02 Feb 2003 | fajalar said...

Perhps they (Jacques and Gerhard (now there's a sitcom waiting to happen)) are just trying to matter in a situation where they have no say. I get the feeling anymore that it's all scripted. "I'll say this, then they'l say that, then I'll come back with this. How will this play in the polls?" Moral conviction is not a staple of any country's political diet. It is up to the citizenry to serve it up. It's just that most people don't hold press conferences to show how they stand on a political issue. Jeez, I wouldn't even know how to hold one.

But as I read the piece I go to thinking. I get bothered by all the reports that I see/hear/read that start with quotes like, "The Americans," and then go on to lambast some policy or action. I am an American, and it isn't my policy. But I get lumped in with "The Americans." Just like Mr. Friedman does in his piece. "The Europeans..." So what?

If a restaurant caters to a clientel that prefers to know from whence their food came, so what? (It happens in the US.) A small group of store owners who may, or may not be against a war with Iraq put up signs so they don't have to pay for replacing windows, so what?

The real problem is that we hear about protesters (another small group in the piece) and we hear about a couple of guys who happen to 'lead' a couple of countries, and all of a sudden it's "The Europeans." I have it on good authority that more than 30 people live in Europe. And I am sure there are more than 30 different points of view. Just like here in America. And Iraq (though expressing that point of view is a different thread).

Lastly, GMOs may not be proven to be unhealthy, but they are also not proven to be of no harm. Put that in your Funk & Wagonall.

02 Feb 2003 | JF said...

Of course generalization is unfair, but it's the only way to discuss an issue. And, yes, there are hypocrites on all sides and angles, but I agree with Friedman; Europe's current round of cynicism and insecurity, masquerading as moral superiority, is insufferable. Have real conviction please.

03 Feb 2003 | Fish Sauce said...

"Have a real conviction please"?

Jesus. So does that mean that it would be a real conviction if it was pro-war?

03 Feb 2003 | ek said...

I think that his attempt to make a point is close to being amusing, were it not for the realities of the world we live in and the gravity of the situation he writes on in his piece.

First, on the GMO/smoking issue, what really does one have to do with the other. How many hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars are spent in the U.S. on diet books/videos/programs/etc., yet how many Americans are, by the standards of our own arbiters of health, obese? Is he trying to say that only Europeans show some measure of hypocrisy in their every day lives? In short, what's the point?

On GMOs specifically, one could make the same "lack of proof" argument about global climate change. How silly of the Europeans to be concerned about it when there is as yet no absolute proof as to our influence on rising global temperatures. Will he be satisified when "Ground Zero" in lower Manhatten is submerged under water several decades from now? Who will we blame then?

Same goes for GMOs -- will it take people suffering from abnormally high cancer rates decades from now for him to acknowledge that there may be a risk? Of course we don't know that there is a risk at all, but, at this point, we don't know a lot more than we do know so isn't it at least reasonable for European restaurants and/or grocers to allow people to make their own choices as to whether they will consume genetically modified foods? The right to choose for oneself seems a very American concept to me.

But this is all a tangent, I find his greater point that the Europeans are somehow acting solely out of "expedience or petulence" very silly. For one, how can those who are urging that more time to be given to the U.N. inspectors be acting out of expediency? As for petulence, is it oh so wrong for other members of the community of nations to ask for some hard proof before agreeing to attack another sovereign nation? Would we even be having this discussion if such proof had been offered? Perhaps Powell will reveal such proof this week in his speech to the U.N., but until then I don't see how he can call the "Europeans" (I presume that he was writing about the "old" Europe) petulent for wanting to take a more cautious approach.

While his talk of expedience and petulence was silly, his talk of "conviction" was simply stupid. Here's a question for him; would the U.S. have come to the aid of Burkina Faso (a tiny landlocked country in Northwestern Africa with precious natural resources to speak of) if it had been invaded by Ghana or Niger, or any one of its bordering countries as we had come to the aid of Kuweit? Absolutely not. Here's another question; would we be talking about invading Iraq again if it weren't 1) in the Middle East and 2) sitting on top of a load of oil? Our Administration's approach to the situation in North Korea seems to indicate that we would not.

