Brian: these two paragraphs of yours are nearly in contradiction:

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Third, there is the reason why terrorist groups exist in the first place. Why are people willing to risk, or even sacrifice, their lives to bring destruction to others? Obviously because they have a serious grievance. Are all such grievances legitimate? No, but where there are no legitimate grievances terrorism will be weaker than where there are some.

This is the danger of thinking about radical Islam as if we were confronted by implacable alien menaces that cannot be understood. This is the danger in saying things like "they hate us for our freedom, for who we are." This makes the problem unsolvable (and I strongly suspect, for Mr. Bush, that was the point -- an unsolvable problem provides a perpetual pretext for war).

First, you accept that not all grievances are legitimate.

One such illegitimate grievance Islamicists refer to is our essential non-Islamic nature, including our freedoms. As has been pointed out quite well by knowledgable observers such as Rushdie, Islam is in crisis due to modernism. (One need only image the medieval Catholic Church confronted with the modern West to understand.) Some within Islam see the solution to be eliminating modernism, including our freedoms.

Your second paragraph claims there is a danger in acknowledging these facts. When is it dangerous to acknowledge the truth? Only where other truths are not also acknowledged, which is not the case with Mr. Bush, despite your insinuations.

The pretense that the problem is unsolvable is one of the tools of the terrorists. They spread the myth that they are ghost-like super beings, who cannot be found and killed, whose supplies cannot be cut off, etc. The Left in the West also frequently spreads this myth.

This myth has never been spread by Bush. Much the opposite.

Do you deny the existance of any irrational people? Is Charles Manson rational?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

True. So where's a third course of action different from both the Bush approach (uncompromising, short-sighted nationalism) and a blind devotion to the U.N.?

I've already suggested one or two on other threads, but let's see what you suggest.

I haven't got a well-worked-out solution, but only vague ideas.

(1) The U.N. is only attempt #2 at some sort of international authority. We should learn from our mistakes and move on to attempt #3. I believe that it is inconsistent with fundamental American beliefs to surrender our sovereignty to the representatives of tyrannical regimes. As such, I am very interested in recent suggestions that the world's democracies form a voting bloc within the U.N. and/or form a separate organization overlapping the functions of the U.N.

(2) We must appreciate that institutions which evolve naturally are more likely to succeed than ones which are created by some intellectuals working in a hotel for a few weeks. I expect that, just as nation-states gradually evolved from city-states, some sort of supernational authority will gradually evolve. Some have use the phrase "network civilization" to refer to this concept, referring to the fact that some networks develop from a bottom-up rather than a top-down approach.

The power and influence of the U.S. is much more natural than that of the U.N., in that it is based on the abilities and productivity of a continent-nation every bit as significant as all of Europe combined. As such, we should not feel guilty if the U.S.'s role in any future network is greater than most other nations.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

True. So where's a third course of action different from both the Bush approach (uncompromising, short-sighted nationalism) and a blind devotion to the U.N.?

I've already suggested one or two on other threads, but let's see what you suggest.

I haven't got a well-worked-out solution, but only vague ideas.

(1) The U.N. is only attempt #2 at some sort of international authority. We should learn from our mistakes and move on to attempt #3. I believe that it is inconsistent with fundamental American beliefs to surrender our sovereignty to the representatives of tyrannical regimes. As such, I am very interested in recent suggestions that the world's democracies form a voting bloc within the U.N. and/or form a separate organization overlapping the functions of the U.N.

(2) We must appreciate that institutions which evolve naturally are more likely to succeed than ones which are created by some intellectuals working in a hotel for a few weeks. I expect that, just as nation-states gradually evolved from city-states, some sort of supernational authority will gradually evolve. Some have use the phrase "network civilization" to refer to this concept, referring to the fact that some networks develop from a bottom-up rather than a top-down approach.

