NationStates Jolt Archive

About a year ago, just before the blood & snotters started, several Eastern European nations threw their support in for the US led coalition forces in Iraq.


Why?

I think they wanted to show the EU that they could act sontrary to European wishes, that they were independent and had to be taken seriously.
Personal opinion.

I think they wanted to show the EU that they could act sontrary to European wishes, that they were independent and had to be taken seriously.
Personal opinion.

Personal opinion - Poland wants to be see as an important nation, and to have influence further afield than the EU.

Whenever the old chestnut of Weapons of Mass Destruction come up, one side always talks about the US and UK and the other side talks about France and Russia.

No one ever mentions Poland.

Eastern Europe today is in a very interesting historical position- complete ideological void. They are no longer Communist (well, some of them were never truly Communist, just played along with the Big Neighbor under the threat of invasion), yet European hyperliberalism did not infect them yet also. Which is why their view on world matters is not clouded by prior prejudices of any kind. The fact that they tend to adopt a generally pro-American, pro-Capitalist and pro-war on terrorism is a testimony to the fact that they are the most politically healthy part of the world right now.

P.S. They are also genally pro-Israeli most of the time. The European state most friendly to Israel these days in the Czech Republic.

Correction: the eastern European governments adopt the positions stated. The people are incredibly divided on pretty much all issues. It's notable also that some of these 'politically healthy' nations have pretty despicable attitudes towards ethnic minorities like the Roma.

Quote from Private Eye (for those that don't know, it's a satirical UK magazine that thinks the worst of everyone, so this needs to be taken with a good snort of salt):

The former president of the United Nations general assembly, Jan Kavan, maintained to friends throughout the Iraq imbroglio that his office was bugged and that American pressure was being brought to bear on the Czech government to prevent him from returning to any senior paid role in public life when his tenure at the UN came to an end. Kavan's scepticism towards US policy towards Iraq even cost his daughter a temporary work permit in the US - she had been offered a three month placement at the UN!"

Eastern Europe has emerged relatively recently from an appalling period of oppression at the hands of tinpot dictators and Soviet puppets. The natural enemy of the USSR was the US. It's an obvious place to look. If the US is putting pressure on governments to sideline dissenters, then I'm not surprised that this attitude is maintained.

Incidentally, what on earth is 'European hyperliberalism'?

Correction: the eastern European governments adopt the positions stated. The people are incredibly divided on pretty much all issues. It's notable also that some of these 'politically healthy' nations have pretty despicable attitudes towards ethnic minorities like the Roma.
Well, this is the problem with generalizing. There's always an exception or two.
Which exactly nations have these attitudes towards ethnic minorities? Certainly not the Czech, the Bulgarians or the Hungarians?


Incidentally, what on earth is 'European hyperliberalism'?
A particular breed of liberalism, characterized by oversensitivity, double standards, obsession with outdated political narratives (Marxist and colonial) and general tendency towards dealing with problems by inaction. Definition designed by yours truly. :wink:

"Give us your money!!" and "We do as we please!!" pretty much seems to sum up their motivation for backing the US. A pretty shallow motivation if you think of it. :(

"Give us your money!!" and "We do as we please!!" pretty much seems to sum up their motivation for backing the US. A pretty shallow motivation if you think of it. :(
Yep. And the Americans then think that they like them. :lol:
America has no friends. Unless they pay them. :lol:

"Give us your money!!" and "We do as we please!!" pretty much seems to sum up their motivation for backing the US. A pretty shallow motivation if you think of it. :(
Yep. And the Americans then think that they like them. :lol:
America has no friends. Unless they pay them. :lol:
Ouch! The truth is a painful thing indeed. :lol:

Heh, wait until everyone works out that the money the Americans are paying out to buy love is money they have borrowed from them. :twisted:

Heh, wait until everyone works out that the money the Americans are paying out to buy love is money they have borrowed from them. :twisted:

I'm curious about which countries were offered money excluding Turkey?

A combination of things. By supporting the war, over say Germany, military bases will most likely move from Germany to Poland. This is a huge boost to the Polish economy. American Soldiers who get paid on American wage scales (I believe) then get to spend all that money in poor places where even an American Soldier's pay would be considered high. Its also out of respect. While Ronald Reagan was stationing new Missiles in Europe and a lot of (younger) Europeans were protesting to "pull out" of the cold war, this was remembered by the Eastern Europeans who were then freed from Communism.

