Europeans who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones

The BBQ Pit
21

**SuaSponte ** wrote:
**t 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. *

Sua, if you genuinely support Europeans’ protest against US positions, why bother working yourself up about anti-Americanism? Yes, Europeans often express their low regard for specific American policies by stereotyping all Americans as clueless or as conscious supporters of these policies. But guess what? The majority of us are either clueless or conscious supporters of these policies–otherwise our elected leaders wouldn’t have these policies.

I’m not unsympathetic to your feelings. I have lived in Britain for months at a time and have chastised my friends there for the hypocrisy of basing their generalizations about Americans on American TV while they themselves watch the TV programs–which I, an American, don’t! That said, European criticism in this instance is fairly specific and there is simply no denying that, from the European view, US policy (on missiles, on the environment, on human rights) just blows chunks. Here is a short editorial from The Nation that describes the US as a “rogue nation” because of its record of “excepting” itself from its own global standards:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20010528&s=editors

And here, from Alternet is a good article on European opinion:

http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=11029

I don’t know what your position is on some of these issues; but even if one agrees with the Bush administration (and I sense you do not), what must be acknowledged is that there are huge differences between US policy and European sentiment on matters of vast importance. It simply makes no sense, as I see it, to worry about slights to one’s own pride as an American citizen. It’s possible, I have found, both to sympathize with European (and other) criticisms of the US and to be content and sometimes even proud that one is an American.

My point is (and to put it crudely) the rapist is not in a good position to condemn the child molestor.

And my point is that as individuals–or, if you prefer, cosmpolitan citizens of the world :)–we are free to condemn both rape and child molestation without worrying overmuch about wounded national pride.

22

Yeesh–sorry for all those italics and the confusion between Sua’s remarks and my own. I meant to hit “preview” and "submitted intsead.

23

To make a statement that killing criminals in order to prevent an imminent murderous event is either an assassination or an execution is disingenuous.This is quite differant to judicially killing someone because a crime has been deemed to be heinous.Frankly I do not see why there is any obligation to put the SAS operatives on trial for any matter concerning this operation, what they did IMHO was perfectly legal, both in the UK and, if you want it, the US.

Every citizen of every nation has the right to use lethal force to protect themselves or others when threatened directly with same.Unless there is a nation that does not but I doubt it.

One does note that we do not use judicial killing any more, which is fortunate as those accused of placing bombs in Birmingham(the real one) where eventually found to be innocent on appeal, at least we have the chance to make some redress for our mistakes and as for trials, well at least we have the chance to review things should a large bundle of FBI case notes suddenly become available.

As for the UK using extra-judicial killings (which Gibraltar was not) I would like to see your evidence from an unbiased source, we have held investigations into such activities, it may even be true but as I say, the IRA gets a lot of very respectable ears in the US, lets see exactly whom is saying what.

Now using torture on ‘IRA’ suspects, this has been documented and is disgraceful, furthermore it was a stupid move simply because it handed the IRA an aura of legitimacy.

One thing that I have experienced is that a great many Americans hardly know where Europe is, as a nation you are very insular and it must come as a shock for some to find that there are others in the world who disagree with the often righteouness tone of US foreign policy statements.

As for ‘Europeans’, well this is what I am and by appying a blanket statement in the way you did you are saying that I may not criticize because I have no moral authority, whilst this may or may not be true I doubt that you have enough information about me to be able to come to such a view, for all you know I could be the next Albert Schweizer.

24

What “imminent murderous event” was Rosemary Nelson about to take part in?

What about Pat Finucane?

25

You fuck up. You commit heinous acts, or just killings, of whatever kind.

We do too. We fuck up, we commit heinous acts, or just killings, of whatever kind.
When the rest of the world has contributed as much as we have, why then go ahead and bash us.

In the mean time, with your leaders on the one hand bashing w, and on the other, being alarmed at the possibility that he will pull our presence out of the european places where our presence is apparently enough to get your leaders alarmed at the possibility he will pull us out, well, to be succinct, shut the fuck up.

Or shut the bashers up.

-It has been shown that all our respective nations have their dark sides, US included.

But man, US contributes a lot, now and in the past. We have broken trail in many many areas, we have shared our prosperity- yeah, for selfish reasons, but there isn’t any country’s government that is all that humanitarian when it comes to giving out money to other countries.

So, You, Us, Them- we are all good on days, and shitty murderers on days.