The power and influence of the U.S. is much more natural than that of the U.N., in that it is based on the abilities and productivity of a continent-nation every bit as significant as all of Europe combined. As such, we should not feel guilty if the U.S.'s role in any future network is greater than most other nations.

We must appreciate that institutions which evolve naturally are more likely to succeed than ones which are created by some intellectuals working in a hotel for a few weeks. I expect that, just as nation-states gradually evolved from city-states, some sort of supernational authority will gradually evolve. Some have use the phrase "network civilization" to refer to this concept, referring to the fact that some networks develop from a bottom-up rather than a top-down approach

I agree with you, msm. Unfortunately far too many people in this country right now think that internationalism in any form is evil. We will probably have to wait til the next saeculum before we see any movement towards this. Perhaps, though, before a supernational authority evolves, we may have "super-regional" authorites, somewhat like the EU. That kind of reminds me of the political situation in Huxley's "Brave New World"

We must appreciate that institutions which evolve naturally are more likely to succeed than ones which are created by some intellectuals working in a hotel for a few weeks. I expect that, just as nation-states gradually evolved from city-states, some sort of supernational authority will gradually evolve. Some have use the phrase "network civilization" to refer to this concept, referring to the fact that some networks develop from a bottom-up rather than a top-down approach

I agree with you, msm. Unfortunately far too many people in this country right now think that internationalism in any form is evil. We will probably have to wait til the next saeculum before we see any movement towards this. Perhaps, though, before a supernational authority evolves, we may have "super-regional" authorites, somewhat like the EU. That kind of reminds me of the political situation in Huxley's "Brave New World"

Originally Posted by msm

Democratic societies employ open debate in a human attempt to arrive at the wisest course of action.

The fact that some individuals taking part in said debates may be unwise or irrational does not preclude the tendency of democratic societies to outperform nondemocratic societies in arriving at wiser and more rational policies.

There was no debate at the time, it was secret.

Furthermore, any nation-state has a much greater incentive to behave rationally vis-a-vis WMD use than a secretive terrorist religious cult, for reasons almost too obvious to state: (1) the terrorists might think that they will avoid retribution, and (2) being fanatics, they might not care anyway.

Your comment about irrational leaders was about the head of a nation state. Not a terrorist leader.

You suggest that leaders who threaten us with nukes (by giving them to terrorists) will actually do that. I pointed out that the US actually used nukes against people when they were first developed. The US also threatened to use nukes against people who could not retaliate (which makes the threats more credible). So the US has said (and done) the same sort of threatening things that North Korea talks about. Yet when the dust settled did we ever act on any of the things we threatened? No.

Now you could say well the US is different because we are the good guys and so you can ignore any scary things we say because obviously we don't really mean it.

OK, but the evil empire had nukes for many years and said many scary things over the years. The Evil Empire was 100 times more scary than the Axis of Evil. Today we live under a presumed threat of tens of thousands of dead Americans from a terrorist "suitcase nuke" attack. Forty-five years ago it was tens of millions of dead Americans from a Red thermonuclear attack.

Yet when the dust settled, none of the evil empires ever nuked us. Even if they really wanted to attack us, the threat of retaliation kept them from doing it. Now they could have gone the terrorist route. Back in the 1970's there were plenty of American-hating terrorists and they were plenty of American-hating regimes who had WMDs (e.g. Vietnam, Cuba, USSR, China). If giving WMDs to terrorists was something that would allow them to strike at the US without risk of retaliation, they would have done so. They never did. This is because they would be found out and there would be retaliation.

The whole idea of evil national leaders giving WMDs to terrorists is a red herring. What is not a red herring is the possibility that suicidal terrorists might be able to get WMDs on their own without any help from any states. Taking down Iraq doesn't stop al Qaeda from getting nukes from private groups who might have a misplaced Russian nuke or two.

Originally Posted by msm

Democratic societies employ open debate in a human attempt to arrive at the wisest course of action.

The fact that some individuals taking part in said debates may be unwise or irrational does not preclude the tendency of democratic societies to outperform nondemocratic societies in arriving at wiser and more rational policies.

