« Iraqis: Only Minority Worse Off | Main | SPIEGEL ONLINE Can't Believe It / SPIEGEL ONLINE kann es nicht fassen »


David wrote: "And is the US being praised for its recent diplomatic efforts and restraint by the German media? Do I even need to ask that question? Of course not! The entire thing is being covered as a military withdrawal."

Indeed. My observation on this situation is the same as yours, and it yet again is a grand proof that our media is vastly Anti-American. No way anyone with a clear mind could miss that one, but the problem is there are not many left of those guys.

Alex N.

Sry, Ray D., seems like you wrote that article, not David. I'm not always sure who writes and translates what. You're all the good guys anway ;). But credit where credit is due, so I will take more notice of it in the future.

Alex N.

Hi Alex,

Yep, I wrote this one, thanks for noticing!

Ray D.

This week's Der Spiegel headlines an article to the effect that the expanded EU will one day rival America's power. We have to read the constant tearing at America together with these kinds of headlines.

Right below the surface smolders a nationalism that can't name itself. Nationalism is not politically correct in Germany and in many other European countries. But Germans and other "enlightened" European nationals can sublimate their will to power (that scares and scintillates them simultaneously) through the EU and believe that their own nation has been confirmed vicariously in its superiority.

Meanwhile, Iran is building atomic bombs. North Korea is building atomic bombs. Bin Laden is plotting new attacks. Where is European leadership? Sitting back self-satisfied at America's difficulties in Iraq, withholding help wherever possible, and ignoring the brewing storm as best it can.

It's springtime here, and the cafes are full. Refrain: Veronika der Lenz ist da ... und tra la la. I for one will try to savor the decadence of early 21st century European civilization while it lasts. Weimar läßt grüßen. (But that waiter, he sure looks angry and strange.)

KarlB: I for one will try to savor the decadence of early 21st century European civilization while it lasts. Weimar läßt grüßen.

Most people would say that this is a somewhat fatalistic, apocalyptic view. I think it is a most realistic view... I believe the the storm is at the stage where it is still gathering. We haven't reached the climax yet.

No matter what the 'world community' claims, they don't have a 'Bush problem'. Well, some do, but most have an 'America issue', and it will not go away for a long time.

No matter what America does, it will not satisfy the 'world opinion'. Of course, the alpha dog always gets the most attention. The HUGE problem is that this attention has become mad obsession and the obsession is turning slowly but surely into something ugly and unseen so far. Things have gone too far too fast. This is not the 'normal' attention an alpha dog should be getting.

Sorry for my dark mood, but again I really believe things will get much worse before they will get any better. I would be the happiest person to realize in the future that I was just plain wrong.

Let us hope in an effort to create less problems for the Europeans, that America does go away. I kind of like that idea personally.

Hm. Seems all these protestations about the innate heroism of America and the terrible appeasement of those lefty Germans, nachste Weimar, etc etc, are rather undercut by the most current photos from Iraq.

I'm sure you have an idea of what I'm talking about.

What do I know,

I'm less apocalyptic than disillusioned. I feel let down by Europe. After 15 years I've seen enough to doubt seriously that anything admirable will come of this experiment. Petty hatred of America, anti-semitism, racism, statism, dirigism, socialism. Where can that lead?

To be fair, there is a lot positive here, but something essential is missing, and I think that many are painfully aware of it. That's one reason why they try to distract attention by slamming America. There is still time to pull things together. Perhaps the blending in of Eastern Europe will dilute some of the Old European resentments and inject vigor into tired systems. Perhaps the upcoming generation will be less petty. Forgive me for doubting it.

Further reading from Der Spiegel:

"Im neuen Irak existieren zwei Parallelwelten. Die eine Welt ist die des wirtschaftlichen Aufbruchs: Überall im Land, in Bagdad wie in Kirkuk wie in Tikrit, entsteht etwas, da öffnen Internet-Cafés, Telefongeschäfte, Teestuben, Elektronikläden und Autohäuser; wo gestern noch Bombenlöcher waren, ist heute ein Markt für Fahrräder; wer im alten Irak 8 oder 9 Dollar im Monat verdiente, verdient heute 180 bis 200 Dollar, und die Inflation geht gegen null. Dieser neue Irak ist ein Irak der Träume, in diesem Irak leben Menschen, die vom Rest ihres Lebens etwas haben wollen."

We know plenty about the other world. I'll give the writer credit for at least drafting this paragraph about the other side that barely ever makes it into the German media.

Yeah, the photographs are pretty awful. Some guards are going to spend some time in prison themselves. You notice one thing though. The pictures came out of the American media, nobody, but nobody, is defending these creeps.

Cases like this are why we believe in a free press. Of course the Mass Graves and the systematic torture by Saddam's fascist regime, which grew out of a political philosophy you guys should be somewhat familiar with, are totally outweighed by this incident.

We should get out now. Maybe we can even put the Oil for Food program back in place, which harmed far more Iraqis than this brutal incident. I wonder if you have any idea what I am talking about.

"Let us hope in an effort to create less problems for the Europeans, that America does go away. I kind of like that idea personally."

Hhhmmm... after reading a comment like that makes me kinda wish joe's ignorance would go away. SHEESH!



Using your superior analytical logic then ALL Germans were responsible for the holocaust. Therefore ALL Germans were Nazi’s.

That is correct?

Thank you for clearing that up for me!

Aren't Germans embarrassed when they find out that they have been fed a lot of falsehoods by their reflexively anti-american media? When will the German public cease to tolerate the embarrassment of such an inaccurate press?

"When will the German public cease to tolerate the embarrassment of such an inaccurate press?"

It doesn't want to. That's the problem. It's called Anti-Americanism. DAMN! Had I a chance to get out of this country, and best of all, Europe, I would do so at a moment's notice.

For awhile I thought Europeans were just being duped by their media.

I was wrong. Your media are giving you exactly what you want.

anti-Americanism has become an addiction with you. It is impervious to rational thought, to fact, It is an addiction and sooner or later, like all addictions, you will pay for it dearly.

I don't really give a flying rat's ass about who is better than whom. But this sickness of yours is robbing you of a chance to find constructive ways to solve your own problems. Guesss what? They're not our fault. They're yours.

Your pacifism may assuage your historical guilt. But it is slow suicide.

Your willing surrender of your own sovreignity to the EU may give you the illusion that you are now a part of a entity that can rival the U.S., but it is nonetheless an illusion based on surrender.

I care nothing for your opinions about Amis because you have shown yourselves and your opinions to be beneath my respect.

I'm not even flattered that you take us so seriously hating us makes you feel better.

You'll have to cure yourselves.

Until the year 1900 or so, who was the single most hated country among Americans? Britain.

On whose legal framework are US laws based? Britain.

What country invested more in the nascent USA than any other? Britain.

What country patrolled the worlds oceans continously, fighting piracy and ensuring freedom of movement for the worlds merchant ships, at zero cost to the USA - a highly trade dependent nation even then. Britian.

Who was the worlds leading naval power, leading economic power and leading technological power between 1800 and 1900? Britain.

Again, who was the single most hated country in the world among Americans during that period? Britain.

When other emerging powers during that time wished to expand their sphere of influence, who did they plot against and attack, both diplomatically and militarily? Britain.

Just a little food for thought.

Für unsere deutsche Freunde:


Only Bush can save Europe
Mark Steyn says that the US President’s ‘transformational’ response to Muslim fundamentalism can save the Old World; European ‘managerialism’ can’t New Hampshire

Last July, speaking to the United States Congress, the only assembly on the planet in which he’s still assured of a warm reception, Tony Blair remarked: ‘As Britain knows, all predominant power seems for a time invincible but, in fact, it is transient. The question is: What do you leave behind?’

Excellent question. Britannia will never again wield the unrivalled power she enjoyed at her imperial apogee, but the Britannic inheritance endures, to one degree or another, in many of the key regional players in the world today — Australia, India, South Africa — and in dozens of island statelets from the Caribbean to the Pacific. If China ever takes its place as an advanced nation, it will be because the People’s Republic learns more from British Hong Kong than Hong Kong learns from the Little Red Book. And of course the dominant power of our time derives its political character from 18th-century British subjects who took English ideas a little further than the mother country was willing to go.

