S. by almost all European governments (reflecting the viewpoints of their electorate) is that the U.S. is barbaric because it has not outlawed the death penalty. Well and good - criticize the death penalty (I agree it should be outlawed). However, when several European countries have repeatedly used the death penalty - without the benefit of trial - in the recent past, for example the French in Corsica and against Greenpeace, the British against the IRA (the most famous of which was the ambush at Gibraltar, and there were several incidents in County Armagh - note I am not including Bloody Sunday: there is no evidence that that was a planned event), and the Spanish against the ETA, it would behoove the people of those countries to make sure their own governments are not acting in an even more barbaric manner.

BTW, concerning the ATF and Waco - the intent was to arrest the Branch Davidians, and the ATF screwed the pooch. Contrariwise, the intent at Gibraltar was to kill the IRA team there, and not give them an opportunity to surrender. Ditto the Corsican bombing, and the Spanish death squads against the ETA. The sinking of the Rainbow Warrior was probably not intended to kill anyone, but if you plant a bomb on a boat, your moral position sucks if you don’t make sure the boat is empty.

If you are British, it would be best if you knew of the conduct of your government in its campaigns against the IRA. IIRC, the Gibraltar incident occurred in 1992, and various SAS assasinations of IRA members and supporters occurred throughout the Troubles.

I’m being unpleasant by holding a mirror up? Sorreee.
Please note that I have never said that the British, the French, the Spanish, etc., are evil because of these actions. What I am saying is that these European governments used the death penalty. I think “do what I say, not what I do” is a pretty good definition of hypocrisy.
The problem I’m having is that current rhetoric coming from Europe has gone beyond criticism of particular U.S. actions and policies, and has become a conclusion that America and Americans are indeed evil, or at least barbarians.

That’s why I’m pissed.

IzzyR - All I can tell you about evidence is what I read in European newspapers and magazines. Two examples are the Economist, which I paraphrased earlier, and some truly lovely articles in Stern - my favorite blurb, referring to Bush, “The Ugly American has a face again.”

Sua

16

Zarathustra, the two articles you linked are the most close-minded, hyperconservative examples I have ever read on the subject of euthanasia in the Netherlands.
Why don’t you try to substantiate your stance with factual documents rather than with ill-informed rhetoric disguised as “informed opinions”? As it is, this just makes you look as big a fool as the two authors you referenced.

17

Yes I agree.

So it’s not a quote then?

I read the Guardian, a major English newspaper.
You can read it yourself on:

Here are some quotes:

Global warming and the environment
Many European politicians were scandalised by Washington’s unilateral repudiation of the Kyoto accord setting limits to greenhouse gas emissions. Bush acknowledges that the US, with 4% of the world’s population, emits 20% of greenhouse gases. But he insists that the subject needs more study.

The death penalty
US diplomats and other officials have been taken aback by European criticism of Bush’s enthusiasm for capital punishment, both as governor of Texas and now as president. Several European leaders have roundly condemned the execution of the Oklahoma bomber, Timothy McVeigh.

Perhaps you could paraphrase these quotes.

The UK just had an election. The Labour Party won a clear majority, with just over 24% of the eligible voters.
And, according to you, that means they reflect the viewpoints of the electorate!
I suppose Bush represents all the US, because he got nearly 50% of the votes cast?

Yes, I know about the judicial inquiries into how an elected Government defends itself against US-sponsored terrorists.
Not quite the same as the CIA in Chile - I suppose it doesn’t count if the US kill foreigners, whilst overthrowing an elected Government.

18

Lemmesee, the IRA, death squads, and where does the bulk of the cash come from to fund this organisation ?

Perhaps if they had not been funded so well they would not have had the means to carry out their attacks.

Of course the IRA never ever killed any innocents, such as children shopping in Warrington, or the war veterans parade at Eniskillen, or put bombs in crowded pubs killing fifty or so ? Ever heard of of sectarian killings, in Ireland, these were regular events, all you had to do was live in an area whose majority were of a differant religion and you were a target.

Despite this and despite a very dirty campaign by both sides there is currently a peace process going on, in case you have not noticed, at least we have started down the path of reconciliation in some of our conflicts. Please acknowledge this before you attempt to condemn us.

Which country bankrolls Israel ? Do you feel there is not at least a little wrong on both sides of that tragic situation, and do you not think that the US could have moderated things sooner, selling F-16’s to a government that uses them for attacking targets that are densely populated despite being warned about the possible uses seems either very naive or cynical, take your pick.Certainly those raids resembled little more than revenge attacks rather than strikes against specifically identified threats.

The US tends to export its terrorism.

Which country funded the Contras ?

Which country supported the Shah of Iran in all his excesses and was surprised by the backlash ?

Virtually all of the West supported Saddam Hussain at one time or another.

Which country supported General Pinochet ?

Which country overtly overthrew Daniel Ortega - an elected President?

Europe is not holier than thou, all the former colonial powers have a great deal to be ashamed of, but to a large extent their time is through, but never doubt that they were roundly criticised in their day.

Now the US is the greatest power, and it will get the same criticism too.

It is all too easy to knock European nations as they struggle with organised terrorism, but the US has been fortunate that it has not had to deal with an ongoing terrorist group on its own soil, the one of note ended with the perp being executed though, so that maybe gives some indication.