There was no debate at the time, it was secret.

Furthermore, any nation-state has a much greater incentive to behave rationally vis-a-vis WMD use than a secretive terrorist religious cult, for reasons almost too obvious to state: (1) the terrorists might think that they will avoid retribution, and (2) being fanatics, they might not care anyway.

Your comment about irrational leaders was about the head of a nation state. Not a terrorist leader.

You suggest that leaders who threaten us with nukes (by giving them to terrorists) will actually do that. I pointed out that the US actually used nukes against people when they were first developed. The US also threatened to use nukes against people who could not retaliate (which makes the threats more credible). So the US has said (and done) the same sort of threatening things that North Korea talks about. Yet when the dust settled did we ever act on any of the things we threatened? No.

Now you could say well the US is different because we are the good guys and so you can ignore any scary things we say because obviously we don't really mean it.

OK, but the evil empire had nukes for many years and said many scary things over the years. The Evil Empire was 100 times more scary than the Axis of Evil. Today we live under a presumed threat of tens of thousands of dead Americans from a terrorist "suitcase nuke" attack. Forty-five years ago it was tens of millions of dead Americans from a Red thermonuclear attack.

Yet when the dust settled, none of the evil empires ever nuked us. Even if they really wanted to attack us, the threat of retaliation kept them from doing it. Now they could have gone the terrorist route. Back in the 1970's there were plenty of American-hating terrorists and they were plenty of American-hating regimes who had WMDs (e.g. Vietnam, Cuba, USSR, China). If giving WMDs to terrorists was something that would allow them to strike at the US without risk of retaliation, they would have done so. They never did. This is because they would be found out and there would be retaliation.

The whole idea of evil national leaders giving WMDs to terrorists is a red herring. What is not a red herring is the possibility that suicidal terrorists might be able to get WMDs on their own without any help from any states. Taking down Iraq doesn't stop al Qaeda from getting nukes from private groups who might have a misplaced Russian nuke or two.

This 4T is like the Armada Crisis, with a few things turned around. Bin Ladin is Drake, who sailed over to Spain to ?singe the king?s beard.? Then here comes the Spaniards (Americans), sailing foolishly up the English Channel (Iraq), only to be trapped, burned, and dispatched into a raging North Sea, where ever kind of disaster befell them. It?s classic: David stands up to Goliath and kills him with a primitive weapon; one for which Goliath was unprepared. Same is true for the ?invincible? Armada, whose captains did not understand what they were getting into.

Avast, ye hardies! We be 4T.

--Sir Francis Croakmore

This 4T is like the Armada Crisis, with a few things turned around. Bin Ladin is Drake, who sailed over to Spain to ?singe the king?s beard.? Then here comes the Spaniards (Americans), sailing foolishly up the English Channel (Iraq), only to be trapped, burned, and dispatched into a raging North Sea, where ever kind of disaster befell them. It?s classic: David stands up to Goliath and kills him with a primitive weapon; one for which Goliath was unprepared. Same is true for the ?invincible? Armada, whose captains did not understand what they were getting into.

Avast, ye hardies! We be 4T.

--Sir Francis Croakmore

Originally Posted by Croakmore

This 4T is like the Armada Crisis, with a few things turned around. Bin Ladin is Drake, who sailed over to Spain to “singe the king’s beard.” Then here comes the Spaniards (Americans), sailing foolishly up the English Channel (Iraq), only to be trapped, burned, and dispatched into a raging North Sea, where ever kind of disaster befell them. It’s classic: David stands up to Goliath and kills him with a primitive weapon; one for which Goliath was unprepared. Same is true for the “invincible” Armada, whose captains did not understand what they were getting into.

Avast, ye hardies! We be 4T.