A decade after victory in the Cold War and end-of-history triumphalism, the ‘what do you leave behind?’ question is more urgent than you might think. ‘The West’, as a concept, is dead, and the West, as a matter of demographic fact, is dying. On the first half of the question, whoever makes the late Osama bin Laden’s audio cassettes these days showed a shrewd understanding of the situation in offering a ‘truce’ to any European nation that distances itself from America. Hard to see how some of ’em could distance themselves from America any more short of relocating to Mars, but that’s the point. Though many commentators see the offer as a sign of al-Qa’eda’s weakness, the jihad boys are being rather cunning. Just because they’re insane death cultists doesn’t mean they don’t enjoy winding up Old Europe as much as Rumsfeld does.

Look at it as a simple question of how big a bang for the buck:

September 11th: Within two months of attacking New York and Washington, the Americans have overthrown your pal Mullah Omar, your Afghan training camps are all closed down, and General Musharraf’s hitherto lethargic armed forces are harassing what’s left of your leadership all over Waziristan.

March 11th: Within one month of attacking Madrid, the Spaniards obligingly overthrow George Bush’s pal, European bigwigs start saying this terrorism business is really more about law enforcement than a ‘war’, and Mo Mowlam calls on Tony Blair to sit down to face-to-face negotiations with al-Qa’eda — preferably in London rather than Waziristan, so he’ll at least have a sporting chance of coming back alive.

And, as a bonus prize, it turns out (as Bruce Anderson noted last week) that a handful of timely Islamist bombs have done what all the Gallic hauteur of Giscard d’Estaing failed to do: eliminated the fiercest opposition to the absurd European constitution and thus made it a near certainty, which means that next time the hated Bush is looking for allies to attack a Muslim country he’ll have to pitch it to the ‘European Foreign Minister’ rather to than Tony Blair.

If that isn’t a productive ten minutes’ carnage, I don’t know what is. Given the dramatically different reactions to the Islamists’ transatlantic provocations, even the most doctrinaire jihadist can see there’s something to be said for muffling the death-to-all-infidels line in a bit of old-fashioned divide-and-conquer. As Mr Blair observed in that speech to Congress, ‘The political culture of Europe is inevitably rightly based on compromise.’ Al-Qa’eda’s PR department is learning how to talk to continentals in a language they can understand.

Most European politicians see Islamist terrorism as a managerial problem. After September 11th, George W. Bush opted to approach it transformationally. Around the world Islam is expanding, and around the Islamic world a radicalised form of Islam is expanding. Bush determined to tackle the problem at source: he decided — as I heard Condi Rice say last week at the US Naval Academy — to turn the map of the Middle East ‘upside down’. He would bring liberty to a region that had never known it. The Spectator thinks this is a mug’s game, and its editorial had some sport with the forthcoming Iraqi election: ‘Men and women with large rosettes and wide grins will be walking the streets, kissing babies and expounding on their plans for schools and hospitals. Thereafter, the members for Baghdad South and Basra Central will engage in raucous but civilised debate over the sale of council allotments and the merits of congestion charging.’

Two observations:

First, the Honourable Members for Baghdad South and Basra Central evidently sound pretty funny to my colleagues, but why are they inherently more hilarious than, say, the Honourable Members for Kandep (Mr Jimson Sauk, CMG, former minister for police) and Kairuku-Hiri (Sir Moi Avei, minister for petroleum and energy) in the Papua New Guinea parliament? All over the world people manage to practise Westminster democracy despite a shocking dearth of Old Etonians to put up for the nominating committees.

Which brings me to my second point: those who mock Bush’s ambitions for Iraq and beyond seem to imply that there’s something about Arab Islam that makes it uniquely inimical to freedom. They may be right. But, if so, that makes it a pressing problem not for Iraq but, giving current demographic trends, for Western Europe right now.

The editor of this magazine recently described an encounter he’d had with a ten-year-old girl who was distraught because Tony Blair was going around telling anyone who still listens that we were all in ‘mortal peril’. I think we can all agree that there’s no point going around scaring schoolgirls, except on Hallowe’en when I like to dress up as Justin Timberlake. Nevertheless, as Bill Clinton used to say, it’s about the future of all our children. Admittedly the former president was a little bit indiscriminate with this expression, applying it to the Highway Appropriations Bill and the mohair subsidy and the necessity for him to be able to have non-sexual relations with various parties without folks impeaching him for it. But for once it really is about the future of all our children. Picture that ten-year-old schoolgirl when she’s the age Boris is now — sometime in the 2030s, say.

What will London — or Paris, or Amsterdam (for she is after all a citizen of the European Union) — be like in the mid-Thirties? On present demographic projections, it will be far more Muslim — how far depends on whether European politicians make any serious attempt this decade to wean the populace off their unsustainable 35-hour weeks, etc. If they make no attempt at all, then to keep the present level of pensions and health benefits the EU will need to import so many workers from North Africa and the Middle East that it will be well on its way to majority Muslim by 2035. Can a society become increasingly Islamic in its demographic character without becoming increasingly Islamic in its political character?

A few weeks back I was strolling along the Boulevard de Maisonneuve in Montreal when I saw a Muslim woman across the street, all in black, covered head to toe, the full hejab. She was passing a condom boutique, its window filled with various revolting novelty prophylactics, ‘cum rags’, etc. It was a perfect snapshot of the internal contradictions of multicultural diversity. In 30 years’ time, either the Arab lady will still be there, or the condom store, but not both. Which would you bet on?

This is where, I regret to say, the recent Spectator leader ‘We are not at war’ (3 April), managed to go hopelessly awry. It stated confidently: ‘Osama bin Laden is no more likely to march triumphantly down the Mall than is a little green man from Mars. Al-Qa’eda has means but no end.’ Well, no, Osama won’t be going down the Mall, unless it’s his surviving granules of DNA on a gun carriage. But al-Qa’eda’s end — the Islamification of the West — is shared by millions of law-abiding Muslims. Only a tiny minority are prepared to go out and blow up trains to that end, but they move among communities that are broadly supportive of the goal.

The other day, Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad told Lisbon’s Publica magazine that a group of London Islamists are ‘ready to launch a big operation’ on British soil. ‘We don’t make a distinction between civilians and non-civilians, innocents and non-innocents,’ he said, clarifying the ground rules. ‘Only between Muslims and unbelievers. And the life of an unbeliever has no value.’ The cleric added he expected to see the banner of Islam flying in Downing Street. ‘I believe one day that is going to happen. Because this is my country, I like living here,’ he said. ‘If they believe in democracy, who are they afraid of? Let Omar Bakri benefit from democracy!’

This is becoming a common line. The other day, who should show up at the airport in Toronto but the son and widow of Ahmed Said Khadr, known as ‘al-Kanadi’ because he was the highest-ranking Canuck in al-Qa’eda. One of Pop Khadr’s sons was captured in Afghanistan after killing a US Special Forces medic. Another has just been released from Guantanamo. Another blew himself up while killing a Canadian soldier in Kabul. Pop Khadr died in an al-Qa’eda shoot-out with Pakistani forces a few weeks back, in the course of which his youngest son was paralysed. So Mrs Khadr and her boy have now returned to Canada so he can enjoy the benefits of Ontario healthcare. ‘I’m Canadian, and I’m not begging for my rights,’ she declared. ‘I’m demanding my rights.’

Treason’s hard to prove in court, but given the circumstances of Mr Khadr’s death it seems clear that he had taken up with what we used quaintly to call the Queen’s enemies. Nonetheless, the Prime Minister of Canada thought this was an excellent opportunity to demonstrate his deep personal commitment to ‘diversity’. Asked about the Khadrs’ return to Toronto, he said, ‘I believe that once you are a Canadian citizen, you have the right to your own views and to disagree.’ That’s the wonderful thing about multiculturalism: you can choose what side of the war you want to fight on. Just tick ‘home team’ or ‘enemy’ when the draft card arrives. Like many enlightened Western leaders, the Canadian Prime Minister will be congratulating himself on his boundless tolerance even as the forces of intolerance consume him.