All he’s saying is knock it the fuck off- Generally speaking, I don’t see an anti-thisone or anti-thatone attitude in this country- you come over here, most people are going to do their best to be hospitible to you, from what I see, as soon as you tell them you’re from wherever.

I do not say everyone, but it’s a bet you’ll get treated better here as a traveller than I will in France, for instance. Excepting running into a criminal, I mean. Which can happen anywhere.

So why you gotta bash us, given that none of us is perfect? And we all suffer from approximately the same degree of imperfections?

I hate lots about this country, and it’s government, and especially this new prez.

But I’ll tell ya. I’d rather live here any day, than anywhere else.

Even Canada. Who btw, aw, never mind. You wouldn’t believe it if I told ya.

Sorry. I just don’t feel the need to be as nice as some here. I get freakin tired of it.

Those of you who don’t like us, why don’t you just go to your country’s leaders and tel them, ‘Hey- just tell th US to leave us alone, entirely!’

See what their response is.

I firmly believe in never using a roll-eyes, but if I did…

26

<Taking the bong from Bobojoe>

Okay, dude. I think you’ve had enough.

27

I guess attempting to arrest them was out of the question?

28

Please could you cite some of the bashing?
So far SuaSponte has only given links to some child domicile case decisions in Germany, then dived in with historical criticisms of some European countries.

P.S. I like America, and Americans (except Puddleglum!).
I personally think the Bush Administration has some suspect policies, which are alarming a large number of countries (many of whom are American allies).
Am I allowed to make the above statement?

29

“Some of my best friends are American.” :smiley:

30

IIRC, the SAS team at Gibraltar set out with precisely that intention… but they had, as it turned out, wrong information. They thought that the terrorists had a radio-controlled detonator for their bomb, and, when they attmpted to make the arrest, the terrorists made some gesture, motion - I don’t know what, but it was enough for the SAS team to believe they were attempting to trigger the bomb. In which case, their immediate reaction was to act to protect the innocent citizens endangered byt the bomb - and the only way they could do that was to use deadly force.

There have been other incidents, as ruadh commented… but I don’t think it’s legitimate to extrapolate from these and claim that it’s actually a settled policy to execute criminals without trial. In the case of terrorist organizations, they are using deadly force against the general population; the government (which has an obligation to defend its citizens) has to use deadly force in return… and, in the process, people get killed. “Rightly” or “wrongly”, accidentally or deliberately. The only way to avoid this is to move away from the use of deadly force in political dialogue. Which we are attempting to do.

31

What does bug me slightly is this, never has the US had a more loyal ally than the UK, sometimes this is self-interest on our part, sometimes following along in approving of adventures that seem in some quarters to be dubious, and possibly the majority simply because many of our values our very similar.

We have applied several times in the past for extradition for convicted IRA killers who broke out of jail and ran to the US, but the US courts deemed their crimes to be political and afforded asylum.That’s how to look after your friends eh ? Need to hang on to the Irish vote in the presidential elections ?
It may even have been the proper thing to do but you can be sure plenty of Brits felt otherwise.Certainly here many still feel that US was hypocritical in condemning those who harbour knwon terrorists such as Syria with such a background.

There is plenty of hypocrisy to go around.

The US has been pretty sharp at times when condemning European trade with such as the likes of Iran, or say the banana trade issue, the US states what it believes, why should European nations not do the same ?

The closeness of this alliance does disturb some of our European allies who doubt our commitement to closer integration with the Euro trade/politico zone.

I think the French language protectionism is up to them but it makes me feel uneasy as it indicates a certain type of nationalism, however to lump all Europe together and collectivise a bitching session is like saying that all Americans are racist on the basis of a few incidents in one state, it just isn’t fair to do this.

As for moral superiority, I call it as I see it, I may not have all the information to hand, what I have may have been twisted, I may have bias, I may have some other agenda such as arguing against similar policies in the UK, whatever, I’m sure that others could look at me and see my imperfections, that is the way of the world.

You put me right and I’ll put you right, maybe we will all improve, if we take a reasonable attitude.

32

What part of the word “paraphrase” do you not understand?