So where's the "conviction" that he speaks of? On what "principle" is it that we are seeking to attack Iraq? Our actions speak much more clearly to expedience (we want stability in the region even if it takes a war to get it -- and the oil doesn't hurt either) and petulence (do you need any more proof than G.W.'s famous "he tried to kill my daddy" quote?) than any on the part of the Europeans.

So please, Mr. Friedman, get off of your soap box and breathe in a few whiffs of the air that us normal folks do, it might do your inflated head some good.

I should be clear that I, personally, do not wholly object to the U.S. taking military action against Iraq. Those who say that containment can do the job often, in the next breath, decry the deaths of millions of Iraqi babies due to the U.S. backed embargo. These people need to make up their minds. Armed conflict is horrible, but it is still, in our day and age, sometimes necessary. All I ask is that the administration be honest with us. If it's about Iraq not living up to their promises to the U.N. then give us and the world some proof.

We're not talking about a slap on the wrist here, we're talking about war. I would think that we, as citizens of this country, and the members of the world community have a right to ask for some proof before assenting to and, in some cases, participating in that most violent and deadly of acts.

That's not being "expedient" or "petulent," it's showing some common sense.

03 Feb 2003 | ek said...

Wow, that post was way too long!

03 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

What Schoeder screwed up on is to say "no", instead of saying, "Ill wait for the report by UN weapons inspectors before making a decision". He should have left us an open door, as France did. But contrary to popular belief, Schroeder isnt some kind of "respected politician" who people follow. Its the other way around - hes simply catering to the people, because the majority of Germany is against war. Hes a puppet - hes not respected and hes grasping at straws to win the next election.

"Europe's current round of cynicism and insecurity, masquerading as moral superiority, is insufferable..."

Who claimed "moral superiority"? Not Germany. that was never stated. I dont know where some of you people get your facts, but you certainly shouldnt rely on an editorial from the times comparing cigarette smoking to Europes stance. There is no real Europe. There is denmark, france, switzerand, sweden, spain, portugal, germany, UK, irland, scottland, italy, austria, finland, norway, greece, turkey, netherlands, belgium, romania, russia....etc. all of these countries are absolutely separate from one another politically, culturally, linguistically, mentally and up until last year in some cases monitarialy. Its really funny how all these countires, who are totally separte from one another are always lumped together, as if they are a country.

03 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

"Of course generalization is unfair, but it's the only way to discuss an issue."

i disagree.

03 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

"The French finance minister, Francis Mer, said he was "deeply insulted" by Rumsfeld's remarks. But in Germany, Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer shrugged off the comments and advised Rumsfeld to "cool down." Hans-Ulrich Klose, who is vice chairman of the German parliament's Foreign Relations Committee, said Rumsfeld's tone represented no more than a cultural difference."

03 Feb 2003 | Roel said...

I think you don't understand the 'anti-American sentiments' here in Europe. Maybe you can call it 'anti-Texan' or 'anti-Bush', 'cause that's what it is.
And where did that come from? Bush discarding the Kyoto agreement maybe, or just the general environmental policy of his administration?
Why are "we Europeans" so sceptical towards another American war abroad? Maybe we didn't forget that Saddam and Bin Laden where trained and funded by American government agencies? And what about the regimes of Pinochet or Videla?

03 Feb 2003 | Megagrunt said...

It seems to me that Americans (or at least the one's who's Blogs I read) tend to take more notice of editorials like Mr Friedman's than they do of actual news stories.

Is this because they can't think their way through the reported facts themselves to come up with their own opinion?

Or perhaps they instinctively realize how much is kept out of the news by the U.S. media, and belive that these editorial writers are somehow better informed than they are?