Even Mr Bush is somewhat constrained. National Review’s John Derbyshire wrote last week about a ‘1945 solution’ for Iraq. This is shorthand for the bombing of Dresden, the nuking of Hiroshima, etc. — the sort of stern measures that let an enemy know he’s well and truly whipped. But, as Mr Derbyshire points out, war abroad is determined by culture at home, and if we were fighting the second world war today, we wouldn’t nuke Hiroshima or even intern Japanese-Americans: the culture will not permit it. Nor will it permit old-school imperialism. Culturally sensitive nation-building is as aggressive as you can get these days. So Bush has gone for the only big-picture scenario available.

The Bush ‘transformational’ approach to terrorism may fail. The EU ‘managerial’ approach certainly will. It’s fine for small, contained, stable populations like Ulster, Corsica or the Basque country. But not for the primal demographic forces sweeping the Continent.

Last week Niall Ferguson called me ‘the Pangloss of Republican humourists’. I wish I was. But I’m not at all Panglossian these days, and I was interested to see that Ferguson, in a recent speech, has become a somewhat belated convert to the Eurabian scenario I’ve been peddling in these pages for a couple of years now. Perhaps he’ll have better luck with it than I’ve had. Meanwhile, in the current issue of Fortune, Philip Longman, author of The Empty Cradle, is even more apocalyptic: ‘So where will the children of the future come from? Increasingly they will come from people who are at odds with the modern world,’ he writes. ‘Such a trend, if sustained, could drive human culture off its current market-driven, individualistic, modernist course, gradually creating an antimarket culture dominated by fundamentalism — a new Dark Ages.’ That ten-year-old girl could have a lot more to worry about than gloomy Blair speeches.

‘What do you leave behind?’ asked the Prime Minister. There will only be very few and very old ethnic Germans and French and Italians by the mid-point of this century. What will they leave behind? Territories that happen to bear their names and keep up some of the old buildings, in the way that the great cathedral of St Sophia in Constantinople is now a museum run by the Turkish government? Or will the dying European races understand that the only legacy that matters is whether the peoples who will live in those lands after them are reconciled to pluralist, liberal democracy? The Bush vision is the best shot.


It seems you do not agree with me on the position that America should disengage from Europe. My position has been somewhat consistent. It is the US should leave NATO, leave the UN and allow Europe to do what it desires.

I also believe the US should leave Iraq within in 6 months from 30 June. The UN or the EU or the trilateral group of Spain, france, and Germany can do what they wish with Iraq. As someone said the Europeans are great at nation building. It has been pointed out to me time and time again that America is doing this all wrong. OK, I accept that. Now the Europeans have an opportunity to show Americans how to do it right.

Given the attitude toward the US by the majority of European governments and their citizens this would seem to be a logical course of action and on many levels would satisfy most of the complaints I have read here. This does not mean that Europeans would quite complaining quit the contrary they would complain even more initially. Over time they would come to appreciate this action, as it would give them the sense of importance and responsibility they seem to so desire.

This really is not about a particular president or a particular administration but more about an anti-American attitude that has developed since the end of the cold war. It is an attitude that have been developed by the elites in academia, implemented by your political elite, and reinforced by your media elite.

You seem to imply the attitude of Europe toward the US will change with the change of an American administration. I have no reason to believe that. For so many things, which Europeans seem to fault, the US with are not going to change.

My comments or my position is not one of being an isolationist or being anti-European but one of being more pragmatic about international relationships. It really is consistent with the current position of the German government toward the US, which is fully supported by the majority of the German people. I can see cooperation in areas of common interest such as trade and the war on terror but other than those limited areas I see little in common between Europe and the US.

Last week my Senator returned from visiting NATO bases in Europe. He took the position that before military bases in the US are closed we should close more bases in Europe. I fully support that position. In fact, I wrote him a letter telling him I supported his position. I suggested that an amendment be attached to the next Department of Defense Budget requiring that. As base closures will affect many states, I feel there is a chance over what I am sure will be strong administration objections this amendment might pass.

I see the effects of this to be very positive both for Europe and the US. It will reduce US presence in Europe and will lead eventually to the unwinding of NATO. This would relieve both the US and Europe from continuing to fool each other that this alliance is still viable. It will give the US the ability to enter into mutual bilateral treaties with those nations that tend to view threats from the same perspective. For Europe, it will allow them to develop a common defense and foreign policy position. This is something that the french and Germans feel is important. It will in time force Europe to develop the capacity to defend itself. By developing this capacity then and only then will it become a true partner with the US.

While you might not agree with my position it is much more logical than most I have seen here.

I look forward to your comments.

NTV, which is often mentioned as anti American is partly owned by CNN!

Michael H., good points. There was that brief stint as a colony and, oh yeah, 1812 with our capital in flames that may have spawned some resentment, but I hope we made up for our early hostility in 1917 and again with Lend Lease and again after 1941. (What a wonderful fantasy to think that Europe would ever come to America's aid in a similar fashion, that it would stand and fight side by side with us in our hour of need.)

No name above has a post with lots to think about. I think what often gets overlooked in this discussion are the large numbers of moderate Muslims who really do want the same things we do. They are not a majorty in their countries -- many of them left for the West or were driven out -- but they also are not few and not the worst people to have on our side. History is on their side.

I think we have to acknowledge that our war on terror risks driving these moderates away if it does not include a non-military component that holds out an olive branch to muslims who want to live in peace with the west and, maybe, even incorporate many of the freedoms and rights that we enjoy in their own lives. I don't see how the fundmentalists can gain the upper hand over us, even with the high birth rates in their part of the world. Very few people want to live in the world of which the fundamentalists dream. But these nihilists can hurt us very badly -- perhaps even weaken us to the point where other enemies could threaten our way of life. That is why we have to take their unilateral declaration of war against us seriously. This is not a war of cultures, but it is a war. Police work is fine. A hearts and minds campaing is fine. But absent the credible threat of military force and the willingness to use it when all other methods fail, we will not be successful.

In spite of all the bloodshed right now, I think there is something brewing in Iraq and Iran and elsewhere in the muslim world that will sweep these fundamentalists into the scrapheap of history where they belong.

The necessity and effects of the Iraq war will remain big question marks for years to come. I look forward to the handover of sovereignty and an increased focus on Iraq's future run by Iraqis. Whatever one says, this is not Vietnam, and Falluja is not Dresden. Our goal was to topple Saddam Hussein, and we have achieved it. Even if another dictator takes over Iraq, he will know what his limits are. There is no need to raze the cities of a defeated country. It has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with simply allowing Iraq to be what it wants to be within conventional limits of the world community. Iraq had its chance to be "just like us", and a majority of Iraqis appear to have rejected that option. We need to respect that decision and move on. We should help the democratic forces in Iraq fend off the wotst of the foreign fundamentalists and leftover Baathists until the country can get on its feet, but they will have to deal with the rest themselves.

In ten or twenty years I hope we'll have very good relations with the Iraqis, just as I believe that we now have pretty good relations with the Vietnamese. (I've read enough articles about former US soldiers visiting Vietnam to know that there is a lot of residual respect for Americans there in spite of all the damage done during that war.) I hope the Iraqis will forgive us our few abusive soldiers (who will be punished) and know that we wish their country well.

As the new countries come into the fold of the EU, I have to agree with Joe. The U.S should pull out of Europe all together. The umbrella of peace that was provided by the presence of her military was a two-fold mission, as the military provided visible proof to the Soviet Union that the U. S. was willing to stand up their form of Communism and to prevent another breakout of hostilities in Europe by European countries.

This was done while the European countries had the chance to rebuild after the second world war. Now that the Soviet Union no longer exists, and the E.U. has been formed, the E.U. should have their own military and take over their defense.

Readers might want to take a look at this article in the IHT about how France is dealing with its muslim population:


France is taking pretty extreme measures against muslim clerics who advocate practices that are contrary to French law. The clerics are not necessarily inciting revolt or terror but rather interpreting controversial issues in the Koran as to whether it is permissible to strike one's spouse in a way inconsistent with Western values.