Please send plenty much Yankee Dollars here?

Either A) they are being pragmatic and they want to play it both ways: EU money and US money

or B) the old leader of the pack, the Soviet Union, is gone, and they need a new boss.

Well, the screw Moscow aspect certainly a big part of it. They're a terrific ally to us, and so is Eastern Europe. But they aren't exactly fuzzy with eachother.
Security may have to do a little with it, but that security comes mostly to our troops in the Middle East. There's another thread about a possible rebellion in Iran. While I hold out hope that most Arab nations can democratize without a full scale civil war, we can't rule it out. It'll threaten our supply lines into the Middle East, and nearly half of the world's oil supply. Therefore, as our armies are located on a peninsula, we need to secure supplies from the North, which is the only place with truely freindly nations. Otherwise, I shutter to think how our troops will preform without adequete supplies.

Correction: the eastern European governments adopt the positions stated. The people are incredibly divided on pretty much all issues. It's notable also that some of these 'politically healthy' nations have pretty despicable attitudes towards ethnic minorities like the Roma.
Well, this is the problem with generalizing. There's always an exception or two.
Which exactly nations have these attitudes towards ethnic minorities? Certainly not the Czech, the Bulgarians or the Hungarians?


Incidentally, what on earth is 'European hyperliberalism'?
A particular breed of liberalism, characterized by oversensitivity, double standards, obsession with outdated political narratives (Marxist and colonial) and general tendency towards dealing with problems by inaction. Definition designed by yours truly. :wink:


Oh please, comparing democratic socialist countries to Marxist ones is frankly absurd and shows a complete lack of sense. As for colonial attitudes??? I would be tempted to remind you that for the large part it is the US and not Europe that is determined to influence other countries for its own benefit.

I think that the nationalist ideology embodied by the US is far more outdated than any democratic socialist model, in fact you might even be able to spot the parallels between the US and large sections of pre-war Europe.

For one there is the insistence upon national sovereignty and the contempt with which it regards international institutions like the UN and the international criminal court, seeing them as detrimental to its own strategic interests, which themselves often run in contravention to the common good - e.g. Kyoto, refusal to ban landmines etc.

Secondly you have the hostility and contempt with which it regards many nations in the world, even Western nations who simply disagree with American policy are tarred with the "anti-American" brush and told that they hate the US or the "American way" both of which are held sacrosanct and which are immune to rational criticism.

Mixed with this intense nationalism you have an almost feudalistic religious outlook whereby those not conforming to Christian values are condemned, Islam is often looked down upon as being inferior and politics and religion are often interchangeable.

The lack of a comprehensive welfare model and the beliefs behind it are also incredibly similar to European ones around the turn of the century. The idea that poverty comes through ones own failings and that welfare makes a person lazy - ideas which were and have been continually rebuked in the early part of the century.

In fact I see a large proportion of the US' social outlook as simply being a modernised version of an old European state that avoided the catastrophes of the 20th century or at least did not suffer them on the same scale that Europe did - where the road of nationalism led.

I apologise to the writer of this thread for the temporary hijacking, I'll get back to the subject. I think that many nations saw it in their strategic interests to be close to the US and some may have been alienated by the manner in which France and Germany placed themselves as effectively being representatives of Europe.

Oh please, comparing democratic socialist countries to Marxist ones is frankly absurd and shows a complete lack of sense. As for colonial attitudes??? I would be tempted to remind you that for the large part it is the US and not Europe that is determined to influence other countries for its own benefit.
You have completely misread my post. I wasn't talking about attitudes, I was talking about narratives through which many, if not most, Europeans tend to view any conflict or other event that happens in the world. Any European opinion on any given world conflict usually boils down to one (or both) of the two basic narratives: Marxist (rich vs. poor) or colonial (foreign occupiers vs. indigenous occupied), whereas there is not a single conflict on the planet that could be adequately described in these terms. Does it make my pont more clear for you?
Besides, Marxism remains incredibly pervasive among the academic elite all over Europe, which leads to an unfortunate effect of indoctrinating most students at least to some degree.