03 Feb 2003 | fajalar said...

Alisha wrote:"Of course generalization is unfair, but it's the only way to discuss an issue." i disagree.

I agree. With your disagree, that is. I definitely speak in generalities all the time, but try not to do so when it is an important issue to me. It is a difficult thing to discuss topics with specifics, but often (especially in a wirtten forum, blog or print) it is important as tone and facial expressions are not available to help with the communication.

Which is why often when I post here, I hit Google 2 or 3 times to get the specifics (if you can trust that damn Internet thing).

Like I will do right now, because I can't remember who Videla is.

03 Feb 2003 | JF said...

Is this because they can't think their way through the reported facts themselves to come up with their own opinion?

We can't think our way through the reported facts? Which facts are we missing, sir?

Surely not the facts that Hussein has consistently violated UN agreements he signed to end a war he lost.

Surely not the facts of long-standing systematic tortue, murder, and massacre of political and domestic opponents -- all acknolwledged by the UN.

Surely not the facts of Hussein denying he had chemical weapons and a nuclear program that the UN inspectors unearthed in the early 90s.

Surely not the fact that Blix (a man who once certified Iraq as "exemplary" and North Korea as clean) believes the 12,000 pages handed over by Iraq are full of gaping holes and missing declarations (12,000 pages isn't enough to be clear?). And rememeber, the UN resolution on disarmament requires Saddam, not the inspectors, to prove he has disarmed.

Surely not the additional facts that will be coming out shortly about his consistent and systematic deception of UN inspectors.

Surely not the fact that the UN Security Council has voted unanimously on the side of the US position thus far.

Surely not the fact that the UN concluded in 1999 that Saddam Hussein had biological weapons materials sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax and 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin. He STILL hasn't accounted for that material.

Surely not all those facts, and more. Nope. We Americans can't think our way through those facts. We'z two stupid.

03 Feb 2003 | JF said...

Maybe we didn't forget that Saddam and Bin Laden where trained and funded by American government agencies?

And, maybe we didn't forget that the French built the Iraqi nuclear reactor in the late 70s, early 80s. Thanks to Israel that reactor never came online. But...

The US military is involved with training and funding militaries around the world. From countries in Africa, Europe, North America, South America, and Asia, the US government trains as many as 100,000 foreign police/soldiers in about 150 countries around the world each year (many of them for peacekeeping missions). Does Mexico threaten us? Does Canada? Does France? Does Germany? Does Israel? The newly independent Eastern European states or any NATO countries? How about South Korea? Nope. Countries that turn that training back on the US bear the responsibility of their actions.

03 Feb 2003 | fajalar said...

Surely not the facts that Hussein has consistently violated UN agreements he signed to end a war he lost.

The US has continuously violated UN Human Rights resolutions.

Surely not the facts of long-standing systematic tortue, murder, and massacre of political and domestic opponents -- all acknolwledged by the UN.

The US does this too, only it's usually on the international level. Though you could make a case that political and economic policies of late (past 30 years) have caused systematic abuse of domestic individuals and groups.

Surely not the facts of Hussein denying he had chemical weapons and a nuclear program that the UN inspectors unearthed in the early 90s.

The US denys having many things (informational and physical) because it suits national security. What does that look like to other nations? That we lie and are elusive.

And so on, and so on. I do understand your point, JF, and agree with you to a certain extent. But the UN is a powerless group. They can sit around all day and make resolutions left and right, and every nation can turn around and disobey those resoultions when it suits them, and many do.

Until the UN pulls together and decides that they do need to be world leaders, not a collection of country leaders, they will be essentially an ad hoc committee.

They need to get together and find a way to actually bitch-slap a bunch of countries, including the US. (And when I talk countries in this sense I am speaking political bodies.) They need to find a way to convince many countries that inclusion is more profitable than exclusion.

And when all else fails, they need to be able to very quickly mobilize a force to go anywhere and take over, and expect to be in charge for a long time.