--Sir Francis Croakmore

Not quite. Iraq isn't going to burn up our Armada...they don't have the means. And if they were to secure the means, and utilize it, we could simply nuke them off the planet if we wanted to. Of course, the resulting global war would leave no Nation on earth unscathed, including us--even if we escaped being nuked ourselves, our economy would be bombed back to the 1700s as the world's oil supply became radioactive. The aftermath of such a Crisis would far more closely resemble that of the Civil War (Reconstruction) rather than the Armada (Merrie England).

Originally Posted by Croakmore

This 4T is like the Armada Crisis, with a few things turned around. Bin Ladin is Drake, who sailed over to Spain to “singe the king’s beard.” Then here comes the Spaniards (Americans), sailing foolishly up the English Channel (Iraq), only to be trapped, burned, and dispatched into a raging North Sea, where ever kind of disaster befell them. It’s classic: David stands up to Goliath and kills him with a primitive weapon; one for which Goliath was unprepared. Same is true for the “invincible” Armada, whose captains did not understand what they were getting into.

Avast, ye hardies! We be 4T.

--Sir Francis Croakmore

Not quite. Iraq isn't going to burn up our Armada...they don't have the means. And if they were to secure the means, and utilize it, we could simply nuke them off the planet if we wanted to. Of course, the resulting global war would leave no Nation on earth unscathed, including us--even if we escaped being nuked ourselves, our economy would be bombed back to the 1700s as the world's oil supply became radioactive. The aftermath of such a Crisis would far more closely resemble that of the Civil War (Reconstruction) rather than the Armada (Merrie England).

Originally Posted by msm

First, you accept that not all grievances are legitimate. . . . Your second paragraph claims there is a danger in acknowledging these facts.

That is not what I have said. Please review. I am saying that, while it is true that some grievances are illegitimate and unanswerable, these are not the important ones. There are also many legitimate and answerable grievances, and were it not for those, too few people would be moved by the illegitimate ones to present much of a problem.

I used the example of Islam in the Middle Ages, which lacked today's legitimate grievances, and also lacked todays radical Muslim terrorist movements. The feelings of exploitation and inferiority are channeled by the Muslim culture into radical Islam. But without those feelings, radical Islam would not exist, or would be so trivial a splinter that we could safely ignore it.

Islam has not always rejected modernism. At one time, it was the cutting-edge civilization of the world. A subset of Muslim thinking today rejects modernism because it associates modernism with the West, with its oppressors. Were the oppression to cease, or even be moderated; were the lives of Muslims in the Middle East made more endurable, these dangerous and short-sighted versions of Islam would have less appeal.

The pretense that the problem is unsolvable is one of the tools of the terrorists. They spread the myth that they are ghost-like super beings, who cannot be found and killed, whose supplies cannot be cut off, etc. The Left in the West also frequently spreads this myth.

The Left, the Bush administration, and the terrorists do not spread the same story. They spread two different ones (the same ones by Bush and the Left, a different one by the terrorists), and the Left adds another factor that the Bush administration prefers to ignore.

The Left does not consider Muslim terrorists to be ghost-like super-beings. Like the Bush administration, it considers them to draw upon an endless (under current circumstances) pool of manpower, so that it sprouts new heads like the Hydra.

The Bush administration stops at that point, and says that we will have to be fighting this war interminably for the foreseeable future, always in danger, always in conflict, always on alert, always sacrificing freedom for security.

The Left does not stop at that point, but says that the Hydra springs from a body -- oppression and resentment -- that can be removed. We must in the meantime guard against the heads (and that means, among other things, identifying them correctly, not diverting our attention to other targets, however hated and for however long). But if we do the right things on an international level, we can make an end.

Originally Posted by msm

First, you accept that not all grievances are legitimate. . . . Your second paragraph claims there is a danger in acknowledging these facts.

That is not what I have said. Please review. I am saying that, while it is true that some grievances are illegitimate and unanswerable, these are not the important ones. There are also many legitimate and answerable grievances, and were it not for those, too few people would be moved by the illegitimate ones to present much of a problem.