I wonder whether such public statements would justify expulsion in either America or England? Absent some sort of concrete criminal behaviour or incitement to immediate violence, I doubt that such statements would suffice to expel a legal resident in either country. In Germany, whenever one begins a discussion of lowering the threshhold for expulsion of muslim extremists, the first response is always "Guantanamo". I'm no friend of how Guantanamo has been used and believe that even our conservative Supreme Court will impose some restrictions on the President and the military, but Guantanamo is not a valid comparison to how we deal with legal residents in our countries who break the rules.

Germany is an extreme example of a country that will not expel a non-citizen even if he has obvious connections to terror. What's missing in Germany is a willingness to enforce the legal concept that conditions retention of legal residency (not retention of citizenship) on fulfillment of certain conditions that may be stricter than the standards applied to citizens. I rarely ever see a distinction made between citizens and residents here. A non-citizen who breaks the rules in Germany in a serious manner should be subjected to loss of
residency rights. If deportation is not possible (those standards desperately need to be revised in Germany, too!) and the person appears dangerous, then some sort of custodial arrangement will need to be made.

I don't understand why the Germans can't seem to get their heads out of their asses and look at other countries besides America and see that many of the same solutions are popping up there, too. Even Herr Schilly sounded pretty tough in his Speigel interview this week.

The fundamental rejection of ideas from America is a recipe for paralysis and failure. It is a tool used by the left to avoid reform. I've seen it over and over on talk shows. All a leftist needs to do is hold out the prospect of "amerikanische Verhältnisse" and the debate is choked off. The slanted reporting on all things American is useful to keep this kind of reflexive thinking alive. Sie wissen schon, wie es in Amerika ist, nicht wahr?

Karl Wrote:
There was that brief stint as a colony and, oh yeah, 1812 with our capital in flames that may have spawned some resentment, but I hope we made up for our early hostility in 1917 and again with Lend Lease and again after 1941. (What a wonderful fantasy to think that Europe would ever come to America's aid in a similar fashion, that it would stand and fight side by side with us in our hour of need.)

Karl, I think you're failing to see the historical perspective here. At the time of the revolution, only about 1/3 of the colonists were true revolutionaries. 1/3 (at least) were British loyalists. We inherited their culture, their language, their law, their way of life. So why all the anti-British sentiment in the USA for so long? After all, shouldn't we have felt closer to them, for obvious reasons, than any other nation on earth?

We resented the British because they were that one nation, in many ways the greatest power of the age, by which we defined our freedom, our independence. We were not going to be British subjects any longer. Right or wrong, we were going our own way. It wasn't until 1900 or so that the USA eclipsed Great Britian economically. Also, by 1900, the US had congealed the states and territories from the Atlantic to the Pacific into a single, integrated economic and political unit. It's no coincidence that's the time the US began expanding into the Pacific. It's also no coincidence that's when the US built it's first large-scale naval fleets and deployed them around the world. Anti-British sentiment waned because we no longer felt overshadowed, even threatened, by their power. We no longer had reason to resent them.

Europe today is on the cusp of "becoming". Whatever their short-term setbacks and political bickering, they are integrating into a large scale political unit. They wish to assert their independence of the USA. They are anti-American in the same way Americans were anti-British. We over shadow them, make them feel powerless. They resent that. They want a voice, an equal voice, just as Americans did. That's a completely normal and healthy development.

The Europeans, in reality, are no more ready to assert themselves on the world stage than the US was in 1800. They have almost no power projection capability (with the exception of the Brits), and no real will to project power even if they had it.

That will change, though it may take 50-100 years. Getting US troops out of Europe is a long overdue step in helping that process along. Modern Europe is a defiant, selfish, self-centered, self indulgent teenager. That will change too. The prospect of ones own hanging tends to focus the mind. When Europe can no longer look to the US to defend them unconditionally and they begin to realize their interests and ours coincide more that they dare admit, they will change. Just as a teens attitudes change when they assume the burdens of an adult. The question is, with demographics and a changing world working against them, will it take too long? Will it be too late?


I am not sure under which link you are currently posting. As I want to reply to you, I shall post this on several links, as it seems to be pertinent to several of the topics.

It was not my intent to create a gap between people. In fact, I misspoke when I wrote my question. I was not clear when I posted my question. It was not about individuals, be they french, German or Americans. Therefore, what I should have said instead is “I do not have a clue what Germany or france stand for.” I do believe the attitudes of individuals shape the character of a nation, however.

I personally believe the gap you refer to has already been created.

Most of the values you listed come from the fact our two nations share a similar form of democratic government. As such, I would accept those valves to be the same or similar in terminology. I would also present to you those values have very different meanings to Europeans than they do to Americans. Realize too there are many nations in the world who use those same words and they do not share the same form of democratic government that the US and Europe share. It does not upset me at all for you to believe we share the same values we just define those values differently.

I would also grant you our respective nations share common trade and commercial interests. So that is another shared interest. We also at this point in time share an interest in working together on certain aspects of transnational terrorism. We do not see this terrorism equally as to the threat it presents or how to best address it.

After that I feel there is little we share in common.

Europeans are living in a postmodern world. They are allowed to delude themselves into believing the world is as they view it. Most of the world they see is Europe. They tend to believe all things can be accomplished by compromise and by words. They confuse words with actual actions. They seem to believe all nations can be treated as they treat each other. They believe in international organization no matter how flawed, failed, inefficient, or corrupt these might be. Europeans cling to the ideas of the UN, of NATO of the EU. They are willing to give away their sovereignty to these organizations.

They can do this because not only did the US give them their freedoms, those freedoms continue to be protected for them. Their focus is more internally than strategic. Still some of their governments want to be players on a much larger stage than just Europe.

The US lives in a world as it finds it to be. It is a world where there is good and evil. There are times when evil must be actively confronted.

I agree with you that most of Europe wants peace at any costs. There is a lesson in history for that too. Most of Europe prior to World War II wanted peace at any cost too. They failed to get the peace they wanted then. They will also fail to get the peace they want now. Where Americans and Europeans differ is that peace just like freedom is not free. There is a cost associated with both of those.
Right now I believe Germany and france do not see that. There is no need actually for them to see that because the US protects it for them.

Again, I have no personal problem with them choosing not to see that. What I do have a huge problem with is the US continuing to pay for the peace and freedom you now so enjoy.

I do not expect gratitude from the Europeans for what America has given them and done for them and still is doing for them. What I do expect is cooperation. If they cannot or chose not to cooperate, then I at least expect them not to actively oppose the US.

Most of Europe fears change. Yet we all live in a world that is in a constant state of change. This is the result I have to assume of living in a social welfare state where so much of an individual life is in fact controlled by the state as much of his environment is controlled by the state.

In most nations in Europe there is also a void of competing ideas. Ideas seem to be only for the elites. These elites are very much on the left. I would like to believe they do not represent the citizens of Europe but all indications they do. Most of the citizens of Europe have removed themselves from any process public discussion or debate. They have chosen to allow the elites to make decisions for them.

This I feel is not healthy for a nation because there tends to be only one point of view. You can see this somewhat clearly in those nations where there is less state control over the economy or the press or private think tanks or higher education or of the major political questions concerning the future direction a nation will take. I find it to be a bit interesting where there is competition of ideas not only is economy growth occurring, the press is more diverse, the governments tend to agree more with the US than they tend to disagree.

Many comments by Americans who have posted here refer to a growing anti-french sentient in America. This is very real. It surprised me too. The reason it surprises me is that Big Media and the Democratic and Republican parties do not support this or encourage this. It really is something that is coming from the grass roots. This has as much or more to with france actively acting against the US. I for one do not only consider france not to be an ally of the US, I actually feel france is an enemy of the US.

france has contributed little to the world in the last century. It is contributing even less in this new century. france’s position in the realm of international affairs is only secured by the fact it is a permanent member of the UNSC. If it were not for this then it would be thought of more like Canada or Mexico or Austria.