  1. Fuck you, glee, for implying that I am lying;
  2. You want the fucking quote? Fine. “The European stereotype is of a gun-slinging, Bible-bashing, Frankenstein-food-guzzling, behemoth-driving, planet-polluting United States, in which politicians are mere playthings of mighty corporations.” 6/15/01 Economist, p. 23. Next, “[O]ne EU commissioner says he is ‘quite convinced that Bush’s policies on missile defense and Kyoto were dictacted by campaign contributions from big corporations.’” Id., p. 24.
  3. And, once again, fuck you, glee. I do my best to be truthful on this board. When I make mistakes, I acknowledge them. I do not appreciate your sanctimonious, as well as dead wrong, crap.

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?
[/QUOTE]

Um, actually, he does. It’s called representative democracy.

casdave, fine, let’s drop Gibraltar. We are not going to agree on what happened there. BTW, for the record, my position is that the SAS set up a deliberate ambush, had no intention of trying to arrest the IRA squad, and was probably right to do so.
However, if you are going to continue to argue that Britain did not engage in assassinations of IRA members in other instances, including in instances where no life of an innocent was in immediate danger, well, I see no point in continuing this discussion. FTR, my position is that the British did have such a policy, and that it is irrelevant for purposes of this discussion whether that policy is morally correct.

Sua

33

Bears repeating- especially the last line.

glee
-no, except for some personal ex-country experiences, I cannot provide hard cites- well, probably could, it’s kinda big in the news these days over here, but the bashing per se wasn’t my point.

We both know it happens. And it happens to people here in the usa also.

The whole deal is: Hey- you got your uglinesses, I got mine. I ain’t wailing on you for yours, please do me the same courtesy.

See the last sentence of the quote. That’s the antidote.

And if I’m not mistaken, the fellow who made it is Euro.

One isn’t against Euros so much as any of the holier than thou attitude which some of them display. One hates that wherever it is found, even in himself.

34

**SuaSponte **

2. You want the fucking quote? Fine. “The European stereotype is of a gun-slinging, Bible-bashing, Frankenstein-food-guzzling, behemoth-driving, planet-polluting United States, in which politicians are mere playthings of mighty corporations.” 6/15/01 Economist, p. 23. Next, “[O]ne EU commissioner says he is ‘quite convinced that Bush’s policies on missile defense and Kyoto were dictacted by campaign contributions from big corporations.’” Id., p. 24.

Actually, this is exactly what I meant when I tried to say that issues are far more important here than the affront to national pride. I don’t particularly like The Economist which is too conservative a publication for me. But the writer specifically says that there is a European “stereotype” of an American. At the very least, this shows that the writer is aware of the stereotyping problem. More important is the comment from EU commissioner who’s convinced that the policies were dictated by campaign contributions. Is that anti-Americanism? It sounds like a specific belief to me. And if I didn’t already agree with EU Commissioner, I’d be more interested in ascertaining the truth of this charge, than in feeling the wound to my national pride.

glee, if you read the Alternet link I posted, you’ll see reference to European criticisms from various quarters (“bashing”).

bobojoe wrote:
The whole deal is: Hey- you got your uglinesses, I got mine. I ain’t wailing on you for yours, please do me the same courtesy.*

I don’t disagree about the need for courtesy, nor do I disagree with Sua or, for that matter casdave on the unhelpfulness of stereotyping. That said, this position simply won’t do. This idea of “let he who is without sin be the first to cast stones” is a great moral standard but in this case it doesn’t apply. Once again, the criticism is directed at specific policies. Anyone interested in defending American honor would be better off confronting those policies than scrutinizing France or England or wherever for their own skeletons. Who doubts that European nations have skeletons? That’s not the point!

Is Bush’s foreign policy dictated by the manufacturers of weapons of mass destruction? Is his Kyoto position dictated by oil buddies like Dick Cheney who are scheduled to croak in a few years and care more about the bottom line than about the health of the environment? If so, is there any purpose in clouding the issue by countering one set of criticisms with another?

35

SEVERAL times? I can only think of one case where a republican prisoner was granted asylum rather than be extradited - Brian Pearson’s, in 1997 (it was news precisely because it was the first time it had ever happened). There may be others since then that I’ve missed but for the most part the US has, in fact, sent them back.

Yeah, that would explain why every single president up til Clinton completely ignored the Northern Ireland issue :rolleyes:

36

Yes, I think so. And I also believe that we are now reaping the harvest of disastrous decisions made by our grandparents which led to transit train tracks being ripped up, and replace with slow, smelly buses that drove just about anybody who could afford it into private cars. One hundred years ago just about every large city had a fast, efficient
light rail network that ran out to suburbs and nearby cities. According to this
it was nearly possible to travel from Ohio to New York on
the extensive light rail network that existed at that time.