The US going it alone (or even mostly alone) keep the same show playing. "Do as we say, not as we do." This country's government is the new kid on the block trying to be a parent to the rest of the world.

03 Feb 2003 | fajalar said...

Countries that turn that training back on the US bear the responsibility of their actions.

They bear most of the responsibility. But the US must understand how it's actions can affect them in the future. I want to see long term solutions, not "Let's train 'em (and supply 'em) to kill our foes in that country. And that'll be the end of it."

It's never the end of it.

03 Feb 2003 | JF said...

And so on, and so on.

The US didn't sign a cease fire agreement to end a war that they lost. If agreements to end wars aren't enforceable with the threat of military force, I don't know what kinds are.

But, yeah, I know what you're saying. And, as it's been said before, over and over, every country has plenty of dark spots on its record. I personally believe the major difference in this case is that the resolutions being broken are related to the end of a war. In effect, if those agreements are ignored by the losing party, the war should never have ended.

And as I said to Alisha in another heated thread, war is not the first option, or the last option. We've given Mr. Hussein every option for 10+ years. War is the VERY LAST option. I just think we've reached that point. If military action is never an option (or a threat), then dictators like Hussein have no need to listen or change (as evidenced by Hussein's 10+ years of defiance of every UN resoution we've thrown at him).

I don't want war, but I'm prepared to throw my support behind it if I'm convinced its necessary. Personally, I don't believe there will be a war. The military talk, and buildup, is part of a well orchestrated bluff. We'll see a diplomatic solution to this problem (exile probably), but only because of the threat of force. The UN has so watered itself down that it requires a real threat of force -- led by the US -- for its words to carry any weight (as evidence of Saddam's constant defiance when there was no consequence of military action).

03 Feb 2003 | JF said...

Can somone clearly, concisely, and completely explain France's current position on the current Iraqi situation?

03 Feb 2003 | fajalar said...

The UN has so watered itself down that it requires a real threat of force -- led by the US -- for its words to carry any weight (as evidence of Saddam's constant defiance when there was no consequence of military action).

I agree. And that is the way wars have traditionally been played out. "Do what we tell you or we'll pummel you. Again." But we walked away from that 'war' with Iraq. It wouldn't seem as much walking away if the UN had more strength, but essentially that's what we did.

And now we are back saying, "It looks as if you didn't do what we told you to do 10 years ago. Now you're gonna pay, buddy." Yeah, there were sanctions, but that doesn't seem to have affected the one person we want to affect. So it appears that agreements at the end of wars can be enforceable, but after a time out for all sides.

I hope we don't go to war. I am not sure it is just a bluff though. I hope you are right.

03 Feb 2003 | Jim Jones said...

EK: I don't think your post was too long at all. After reading JF's intro, I was hoping that you'd chime in. I think you're the most analytical of the 37signals bunch.

03 Feb 2003 | JF said...

I love getting EK all riled up. ;) What I find most interesting is that ML, the 37signals' resident political science major, rarely chimes in on political discussions.

03 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

oh, I think theyre all very analytical and reasonable, otherwise I wouldnt hang out here. EK is just lots of fun because he gets all emotional and speaks his mind. SVN is like debate class.

03 Feb 2003 | Steve said...

I'm getting tired of this idea that if someone disagrees with the U.S. it's because they're unprincipled or cowardly or whatever. Alliances and friendships among nations do not mean that the lesser members should just be yes-men to the nation with the biggest cache of weapons. Yes, it's frustrating when an ally doesn't agree with you. But the US, and many individual Americans - including Friedman, whom I have a great deal of respect for - are acting incredibly petulant in the face of divergent opinions.

Yes, there's a bit of knee-jerk reaction against anything America does within Europe. It's the price of being big man on campus. Everyone is going to take swings at the biggest target. If that target can't deal with it, then maybe it needs to rethink its desire to be the biggest. France is especially prone to this sort of knee-jerk reaction, and I do believe it is due in part to an inability of the French to come to grips with their diminished role on the world stage. The fact that there is still so much Napoleon stuff all about Paris to me indicates that there's a lot of wistfulness for France's former position as a major power. I can't say that I blame them. You think America would behave any differently if it found itself in that position?