In my own mind, I am not sure where that puts Germany. I think many of the comments posted tend to share that sense of uncertainty toward Germany. It is quite clear that several things are occurring. First Germany has chosen to align herself with france. When she did that she chose by default to align herself against the US. The foreign policy of Germany is being made in Paris.

Still Americans I believe at this point in time are more willing to look the other way when it comes to German actions. I can only speculate the reason for this is they think the current government in power in Berlin does not really represent the longer-term position of Germany. I am not sure I agree with that because of the growing anti-Americism that is occurring within the German population. I think in some ways this is encouraged by the elites in Germany just as the rulers of most Arab nations encourage their citizens to be anti-American and anti-Israel. It serves their purpose to allow this avenue for the displacement of frustrations and angry toward an external entity as opposed to directing them internally. By directing them toward America it precludes the need to address many of the existing internal problems, which neither the citizens nor the elites want to face.

This or at least from my perspective was very much at play in the most recent German national election. The debate changed from an internal to an external discussion about the course of actions for a future government. The reality is the new government, while it won power again, did not stop the actions of the US. Germans are now just waking up to the fact that this government has not effectively addressed the issues that confronted Germany prior to the election. The economy is still not growing, jobs are not being created, your university and overall education system is still falling behind, and the social welfare system is heading toward collapse.

I am equally sure that we might disagree on how each of our nations should address the future. I am not sure what your personal position is. I know my own. It is the US should disengage from Europe from a security perspective. NATO should be disbanded and Europe should assume responsibility for its own security and protection. The US should take whatever actions and steps necessary to convey to the Europeans that it will not longer provide for the protection and the security of Europe. Europe should develop its own foreign and defense policies and should be given the freedom to implement those as it feels is in their best interest. Just as Germany chose to support france over the US because it felt it was in its best interest to do.

Then and only then will Europe become an equal partner with the US.

What you may or may not know is more and more Americans are coming to see the both the wisdom and the benefits to America in taking this course of action. This is not to say it will happen but in many ways it already is happening. It is also not to say that it will not be painful, for it will be for both American and Europeans.

So to close this long post, I still do not know what Germany and france stand for. I do know that while both I and ‘John Doe” of Parma Michigan might use the same words as Germans and the french to describe something they surely have different meanings.

I look forward to your comments.

The Belmont Club has a couple of interesting reads about what the Marines are doing in Fallujah if anyone's interested.

Pretty sneaky.

Wretchard has some pretty interesting thoughts.

Karl, Europe was also offered the chance to be just like US and they didn't take it either.

sorry but here´s my monthly rant......
The folks at Spiegel aren´t the only ones here in Germany who want to see us lose. I was watching "Freitag Nacht News" last night.For those of you back home it´s a comedy show that resembles a 45 min. version of SNL News.
Anyways they were doing a report on "Billig-Flieger" (Cheap Airlines). They told of one airline that would fly you to the states for 100 Euros. Then the so called humorist adds the punchline (while smirking)that the only way you can fly to the states cheaper is "if you are a dead american soldier".(sie können nur als toten Amerikanisches Soldat billiger nach Amerika fliegen"
This got a pretty good laugh from the audience.
What makes me furious (other than the deluded assholes who found this funny) is that the writers and the station were sure enough of their public that they they knew they could get away such a joke on national TV.
I figure that it´s one of two ways. Either the majority hates us or the majority is a mass of cowards for not speaking up.
I´ve lived here now 13 years as a civilian and served 6 years here as a G.I. and sadly the hatred is starting to become mutual. There are so many people here who I care for deeply and Nürnberg is my home as much as Ohio is. But if one more friend or my wife tells me that I´m just over reacting and that I suffer from the "beruchtigte Ami-Stolz." ( infamous American pride) and a friend told me yesterday that I have "verfolgungswahn" (paranoid delusions). So I´m starting to fear that lots of people here are ignorant of the prejudices of their own society.
I could go on, but I won´t. I wish I could expres myself more eloquently but I can´t. I feel like i´ve been beating my head against the wall speaking to many of the germans around me. If I could convince my wife to take the risk of starting over I would leave this place with my family tomorrow. but going to the states freaks my wife completely out. Because in america you have to take care of yourself and be responsible. Because the "STATE" isn´t going to bail you out when you fuck up. Or carry you along to make sure that you don´t screw up. and I can´t speak for all the Germans I know but very many of my friends and acquaintences are even into their 40´s still dependent on their parents for some form of support. Grandma acts as Baby sitter every single day so Mom and Dad can both hold jobs so they can have 2 cars and go a few timwes a year on vacation. Or Grandpa makes the car payments or coughed up the downpayment on the condo. ect. ect. ect.
Sorry, it´s late and I´m tired and starting to rant again.I guess it´s tiem to go before I look like a total fool.

Two questions for the group:
Where did Europe go?
When I read about the disasterous state of the Olympic facilities in Athens now just 3 monthsd before the Games return, I wonder where did the Greeks who spread civilization throughout the Med go? OK, Islam forcibly conquered many of the countries, converted the people to illiteracy and burned all the books in the Great Library (the Caliph said "If they agree with the Koran, we have the Koran and we can burn them. And if they disagree with the Koran, we can burn them." So he warmed the waters in the baths for months with the accumulated wisdom of centuries.)
But where is living evidence of those ancient Greeks today? The Greeks who live in Greece today cannot be descendants of those noble citizens.
Reading about the Vikings raises the same question: where did they go? They traded with Constantinople, settle Greenland and Iceland, overrrun Britain, spent 10 minutes in North Anerica and were run off, and then, they sort of disappear, like the settlements in Greenland. Maybe the Little Ice Age explains it.
Which is a preface to: where did European civilizationa and culture go?
Over twenty years ago cowboy boots, Sylverster Stallone movies and blue jeans and other American elements became the only things uniting Europeans from Rome to Trondheim. But what created the cultural vacuum which this Americana filled? Over time this has engendered its own reflux toward America, which is detailed in all the well-considered posts on this blog.
But all that anti-americanism is just more fill for the emptiness which appears to dominate European civilization. A culture happy enough with itslef wouldn't be so obsessed with another culture. A culture that knew who it was wouldn't define itself only in angry contrast with another.
The post here that suggests that America withdraw from Europe, NATO, etc., in order for Europe to right itself is expressing the same sentiment. But what would happen: would European civilization re-awaken, or would Europe just be Islamicized even faster than the demographic doom-schedule?
Europe appears like the personality disorder of people who obsess about a celebrity, the ones who paper the walls of their room with the celebrity photos, think that celebrity is speaking to them through the television, can't live without the celebrity and wants to kill the celebrity, and their own emptiness never occurs to them.
But what happened? How did Europe become so empty? When did it begin to evaporate?

Second question:
Do Europeans understand the American side to this attitude?
There is no direct parallel in the United States to the anti-americanism of Europeans. It is simply un-American.
What is happening is that the young people of the early 21st century have a completely different attitude toward Europe and Europeans/
Twenty years ago 'European' connoted quality, exotic, refinement, value. Those are specifically not how young Americans see Europe today.
In effect, Europe has squandered the goodwill it had enjoyed for more than a generation after WW2.
It is gone. The idea that Europe was a cradle of civilization is hard to explain in a history class learning about the holocaust or Versailles. But it is worse than just the new multicultural prejudice against 'dead, white Europeans.' American youth see dynamism in their own culture also reflected in Latin America and Asia. Music and dance and fashion are imported from those cultures, not Europe. Hello Kitty and Tamaguchi has a better time here than techno. Europe is not happening.
These emerging values are not being considered in discussions of anti-americanism on this blog or elsewhere. 20-year-olds are taking power in their next twenty years. If Europe thinks they have problems with a baby-boomer like Bush who grew up respecting Europe, what will they do when the generation that thinks they are irrelevant, and that South America and Asia are more important, takes over?

txp wrote:
Which is a preface to: where did European civilizationa and culture go?
would Europe just be Islamicized even faster than the demographic doom-schedule? Europe appears like the personality disorder of people who obsess about a celebrity, the ones who paper the walls of their room with the celebrity photos, think that celebrity is speaking to them through the television, can't live without the celebrity and wants to kill the celebrity, and their own emptiness never occurs to them.
But what happened? How did Europe become so empty? When did it begin to evaporate?
There is no direct parallel in the United States to the anti-americanism of Europeans.