I used the example of Islam in the Middle Ages, which lacked today's legitimate grievances, and also lacked todays radical Muslim terrorist movements. The feelings of exploitation and inferiority are channeled by the Muslim culture into radical Islam. But without those feelings, radical Islam would not exist, or would be so trivial a splinter that we could safely ignore it.

Islam has not always rejected modernism. At one time, it was the cutting-edge civilization of the world. A subset of Muslim thinking today rejects modernism because it associates modernism with the West, with its oppressors. Were the oppression to cease, or even be moderated; were the lives of Muslims in the Middle East made more endurable, these dangerous and short-sighted versions of Islam would have less appeal.

The pretense that the problem is unsolvable is one of the tools of the terrorists. They spread the myth that they are ghost-like super beings, who cannot be found and killed, whose supplies cannot be cut off, etc. The Left in the West also frequently spreads this myth.

The Left, the Bush administration, and the terrorists do not spread the same story. They spread two different ones (the same ones by Bush and the Left, a different one by the terrorists), and the Left adds another factor that the Bush administration prefers to ignore.

The Left does not consider Muslim terrorists to be ghost-like super-beings. Like the Bush administration, it considers them to draw upon an endless (under current circumstances) pool of manpower, so that it sprouts new heads like the Hydra.

The Bush administration stops at that point, and says that we will have to be fighting this war interminably for the foreseeable future, always in danger, always in conflict, always on alert, always sacrificing freedom for security.

The Left does not stop at that point, but says that the Hydra springs from a body -- oppression and resentment -- that can be removed. We must in the meantime guard against the heads (and that means, among other things, identifying them correctly, not diverting our attention to other targets, however hated and for however long). But if we do the right things on an international level, we can make an end.

Originally Posted by msm

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

True. So where's a third course of action different from both the Bush approach (uncompromising, short-sighted nationalism) and a blind devotion to the U.N.?

I've already suggested one or two on other threads, but let's see what you suggest.

I haven't got a well-worked-out solution, but only vague ideas.

Fair enough.

(1) The U.N. is only attempt #2 at some sort of international authority. We should learn from our mistakes and move on to attempt #3. I believe that it is inconsistent with fundamental American beliefs to surrender our sovereignty to the representatives of tyrannical regimes. As such, I am very interested in recent suggestions that the world's democracies form a voting bloc within the U.N. and/or form a separate organization overlapping the functions of the U.N.

A Union of Democratic States. Exactly. I've been saying something similar for a while now. Not only would such a union be more consistent with our values and culture, but it would also comprise all of the most powerful economies in the world, and many of the most powerful militaries. Purely by existing, and conferring benefits of free trade and mutual prosperity on its members, it would create a carrot encouraging other states to emulate those members and become democracies. Eventually, it would be the best candidate (in my opinion) to form the nucleus of a true global government.

Now. Can you see how the Bush administration's approach to our democratic allies is not helping this prospect? It is this, not his attitude towards the U.N., that bothers me most about his uncompromising nationalism.

Originally Posted by msm

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

True. So where's a third course of action different from both the Bush approach (uncompromising, short-sighted nationalism) and a blind devotion to the U.N.?

I've already suggested one or two on other threads, but let's see what you suggest.

I haven't got a well-worked-out solution, but only vague ideas.

Fair enough.

(1) The U.N. is only attempt #2 at some sort of international authority. We should learn from our mistakes and move on to attempt #3. I believe that it is inconsistent with fundamental American beliefs to surrender our sovereignty to the representatives of tyrannical regimes. As such, I am very interested in recent suggestions that the world's democracies form a voting bloc within the U.N. and/or form a separate organization overlapping the functions of the U.N.

A Union of Democratic States. Exactly. I've been saying something similar for a while now. Not only would such a union be more consistent with our values and culture, but it would also comprise all of the most powerful economies in the world, and many of the most powerful militaries. Purely by existing, and conferring benefits of free trade and mutual prosperity on its members, it would create a carrot encouraging other states to emulate those members and become democracies. Eventually, it would be the best candidate (in my opinion) to form the nucleus of a true global government.