But, to dismiss Europe's viewpoint (and what is "Europe" anyway? It's not like the EU is speaking with a unified voice on much of anything, and that's the closest thing to a single "Europe" there is. France and Germany do not equal Europe) out of hand is short-sighted and petty on the part of the US. There are valid points there. Europe has more than ample experience with what happens when one power rises so far above the others. They are understandably wary because of what they witnessed with Napoleon or Hitler. And, I can't say I blame them for being a bit resentful when it's the stated, public policy of the United States that no other great powers shall be allowed to emerge, including in Europe. The US tends to look at the EU portion of Europe, and certainly the Nato members, as little more than vassal states to be continually under the influence and, in a benign sort of way, control of the US. I'd be a little cranky, too, if I were in the leadership of a country that is in that position.

03 Feb 2003 | Jonny Roader said...

"Can somone clearly, concisely, and completely explain France's current position on the current Iraqi situation?"

A tall order, JF, and not one that I can help you with. However, if you're not clear on France's position then how can you dismiss it as unprincipled? Or was it a rhetorical question?

03 Feb 2003 | JF said...

I think I know what their position is, but maybe I'm wrong. That's why I'm asking for clarification.

I don't believe there's any truth in the US dismissing Europe's viewpoint. Journalists and op/ed writers might, but the U.S. Gov't has been, and continues to be, very open to all viewpoints.

03 Feb 2003 | Steve said...

I don't believe there's any truth in the US dismissing Europe's viewpoint. Journalists and op/ed writers might, but the U.S. Gov't has been, and continues to be, very open to all viewpoints.

You and I have very different perceptions of the issue, then. Or did I not hear Rumsfeld say Germany and France have always been a "problem" and that they're "old Europe"?

03 Feb 2003 | JF said...

Or did I not hear Rumsfeld say Germany and France have always been a "problem" and that they're "old Europe"?

And this means we're not listening to their points of view? I can have a problem with someone, but it doesn't mean I don't respect or listen to their views. I think I have a problem with you, but I'm listening and learning ;)

03 Feb 2003 | McQ said...

Would it actually be War, if it happens, or would it be an invasion of Iraq?

03 Feb 2003 | Steve said...

And this means we're not listening to their points of view? I can have a problem with someone, but it doesn't mean I don't respect or listen to their views. I think I have a problem with you, but I'm listening and learning ;)

Rumsfeld's statement strikes me as being dismissive. Oh, these people are problems, they're stuck in the past, just ignore them. It's not an approach that, to my ears, sounds like an "agree to disagree" point of view.

Contrast our discourse. Obviously, you and I don't agree. Neither of us, from what I can recall, has dismissed the other out-of-hand as outmoded or out of touch. We listen, we articulate, we learn a different perspective. It doesn't seem like that's happening internationally - in both directions. Everyone's bunkered down and won't move no matter what. If you want to draw world war parallels, these days have a lot more in common with Europe 1914 than they do Europe 1939.

03 Feb 2003 | MegaGrunt said...

So, let me get this right - this fellow Friedman goes to Europe, and because he sees some Euros smoking believes that all Europeans (600 milion?) should be denied the right to make any choices regarding their health?

My old school newspaper had better editorials than this...

Maybe that will be Colin Powel's devastating evidence to the U.N., a detailed C.I.A. report on Saddam's cigar smoking habits - completely justifying a carpet bombing of Iraq as the Iraqis clearly have no regard for their health.

(I don't know about Iraq, but I've just come back from Jordan and can verify that people there smoke like industrial chimneys - specialy when you travel on small, packed buses)

04 Feb 2003 | chas. said...

"Being weak after being powerful is a terrible thing. It can make you stupid."