I’ll leave those who are interested to go to the link, rather than summarize it here. But I will say that it establishes quite convincingly that the “busification”, or “motorization”–i.e., replacing streetcars and trains with slow, smelly buses–, of American public transit that took place in the early to mid-20th century was largely the result of the concerted effort of automobile and tire manufacturers. And I don’t doubt that the oil industry was heavily involved as well.

37

Without taking any position whatsoever on this thread or on the troubles, here’s a short GQ aside:

In fairness to casdave, there were other cases where the return of IRA fugitives took sufficiently long as to be a constructive holding back of the guy.

Joe Doherty, for example, fought extradition for nine years and won decisions at various levels before Wild Bill and the Supremes sent him back. Of course, he was downtown in a cell the whole time, so it’s not like he was running freely around while he waited for the decision. But still, I can see where folks might reasonably be frustrated by the wait.

The wheels grind very slowly here sometimes.

This GQ aside has been brought to you by Guinness Extra Dark and Bass Ale. Call it a “black and tan” in the wrong place, and see if you just don’t get your arse kicked. Try “half and half” for better enjoyment.

38

Why is a specific belief not an example of anti-Americanism? A specific belief about Jews, blacks, British, Fijians, etc., can be an example of bigotry. In the case of the EU commissioner, he may have a point about Kyoto, but the missile defense idea is facially ludicrous. Sure, missile defense would greatly benefit certain companies involved in aerospace, etc. But to pay for it, it is very likely that other weapons programs would have to be axed, thus harming other U.S. companies. Any lobbying would tend to cancel each other out.

You are absolutely right. The policies should be scrutinized. Such policies will not be scrutinized, however, if the criticism is presented as “you bad, nasty Americans.” As this thread demonstrates, couching criticism in such terms only serves to shed heat, not light.

Just one nitpick on facts - there really aren’t any U.S. manufacturers of weapons of mass destruction. The U.S. government, via the Department of Energy, exclusively makes nuclear warheads, and IIRC, they closed down the Savannah plant that makes the nuclear and are cannibalizing decommissioned warheads to maintain the active ones. As for missiles, again IIRC, new ICBMs are not being manufactured now; there are probably maintenance contracts for the current ones. It was the end of this business that, in large part, caused the California recession of the early 90s. In any event, the current issue is defense against weapons of mass destruction, not the creation of new ones, so the manufacturers of weapons of mass destruction, if they exist, aren’t pushing this debate.

Sua

39

**javaman **

*…I will say that it establishes quite convincingly that the “busification”, or “motorization”–i.e., replacing streetcars and trains with slow, smelly buses–, of American public transit that took place in the early to mid-20th century was largely the result of the concerted effort of automobile and tire manufacturers. *

Yep–and the interesting thing is that, in Britain, an even more extensive rail network that was built in the nineteenth century, has recently been privatized and is being run into the ground. In the meantime traffic on the motorways is unbearable.

But even with that trend, gasoline in Britain is expensive and heavily taxed, forcing people to conserve energy far better than we do. When I lived there I had this great little Rover that got amazing gas mileage: and carried lots of stuff too. The US shift towards high-consumption and high-pollution SUVs just looks inexplicable to many Europeans–even to Britons who are themselves dealing with government policies that have led more and more people to drive. (This partly by way of suggesting that once you drop the nationalistic sentiments you start to be able to discuss similarities and differences more productively.)

This is a little bit of a history/enviro highjack, but if javaman or anyone else is interested, this is an awesome (though long) article, also from The Nation on the history of the introduction of leaded gasoline.

http://past.thenation.com/cgi-bin/framizer.cgi?url=http://past.thenation.com/issue/000320/0320kitman.shtml

40

Yes, I agree with that.
Britain was the world superpower about a century ago, and with great power comes great responsibility. We certainly made some mistakes and deserved some criticism. But on the whole, Britain did pretty well - as shown by the Commonwealth. Now it’s your turn - good luck with it all.
After all, if the most powerful country in the world doesn’t behave well, who can stop them?
I think it is the strength of our Democracies that there can be constructive criticism and debate.

You like:
‘You put me right and I’ll put you right, maybe we will all improve, if we take a reasonable attitude.’
I like it too.