Now. Can you see how the Bush administration's approach to our democratic allies is not helping this prospect? It is this, not his attitude towards the U.N., that bothers me most about his uncompromising nationalism.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by msm

(1) The U.N. is only attempt #2 at some sort of international authority. We should learn from our mistakes and move on to attempt #3. I believe that it is inconsistent with fundamental American beliefs to surrender our sovereignty to the representatives of tyrannical regimes. As such, I am very interested in recent suggestions that the world's democracies form a voting bloc within the U.N. and/or form a separate organization overlapping the functions of the U.N.

A Union of Democratic States. Exactly. I've been saying something similar for a while now. Not only would such a union be more consistent with our values and culture, but it would also comprise all of the most powerful economies in the world, and many of the most powerful militaries. Purely by existing, and conferring benefits of free trade and mutual prosperity on its members, it would create a carrot encouraging other states to emulate those members and become democracies. Eventually, it would be the best candidate (in my opinion) to form the nucleus of a true global government.

Now. Can you see how the Bush administration's approach to our democratic allies is not helping this prospect? It is this, not his attitude towards the U.N., that bothers me most about his uncompromising nationalism.

Yep. "A Union of Democratic States" might also be a "Coalition of the Willing," except not all that many states are willing to follow Bush. During the Clinton years, there was a developing consensus that failed states allowing or instigating genocide, political famine, ethnic cleansing and / or organized rape invite international intervention. Bush attempted to extend the threshold of intervention further than the rest of the world was willing to follow. The stress the Iraq occupation puts on the US military volunteer / reserve system means the Clinton Doctrine is apt to yet trump the Bush Doctrine.

There are many international problems that will have to be solved. There is an increasingly complex ad-hoc web of military alliances, ecological treaties, international monetary organizations, free trade zones and what not. This web will only grow. Still, the values and self interests of the various democratic states are not yet sufficiently in sync for nations to yield to an international body direct control of military or the power to tax. Values will have to grow closer or things will have to grow much worse before a true sovereign Union of Democratic States develops. Still, the ad-hoc proto international government departments will continue to develop bottom up.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Originally Posted by msm

(1) The U.N. is only attempt #2 at some sort of international authority. We should learn from our mistakes and move on to attempt #3. I believe that it is inconsistent with fundamental American beliefs to surrender our sovereignty to the representatives of tyrannical regimes. As such, I am very interested in recent suggestions that the world's democracies form a voting bloc within the U.N. and/or form a separate organization overlapping the functions of the U.N.

A Union of Democratic States. Exactly. I've been saying something similar for a while now. Not only would such a union be more consistent with our values and culture, but it would also comprise all of the most powerful economies in the world, and many of the most powerful militaries. Purely by existing, and conferring benefits of free trade and mutual prosperity on its members, it would create a carrot encouraging other states to emulate those members and become democracies. Eventually, it would be the best candidate (in my opinion) to form the nucleus of a true global government.

Now. Can you see how the Bush administration's approach to our democratic allies is not helping this prospect? It is this, not his attitude towards the U.N., that bothers me most about his uncompromising nationalism.

Yep. "A Union of Democratic States" might also be a "Coalition of the Willing," except not all that many states are willing to follow Bush. During the Clinton years, there was a developing consensus that failed states allowing or instigating genocide, political famine, ethnic cleansing and / or organized rape invite international intervention. Bush attempted to extend the threshold of intervention further than the rest of the world was willing to follow. The stress the Iraq occupation puts on the US military volunteer / reserve system means the Clinton Doctrine is apt to yet trump the Bush Doctrine.