What?

Being weak after being powerful makes people *think* ie: learning from your mistakes. It is being powerful after being powerful that makes your mind lazy.

And *no!* Europeans are not all the same. Did it ever occur to that jackass columnist that those French who object to GMO may *not* be smokers? I guess Mr Nologic at the NYT doesn't understand that French people have diverse opinions just like Americans. And thank God for diverse opinions, if you were all as pigeon-brained as Thomas Friedman I'd be rooting for the other team.

04 Feb 2003 | moolah said...

ain't it funny that those countries representing "new Europe" and adopting the American line are the poorest countries in Europe,,, many of whom are in the process of getting an injection of US dollars, like Poland's new aircraft defence contract?

Being poorer after being poor is a terrible thing. It can make you desperate.

04 Feb 2003 | Steve said...

ain't it funny that those countries representing "new Europe" and adopting the American line are the poorest countries in Europe

"New Europe":

UK - fourth-largest economy in the world, one of the highest standards of living.

Italy - in the top 7 of GDP, good standard of living in the aggregate, although the north far outpaces the south.

Spain - one of the most vibrant and expansive economies in the EU, probably trailing only Ireland in the last decade.

Denmark - one of the highest per capita GDPs in Europe.

These are hardly the poorest countries in Europe. Even Poland and the Czech Republic are not poor. "Poor" when placed up against most of the current EU countries (except maybe Portugal and Greece), and the richest among the former Soviet bloc countries.

Contrast "Old Europe":

Germany: Still third-largest economy in world, but among the highest unemployment in Europe and getting perilously close to Japan-style stagnation. Place is a mess right now.

France: Lost status of fifth-largest economy to California a year or two ago. High unemployment, rampant government corruption, also fairly stagnant.

In other words, money ain't got nothing to do with it.

04 Feb 2003 | Steve said...

Forgot to post a link with some data for the above.

04 Feb 2003 | Don Schenck said...

Hey MegaGrunt ... lay off us cigar smokers!

:-)

04 Feb 2003 | RR said...

And Frances recent history in West Africa intervening with military force? And invited Mugabe to France?

Hypocrites and playing the crowds.

On the comment about the US violating UN Human Rights agreements. Libya chairing the UN Human Rights group... Voted in by European countries.

US is not perfect, but I would suggest that France and Germany take a hard look in a mirror at themselves before throwing stones.

RR

05 Feb 2003 | alisha said...

France and Germany take a hard look in a mirror at themselves before throwing stones.
---
No one of any importance in Germany is throwing stones. Only a few ultra-conservatives germans are getting riled up at the US, and no one listens to them.

05 Feb 2003 | pecky said...

France, no longer an ally. I guess if you can't them to play along, you stop asking.

05 Feb 2003 | fajalar said...

Another link, this time to a BBC forum page with a topic of Iraq's weapons. Opportunity to ask a question and possibly have it answered tonight.

The link also mentions a British Intelligence memo that showed no link between Iraq and al-Qaeda, though Blair says that this is not true.

Too bad there isn't a UN version of CSPAN.

09 Feb 2003 | Commie said...

Hey Americans (also known as fattest nation)!
Eat your shitty food by yourself.
I prefer croissans.

By the way - in every european restaurant there are tables for smokers and for non-smokers. Democracy as it should be.
If you don't want to sit near smokers - just take another table, shithead.

And - at last - name me the reason for strike on Iraq. We - Europeans are too stupid to understand the reasons every American used to believe to. Maybe the reason is control over oil region? No?

09 Feb 2003 | french guard said...

I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

08 Jun 2003 | O-DOG MURDA INC. KILLA said...

DETROIT;
G- G- G- G-UNIT!!!!!
SHADY RECORDS RULEZ/Aftermath/interscope

break it down,ahh
ey yo this is the real shit,take the j-tip,straight outta streetz hit,who you think youre fuckin wit?blaised off the chronic,shit...