Right, so let me sum it up what you try to tell us Europeans: Europe has no culture, no civilization and Europeans can be compared to a celebrity-obsessing culture. But thank God someone like you is nowhere near Anti-Europeanism, as I assume you included yourself in that last remark? LOL.

If you were an author for SPIEGEL and would dish out similar silly statements about the US instead of Europe, David would make you a headline and rightly so.

I'm pretty sure the current anti-Americanism is exaggerated by Bush hate -- because he's a believing Christian. And modern intellectuals, in Europe AND America, hate the idea of a believer (even more than the usual elite aristocratic snob's hatred of working capitalists).

The right question is: When did Europe stop going to Church? And the answer seems to be, around 1973, around the Roe v Wade "Abortion amendment" by the US Supreme Court. Yes, even in 1985, Gorbechev could ask about St. Paul's (? where Churchill might worship through WW II) "What about that fine building?" and be told "they hold worship services". In 1995 it became a museum.

Europe has a even worse case of secular fundamentalism, an anti-Christian secularness that tolerates "difference", but only differences that are anti-Christian. This PC thought control simultaneously wants the moral high ground for human rights, and enviro rights, and freedom -- but zero respect for helpless, innocent human fetuses. And, increasingly, little respect for helpless elderly.

The pension bomb in Europe is coming, and politicians are using Bush as diversion to avoid discussing the reality of tradeoffs that must be made: higher taxes (and more unemployment, etc.) or less benefits, or both.

But don't worry too much. The worst case scenario has Iran getting nukes; then Al Queda, then AQ using one somewhere. Then the world will see what an imperial America looks like! Unless Mid East democracy wins the race first -- which Bush haters are trying to hamper. It's a race, and as long there's a big oil exporter that's not a democracy, it looks like the Terror Nukes are leading.

Ray, great note about the inconsistencies of Bush critics; too much, not enough. I said so on my blog last week: http://tomgrey.motime.com/1083183411#266520
will prolly add more.

The key problem is that the volume of Bush hate over silly things is such that the more important, more difficult, more issues are getting zero coverage. How to manage to avoid terror orgs getting & using nukes -- and what is the right response when (not if) they do? (do what? nuke Tel Aviv). How to create Iraqi democracy? I think more local council elections...


Your summary is again wrong Klink of what txp is attempting to say.

He is questioning as many Americans here have in various ways to ask just what is going on in Europe and what does Europe now stand for. Or what do you people want. Not only what do you want from America but from your own governments and your own citizens.

I found nothing that he said to be anti European at all. It is more of a process of trying to seek some form of understanding.

You seem to be very sensitive when some one asks an honest question.

Let me try to ask it a different way.

Where is the greatest that once was Europe gone?


I want to make some comments about your second question.

No, Europeans do not understand the American side of this attitude. In some ways it is not completely their fault. For the most part Americans have expected little of the Europeans and demanded even less. So an enviroment has been created on both sides of the Atlantic where anti-Americism has been allowed to grow almost unchecked. It has always existed in the both the extreme left and the extreme right of European society. It now appears to be a more main stream acceptable attitude. Unfortunately, it may have reached the point that it is now totally out of control.

I agree completely with your comment about America’s youth and their attitudes toward Europe. I have not only read studies about this but have experienced first hand anodal evidence to support your statement. Of the young people I know there is no real attraction to Europe. Those in their teens who have traveled there for various reasons when questioned they make comments about how cool it is to be able to buy beer in a MacDonald’s, or the production of that goes into the serving of meals or how the citizens seem sad or mad or unhappy or how expensive things are or about the poor service or the lack of choices. Most of these teens show no interest in going back for a second visit.

So in some ways it is like taking a teenager to Disney Land. They have seen it on television. They go and enjoy it but have no desire to ever go again.

Those in their late teens and early 20’s are more interested in going to South America or Asia. They have friends from those regions as more and more immigration is coming not from Europe but from Asia and South America. They are not taking French or German in school or in universities. They are taking Spanish and Chinese or other languages from those regions. They will probably go to work in some capacity where there is a business alliance with corporation from those regions rather than with a corporation which has a European alliance. They are more likely to choose a Thai or Mexican or Japanese restaurant than they are a French or Italian one. They will ask for a wine from Chile or Australia before one from France or Germany.

It is only natural as these young people move into various positions of power, their focus will be both west and south. It will not be east toward Europe.

They have more tolerance toward Europeans because they are not only not engaged they frankly don’t care. They see nothing from Europe that they feel their lives would be incomplete without.

So as America becomes more brown and tan and yellow, and less white, the more Europe becomes a footnote to decisions and considerations


Please do not be disappointed in the reply you got from Klink. It has unfortunately become very predictable for him.

He suffers from both being intellectually lazy and intellectually dishonest.

Note how he did not attempt to answer your question. He instead chose to discount your entire post by saying you are wrong about European culture. Then to follow this up with a statement of you being anti European.

He has a habit of not addressing hard questions or defending a position. He just chooses to ignore them.

It seems to be a pattern that Europeans take more and more. They like to combine it with either being anti-Bush and pro American or just plain anti-American. They will tell you they hold the US to a higher standard and then carp about how the US is in some way failing to meet that standard. They dare not apply that standard to their own governments, as they know how much those governments are failing and are continuing to fail.


I found your post to be very interesting and in some ways very touching too.

I have to assume you are in your early 40’s so if this is true you have about 40 more years to live.

You are going to be one of those people who will witness history occur in Germany from a very different perspective than those around you. You are also going to be a part of it. I would think as a solider you were part of the US forces who were part of NATO whose mission was to defend Germany. You might have been there in the very last days of the cold war when the Berlin Wall was real and there was a threat to freedom. That is a part of history so many Germans seem to have chosen to forget. American soldiers stationed far from home ready to die in place to protect them. I salute you for that noble service for it resulted in the defeat of the Soviet Union. I think the people of nations like Poland would salute even more today at they become members of the EU.

You are now living a new chapter of Germany history, which could be considered its modern day zenith. Germany is once again whole. It is a leader in so many areas in Europe. It is an economy power and a political power. Germany is at peace and so is Europe.

I think there is a future chapter you are going to witness and live too. This is going to be the decline of Germany. There have been several posts here about the pending demographic trends, which are occurring today in Germany and what they mean for the future of the social welfare state. They as I am sure you are well aware do not present a bright future. There are going to be fewer and fewer workers and more and more claimants. So from the perspective of future benefits there is going to be less instead of more.

It is clear that the German economy is beginning to falter. This does not seem to a temporary trend but a long-term trend. Only this week the government in Berlin revised downward its projected growth for this year. This is a continuing pattern. The government of Germany is beginning to sound more and more like a Boston Red Sox’s fan with a chant of “wait till next year”.

The decline in the German economy is only going to continue. Jobs will be exported to the new 10 or they will be exported to Asia or other low cost nations. Germany international corporations will face a choice of either continuing as corporations or to cease operations. Those that are publicly owned will have no choice but to move production to survive.

You are at that unfortunate age that you are going to have to start over. It only a question of when that will occur. The welfare state is not going to be able to support you when you retire in 20 years at the same level it is currently supporting those you are paying for now. So you have a choice stay and save for your own retirement realizing that this might be futile as they state may take all your saving, move or hope that some happens that will change the future. I think most of those you spent time beating your head against the wall trying to explain this to are of the group which hopes some how the elites will save them, that the STATE will save them.

You surely must love you wife dearly to mortgage your future. I only hope you have insured your children are registered as Americans and have developed a more than working knowledge of English for it might be the life line for them that you have chosen not to take for yourself.

God bless you.