There are many international problems that will have to be solved. There is an increasingly complex ad-hoc web of military alliances, ecological treaties, international monetary organizations, free trade zones and what not. This web will only grow. Still, the values and self interests of the various democratic states are not yet sufficiently in sync for nations to yield to an international body direct control of military or the power to tax. Values will have to grow closer or things will have to grow much worse before a true sovereign Union of Democratic States develops. Still, the ad-hoc proto international government departments will continue to develop bottom up.

Originally Posted by msm

Try to imagine this happening: a group of Alabamans chain a black man to the back of a pickup truck and drag him to his death, but the media reports this without mentioning the victim's ethnicity...

Yeah, right. That wouldn't happen, now, would it?

Good point.

Originally Posted by msm

Try to imagine this happening: a group of Alabamans chain a black man to the back of a pickup truck and drag him to his death, but the media reports this without mentioning the victim's ethnicity...

Yeah, right. That wouldn't happen, now, would it?

Good point.

Originally Posted by msm

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by msm

terrorists behead another Jew on videotape...

Is that all he is to you?

Nevermind, anyway. We're both wrong. The Democratic Underground has the scoop: the CIA killed Nick Berg.

I'm surprised Kathaksung or Sbarro haven't mentioned that yet!!! :wink:

Originally Posted by msm

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by msm

terrorists behead another Jew on videotape...

Is that all he is to you?

Nevermind, anyway. We're both wrong. The Democratic Underground has the scoop: the CIA killed Nick Berg.

I'm surprised Kathaksung or Sbarro haven't mentioned that yet!!! :wink:

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Now. Can you see how the Bush administration's approach to our democratic allies is not helping this prospect?

A slim majority of the U.S.'s democratic allies are with the coalition. If you take out France, Germany, and Canada (although Canada is split-brained about this; Canada's Prime Minister is very much in agreement with Bush), you won't find much opposition left.

"New Europe", the nations with a living memory of real oppression who see America as a big factor in their liberation, has been very supportive.

Even Spain is actually pretty split-brained, with Spanish troops returned from Iraq arguing on their media that they should have been allowed to stay and finish their mission.

France and Germany are currently run by the anti-American generation of 1968; this includes their media, which even American liberals agree is quite slanted. This situation is temporary. In the long run, the whole brouha over Iraq will be small change.

BTW, the Bush administration has been quietly pushing the "democratic union" idea. To give credit where it's due, so did the Clinton admin.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Now. Can you see how the Bush administration's approach to our democratic allies is not helping this prospect?

A slim majority of the U.S.'s democratic allies are with the coalition. If you take out France, Germany, and Canada (although Canada is split-brained about this; Canada's Prime Minister is very much in agreement with Bush), you won't find much opposition left.

"New Europe", the nations with a living memory of real oppression who see America as a big factor in their liberation, has been very supportive.

Even Spain is actually pretty split-brained, with Spanish troops returned from Iraq arguing on their media that they should have been allowed to stay and finish their mission.

France and Germany are currently run by the anti-American generation of 1968; this includes their media, which even American liberals agree is quite slanted. This situation is temporary. In the long run, the whole brouha over Iraq will be small change.

BTW, the Bush administration has been quietly pushing the "democratic union" idea. To give credit where it's due, so did the Clinton admin.

The blue countries are in the "coalition of the willing". (Note that, originally, Spain was in the blue camp.) The ones with the little symbol have troops in Iraq.

The red opposed U.S. policy in Iraq. I forget what green means; something like like "neutral".

==

That image isn't loading very reliably; here is an equivalent:



The second image is older, pre 3/11.

The "old Europe"/"new Europe" dicotomy is fascinating.

The blue countries are in the "coalition of the willing". (Note that, originally, Spain was in the blue camp.) The ones with the little symbol have troops in Iraq.

The red opposed U.S. policy in Iraq. I forget what green means; something like like "neutral".

==

That image isn't loading very reliably; here is an equivalent:



The second image is older, pre 3/11.

The "old Europe"/"new Europe" dicotomy is fascinating.