I hope you never have to deal with organisations whose methods are those of ETA,EOKA,RAF,IRA,UDA,UVF because I’m sure that your administration will be sorely tempted to try for the quick fix that ours have.

I really do not think you should get involved in discussing the trouble in Northern Ireland unless you have a specific interest, you speculate about what happened in Gibralter but you fail to acknowledge that those killed were on a mission to plant a large car bomb which, if it had been succesful, would have killed dozens of people including bystanding tourists. You call it assassination but if I were in a position to take out such a group in one go and prevent such a situation I doubt I’d take the chance of taking prisoners and perhaps failing (of course those told to stay still will always do so and not attempt to get away), my duty would be to those under threat of destruction.There was an extremely succesful propaganda campaign by the IRA in the US following that event, you seem to have swallowed every word.

Let me see if I get this right, one court in Germany makes a decision with which you disagree, and me in little old England is not allowed to make comment on some US matter, and the connection is precisely what ?

I would think that German courts have the right to make decisions on the welfare of its citizens, despite what you feel about the decisions made by US courts.

British courts have made plenty of decisions about the guilt of terrorists but US ones have often ignored them, not so nice when the boot is on the other foot is it ?

19

Coldfire, I punch “Remmelink Report” into Google and I get many, many references to an “official government report” released in the Netherlands on 10 September 1991. For example, this Australian parliamentary research report states:

This particular document (linked above) cautions against interpreting these cases (doctor killing patient without the latter’s permission) as any kind of “slippery slope”, and speculates that the same thing probably happens in the US. Utter balderdash, but I chose to link to this relatively sympathetic document since other documents are somewhat critical of the Netherlands–and Coldfire would no doubt shut down all prefrontal brain functions and begin yammering “hyperconservative” at the slightest hint of criticism of his fine nation.

In addition, I found the web page of The Lancet–the other reference cited in the two articles I linked before–and it appears to be a serious medical journal. I can’t access the report cited in Mintier’s article (since the archives are accessed by subscription), but if it’s true that that journal reported that a Dutch doctor committed infanticide because it suffered an apparently treatable birth defect–my God, how can you defend that, “hyperconservative” or not? And you people call us death-mongering barbarians?

In short, what I posted was true. Coldfire, your knee-jerk denunciation of my sources exposes your own ignorance and does a great disservice to this board. I really expected better of you.

20

The IRA kills a lot of innocents, and the policy of the British government was to execute them.
Tim McVeigh kills a lot of innocents, and the policy of the American government was to execute him.
Is this right or wrong? I don’t know, and for this discussion, I don’t care. You seem to be arguing that, if the crime is sufficiently heinous, execution is appropriate. That is the U.S. policy, too.

I gladly acknowledge this, and I think y’all are worthy of praise for it. You seemed to have missed my point - this thread is about not condemning peoples and governments.

::sigh:: Um, I’m not condemning Britain nor its tactics against the IRA. I’m trying to point out that Great Britain executes criminals. Sure, you don’t have the death penalty, but your government’s policy in the recent past was to assassinate without trial criminals. That’s all I’m trying to say, and you are getting defensive without reason. Please acknowledge that your government had a policy of extrajudicial executions before you condemn me. If you wish to go farther, please acknowledge that it is at least questionable for people in Great Britain to condemn the U.S. for executing criminals when your government did the same, very recently.

OK, I acknowledge that the IRA team was there to plant a car bomb. I acknowledge that the SAS set up an ambush. I acknowledge that they may have been the best thing to do. I also acknowledge that, rather than attempting to arrest the IRA criminals, the SAS executed them. If you assert that the SAS was right to do so (and hey, you would probably be right), you are acknowledging that, in certain circumstances, it is appropriate for the government to execute criminals. The only conflict between the U.S. and British policy then is the circumstances under which such executions can occur. In the U.S., we require a trial.
Note the difference between Gibraltar and Ruby Ridge. In both cases, the determination was to go for the kill rather than the arrest. In the Ruby Ridge situation, the FBI agent who did the killing is now being prosecuted in Idaho state court. Did the SAS troopers from Gilbraltar get prosecuted?

BTW, isn’t it a bit peculiar that you are saying I shouldn’t comment on N. Ireland, but you argue for your right to criticise U.S. policies? Why are British policies immune from discussion by a foreigner?

Amazingly, you get every bit wrong. Read the linked article, please.

  1. Courts in Germany have repeatedly ignored the Hague Convention on International Child Abductions, to which Germany is a party. It is not one case, the article recounts several.

  2. Under the Hague Convention, which again, Germany signed, German courts do not have the right to make decisions in this case. Germany voluntarily gave up that piece of its sovereignty. Their required duty is simply to enforce the decisions of the U.S. courts in these cases. Were the roles reversed, under the Hague Convention, the U.S. courts would have the duty to enforce the decisions of German courts.

And, in acting against their duty under the Hague Convention, the German courts are abetting kidnapping.

  1. As I have said REPEATEDLY, I do not deny the right of Europeans to criticize American policies. To repeat myself again, my fucking point is that Europeans have the moral authority only to say U.S, policies are bad, wrongheaded, etc., not that the policies are evil, which is what I’m getting from the European press at this time.

Sua