There is no symmetry in the transatlantic attitudes. Americans just can't work up the hatred toward Europe that Europe expresses towards America. France is the regular butt of jokes, but they had to work very hard (earning every sou of the Oil-for-Food scam money) to get to that state. But it doesn't feel right to Americans to carry that hatred.
But a generation ago, the meaning of 'Europe' to Americans was a source of social/political capital to Europe, and that has been squandered, and squandered for good. Most Americans couldn't be bothered to articulate it, but it is here and now.
It has been growing for some time. It is apparent in many different, non-ideological aspects. For example, in a trade magazine for the IT professional in the late 90s, a columnist dicussed a suggestion about a change to certain French-styled acccounting methods for computer investment. He dismissed the suggestion, asking why the accounting profession would take an example from what amounted to a third-world country.
Understand, this was not Rumsfeld-2003, but accounting 1996. Not a comment in the heat of impending conflict, but a simple desclaration of the present situation. In 1976 that statement would have been unthinkable to make; in 1996, it was uncontestable.
The artifacts of this changed perception are everywhere. That Europeans are voicing toward Americans vitriol with a little more volume than 25 years ago; this is a matter degree. That Anericans are experiencing a sea-change regarding Europe, is profound. Most Americans are becoming aware - and sadly aware - of Europe's longstanding smugness toward them. Are Europeans really aware of changing American attitudes?

Doug wrote:
"But if one more friend or my wife tells me that I´m just over reacting and that I suffer from the "beruchtigte Ami-Stolz." ( infamous American pride) and a friend told me yesterday that I have "verfolgungswahn" (paranoid delusions). So I´m starting to fear that lots of people here are ignorant of the prejudices of their own society."

Doug, yesterday we visited friends, both are very nice people, well educated and friendly minded, they love my American husband and the USA because one of them lived there for almost 2 years. We told them that the atmosphere had changed after 9/11 and that the media are full of hatred against Bush and his adminstration and against Sharon. They did not agree. And we became more precise. We told them facts about the Bush and Blair "lies", facts about the Lord Hutton inquiry (they did not even know it), about the "occupation" by Israel and so on. They did not know any facts about history and politics. So we sat there for hours and we told them some more facts and we came to the conclusion that they don't know anything about anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism because they are not informed and not because it does not exist and think the lies are facts. They work hard, they read the headlines, they listen to Tagesschau. That's all. I think this is the way many people live here in Germany: Good professions and no idea about politics and history. This is what we think about our generation born after WW II. And this generation did not learn much about the history of the 20. century. It was too shameful for our country, we just learnt the dates what the Nazis did and how could it happen (yes, how?), then one hour about why the US were in Vietnam and that's all. And nobody goes on with reading history books after school, you are busy with university, then with job and family and friends. So I think it also has to do with a lack of education in history and understanding politics. We all have nothing more than newspaper- and tv-knowledge. And our children, the internet-generation has teachers who were at universities in the 60ies and later. Germany had the Bafög-model. Everybody could study and the government paid for it. There is nothing bad about this but we have to understand what kind of people are now teachers and journalists.
The media tell you, that Sharon is a terrorist and Bush even more worse. So they believe this. Nobody has the time to read more about politics. So the media creates this simple picture of the world. "Friedensmacht Deutschland" (the new poster of the SPD - that shows us the mindset of our government and the people who support this.

Man vergleiche bitte mal nachstehende Argumente:

Stellungnahme zum Krieg der USA gegen den Irak (II)
von Alfred Mechtersheimer, Sprecher der Deutschland-Bewegung

Gegen jedes Recht und jede Vernunft hat die US-Administration einen Krieg begonnen, den sie, wenn überhaupt, nur noch unter großen Opfern auf allen Seiten militärisch gewinnen kann, - politisch hat sie ihn schon jetzt verloren. Statt des angekündigten kurzen Präzisionskrieges gibt es eine lange blutige Schlacht. Nun bezahlen amerikanische und britische Soldaten die rassistische Arroganz ihrer Führer mit dem Leben. Die Iraker, die man befreien wollte, werden gemordet. Und die irakischen Soldaten kommen nicht mit weißen Fahnen den Invasionstruppen entgegen, sondern leisten erbitterten Widerstand. Der Krieg kann Jahre dauern, vor allem wenn die Guerillas im Rücken der Invasoren kämpfen.

Steigende Ölpreise und fallende Aktienkurse werden der ohnehin notleidenden Wirtschaft weltweit einen schweren Schlag versetzen. Auch in Deutschland wird die Zahl der Arbeitslosen steigen und der Niedergang verstärkt. Der kriegswütige US-Präsident ruiniert aber auch die Wirtschaft seines eigenen Landes.

Jetzt gilt es, der US-Regierung bei ihrem Versuch, die Erde "zum Ami" zu machen, in den Arm zu fallen. Weltweiter politischer Widerstand muß die Antwort sein auf Völkerrechtsbruch, Angriffskrieg und US-Globalisierung. Auch den "Hilfswilligen" in Deutschland muß die rote Karte gezeigt werden, insbesondere den Amerikanisten von CDU/CSU. Gerade in Deutschland erkennen jetzt viele die wahren Motive der US-Politik; nicht erst heute, sondern auch im vergangenen Jahrhundert und gerade auch in den beiden Weltkriegen.

Nach diesem Krieg sind in Deutschland Konsequenzen fällig. Solange sich auf deutschem Boden US-Stützpunkte befinden, unterstützt Berlin die gefährliche amerikanische Aggressionspolitik auch dann, wenn es sich davon distanziert. Deshalb hat die Deutschland-Bewegung gegen die fremden Truppen in Deutschland gekämpft und sie wird diesen politischen Kampf nach diesem ver-brecherischen Krieg verstärkt fortsetzen. Nur wenn alle US-Truppen Europa verlassen haben, kann es eine wirkliche europäische Friedenspolitik geben, die auf einer dauerhaften deutsch-französischen Kooperation und guten Beziehungen zu Rußland aufbaut, - mit dem Motor einer Friedensmacht Deutschland in der Mitte Europas.

aus Pressespiegel 6/7-2003 Starnberg, 25. März 2003

Klingt wie deutscher mainstream, nicht wahr? Aber das hat kein SPD-Mann geschrieben, sondern jemand von der "Deutschland-Bewegung".

This may sound somewhat harsh but, generally speaking most Americans do not care about Europe's opinions. While we would welcome Europe's help in the war being waged against the West in all honesty we really don't need it. The French militarily are so backward that they would be more in the way and a major security risk also. So believe me when the survival of the United States becomes the dominant concern we will definitely win using "whatever means necessary." And if ever push comes to shove and our choice is between saving the US or helping Europe I tell you flat out that Europe will be on its own. Besides what we really want from Europe is for Europeans to buy our crap and we really don't care if you are on the dole or not.

EU: 400 million people with an 8 trillion dollar (US) economy and no Bill of Rights.

US: 280 million people with a 13 trillion dollar (US) economy and the world's oldest democracy.

Folks that about sums it up.

Klink, txp's comment contained more content than you imply. So please, don't turn it into an anti-European slur.

Of course it contained yet more - but so do many of the German press-articles which are usually only quoted in excerpts on here, if you read them in full source. Where's your point? Fact remains: There were typical anti-European slurs inside txp's postings and that is what is important, like in the excerpts of German articles.

Where is the greatest that once was Europe gone?

Don't dramatize and watch perhaps a bit more arte instead of Home Shopping Europe, if you need reassurance that there is still some culture left.

Joe wrote to txp
He suffers from both being intellectually lazy and intellectually dishonest...he has a habit of not addressing hard questions or defending a position. He just chooses to ignore them.

If you copy notions from Stone, credit him. As I paraphrased to Stone before with the example of my already stated opinon on the Balkans: While I do keep the same direction of opinion, I am usually indeed often too lazy to repeat the same *detailed* arguments over and over like others apparently like to. Maybe I'll better myself here, when I have my current work-project finished.

So as America becomes more brown and tan and yellow, and less white, the more Europe becomes a footnote to decisions and considerations

A market of 450 million will never become a mere footnote, but the general direction of a re-focusing is right, though - as you also mention it - it has to do a lot with other issues than "anti-Americanism", like with growth in other areas. The EU will now refocus itself as well a bit with its expansion into Eastern Europe. And in 200 years from now, we'll all be looking onto China as the new alpha-male.

Klingt wie deutscher mainstream, nicht wahr? Aber das hat kein SPD-Mann geschrieben, sondern jemand von der "Deutschland-Bewegung".

Liest sich nicht wirklich wie mainstream. Und nimmt jemand den Mechtersheimer ernst?

@ Joe

Hey, don´t worry to much about me, I´m stuck here at the moment. but i do have a great life. My daughter has an american passport, has learned English from me and attends the Bi-lingial program at Gymnasium. She has intensive english classe and starting next year most of their classes will be in english.
Please don´t forget that Americans can be very resourceful when it´s called for. and we don´t expect anything from anyone. just to be left alone.
The expyt. americans here in nürnberg are a little different from the other Ex-pat communities here. We don´t know each other. We are fairly well integrasted and go about a business and soldier on ( :-) ). It seems that i might be unfairly generalizing. but most of the other anglo´s ( Irish,Brit and commenwealth) al seem to know each other and have more or less their own little underground/ Microcosm. americans dont´have or want that. I pick my firend not by origin but by who the are. Again i want to apologize if I seem to be generalizing.

By the way. I am 42 years old and served all the way through the 80´s. My last tour was here in Nürnberg (Nuremburg). I was in the 2nd ACR. Tojour Pret!!
anyways our Barrack/Kaserne was Merril Barracks right by the old albert Speer Nazi Parade grounds (ürnberg Rallies) anyways it was originaly the old SS baracks. You usualy had to tel the Taxi Drivers "Sud Kassene" or SS Kaserne or in some case "The Gangster hotel" And no! It didn´t shame us to have the locals call it that. anyways the Army left nürnburg in 91. The old Merril Barracks is now Refugee offices. anyways the went and renamed the bus Stop that was formerly called "Sud Kasserne" (South Barracks: its in the south end of town). The new name is.......
................. HIROSHIMA PLATZ!!!!!!!!
If that isn´t a slap in the Face then i don´t know what is.!!!

that was no coincidence! No siree.
But everyone you asks will tell you thast that couldn´t have been a conscious insult. Yeah right!
But remeber people.


Gabi, your friends need a computer and links to American bloggers if they can read English.

txp, I've been reading the business sections of now dead trees for over 20 years. We can't implement US-style reforms, we're not American, we're European. And now they're implementing American-style accounting, whining and moaning all the way.

It was always there if people actually absorbed what they read.

As to frogistan, the latest powergrab just confirms for those of us paying attention the last few decades.

Somewhere in John Adams' bio he commented on phrawnce. Still timely 200 years later.


In a sense I do not worry about you because you are an American. I think you have certain independent qualities you can draw on. One of them seems to be your ability to take complex issues and break these down into something that you can deal with and resolve or at least understand. This at times is much too difficult for a lot of Europeans. They just like to hide in the weeds and do nothing but whine.

What you said about picking friends is also very American. We tend to take people more as individuals rather than as being part of a group. I guess in one sense that is why in the US the integration of immigrants is a lot easier than in most European nations.

I hope you have been able to bring your daughter to the US to visit her family here.

Michael, although I find your historical comparisons interesting and agree with some of what you're saying, I think I'd put more emphasis on the ideological left-right divide as the cause of much anti-americanism. Aside from the Gaullist tendencies in France, the biggest source of anti-americanism on the continent is from socialists who have yet to come to terms with the collapse of the communist east, and with it many of their deeply-held beliefs. Remember, it is just 15 years since the wall collapsed. Germany in particular is still digesting its reunification. Those former east Germans often harbor a perverse kind of nostalgia for the old days and many are rabidly anti-american.

That said, there certainly is a great deal of competitive energy directed against America. A thought that perhaps the Europeans can do things better. If the socialists do ever get the upper hand in Europe, then maybe your vision will become reality. The socialists, in their inimitable Gutmensch (do-gooder) way, would stoke the fires of a bizarre form of European nationalism. Europe would become a sort of prudish, puritan, lecturing big mother to the world. Anyone who questioned the validity of Europe's ways would be subjected to a terrible tongue-lashing and to outbursts of hysterical hatred. The left-leaning European press would play along in the best tradition of yellow journalism. But there would be no threat of military intervention. There's no one here willing to fight.

Who knows, maybe one day there will be an invasion of another country by a combined European force to enforce the Berlin treaty of 2012 for the separation of garbage (Mülltrennung). The Europeans, of course, will claim that it was necessary to enforce world environmental order. Before the invasion they will drop recyclable pamphlets explaining what goes in the yellow bins and give the offenders 48 hours to introduce an acceptable system. After negotiations fail, compost will be dropped on the urban areas of the offending country for two weeks before the troops are sent in. The brave new world will have arrived. I digress ...


Wait the socialist are in power in Germany and Spain. They are in power in Austria. You could also say they are in power in the UK.

So how many more countries do they need to control until they feel they are in power.

Your comment about invading another country is very FUNNY! It would have to be Luxemburg.

It brings up many questions. The first will there be a UNSCR to support this. Or will this be another one of Klink’s double standards where Europe gets to make up the rules as it goes along. Of course Klink could argue such a noble cause as saving the planet a UNSCR is not really needed.

Of course, I have to assume you are figuring that in 2012 Turkey will be part of the EU and Poland and the UK will not. I mean who is going to fight. Surely not the brave Germans and frogs. To invade you have forces and you need to believe you are going to win. Then again by them the Arabs could be in charge and it might be like their invasions of Israel. They seem to miss the point if you lose you lose.

Then again it could be a “phony war.” They plan to invade and then lose. This would mean the winner would have to take responsibility for them. Who says history cannot repeat itself.

I am sure the US will not involve herself. I think the Americans have learned a great lesson from their past mistakes. They seem to learn more from history than their European friends.

I would say to force a winner there is going to have to be an agreement that the loser has to keep france.

As a Norwegian, who emigrated to the United States a few years ago, I am deeply saddened by the sorry state of Europe.

Europe is in demise, both socially and economically. Even my birthnation of Norway (considered by many to be the wealthiest European country), is facing dire population problems and a crippling welfare state.

Having witnessed both continents, America is preferrable in every way.

And by the way, I will be getting my citizenship soon....And I plan to cast my first vote for GW Bush.

Joe, I don't think of Blair's Labor as socialist in the same vein as the continental socialists (e.g. Spain & Germany). Schröder tried to be like Blair but appears to have been reigned in by the unions. But you are right: in any given year the socialists have a slight edge here.

In the great trash war of 2012, I think the European's will be hoping that the compost will do the trick. Of course they could threaten to raze the country and use it as a wind park. ... don't you just love those windmills?

"And is the US being praised for its recent diplomatic efforts and restraint by the German media? Do I even need to ask that question? Of course not! The entire thing is being covered as a military withdrawal. The media is also focusing on the fact that the Iraqi security force will be led by one of Saddam’s ex-generals."

It's even worse, after the rebellion had started the SPIEGEL was complaining that the Americans didn't crush on Sadr earlier. One can easily imagine what the SPIEGEL would have said if the US Forces would indeed have done so.

And when the USA refused to use Saddam's officers the SPIEGEL called them naive. Now they criticize that they followed the SPIEGEL's advice.

But let's be honest: This is not about pros and cons of how to manage a better future for Iraq. The SPIEGEL and the German media just want to bash Bush and America, whatever the price may be. If Rummy should one day mention that 2 and 2 is 4 the SPIEGEL would probably find a "scientist" who would create them a theory where it's 5.

If Rummy should one day mention that 2 and 2 is 4 the SPIEGEL would probably find a "scientist" who would create them a theory where it's 5.

I heard this joke:
If Bush will some day say the earth is flat, the conservative and "balanced" media will immediately be on air with:

"BREAKING NEWS! Shape of earth: Views differ!"

Well that is fine too. Just make the oceans bigger. - A lot bigger.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Our Mission

The Debate

Blog powered by Typepad

May 2014

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31