I think that the nationalist ideology embodied by the US is far more outdated than any democratic socialist model, in fact you might even be able to spot the parallels between the US and large sections of pre-war Europe.
For one there is the insistence upon national sovereignty and the contempt with which it regards international institutions like the UN and the international criminal court, seeing them as detrimental to its own strategic interests, which themselves often run in contravention to the common good - e.g. Kyoto, refusal to ban landmines etc.
The idea of a national ideology being "outdated" is, by the way, essentially Marxist. The fashionable European passion for abolishing national states has its root in the "Manifesto of the Communist party" and the view that there are no French or British, only workers and capitalists. This way, your own comments confirm my observation.
As for the Kyoto protocol- it is absolutely not surprising that the state most reluctant to sign it is the one who is expected to pay most of the price for its implementation. Common good is always a problem when it is you who pays the bill.


Secondly you have the hostility and contempt with which it regards many nations in the world, even Western nations who simply disagree with American policy are tarred with the "anti-American" brush and told that they hate the US or the "American way" both of which are held sacrosanct and which are immune to rational criticism.
This reminds me of the famous conversation between Orianna Fallaci in her young years and the famous playwriter Arthur Miller.

Fallaci: "You Americans are obsessed with money. You measure everything with money".
Miller: "And you don't???"

Seriously now, are you saying that the opinion that Europe hates the US with a passion is totally unjustified? Sorry, I am not buying it. Last time I was in Germany, I had an interesting conversation with a group of students in Dresden, which came down to discussing politics, specifically Israel (which was pretty much inevitable since I was the first Israeli they've seen) and the Iraq invasion. Our conversation (if one can call it that, it felt more like an attempt to convert me to some kind of a "true faith" )about the latter went more or less as following:

German: "I don't understand. How can you support the Americans?"
Me: "Why should I not? Saddam wants to destroy us, he bombed us, he funds Palestinian terrorists. I don't have any reasons to oppose removing him, and plenty of reasons to rejoice if he is gone".
German: "But they are going to take Iraqi oil!"
Me: "And how exactly does it concern me? I am not in the oil business, and Israel does not depend on Iraqi oil. Does Germany?"
German: Well, I suppose so... but that's not the point! Don't you understand? THEY ARE GOING TO BENEFIT FROM THIS WAR!"

Not word-to word quoting, of course, but that was the idea. They seemed to be far more concerned that American might extract some gain from Iraq than with any other considerations. After this (and some other) conversations with people from Europe I would not rule out anti-Americanism as one of the prime motivators of today's European public opinion.
As for values that are held sacrosanct and are immune to rational criticism- let's move on to the next paragraph of your post.


Mixed with this intense nationalism you have an almost feudalistic religious outlook whereby those not conforming to Christian values are condemned, Islam is often looked down upon as being inferior and politics and religion are often interchangeable.
Now let me ask you something. Your post expressed strong commitment to two ideologies: universalism, or internationalism if you want (as opposed to nationalism), and secularism (as opposed to religion and politics being "interchangeable". Are these not values you hold sacrosanct? Are you ready to recognize ANY sort of opposition to these ideas as "rational criticism"? And even if you are, how many others would? How is this essentially different from the American commitment to their values?

Besides, I am not aware of any kind of persecution of non-Cristians in the US. They are no more condemned that the "backwards religious fanatics" are in Europe, at least. And even if the US does produce some anti-Muslim rhetorics, at least they do not ban Muslim faith symbols like some of the leading EU states did.



The lack of a comprehensive welfare model and the beliefs behind it are also incredibly similar to European ones around the turn of the century. The idea that poverty comes through ones own failings and that welfare makes a person lazy - ideas which were and have been continually rebuked in the early part of the century.
See? We're back to the Marxist narrative. Remember WHO these ideas were "rebuked" by in the early part of the century? That's right. The reds. Rich vs. poor, and the rich are to blame, and the welfare is the cure. Narrow-minded, ignorant, black-and white anti-Capitalist attitude.
Tell me- are the economies of European powers not screaming under the welfare burden? Is the overwhelming flood of gastarbeiters into Germany not caused by the necessity, the fact that SOMEONE in the country has to work so the state could pay the promised welfare?


In fact I see a large proportion of the US' social outlook as simply being a modernised version of an old European state that avoided the catastrophes of the 20th century or at least did not suffer them on the same scale that Europe did - where the road of nationalism led.

Yes. Yes, yes, yes. The US is what Europe was before being wrecked and traumatized by the two world wars into its present, indecisive, dependant, hypocritical state of mind. The US is a fully fledged and rapidly developing NATIONAL STATE- capitalist, proud and powerful. Why exactly should it be seen as a bad thing?

The US itself is rather fond of teaching pupils its own particular brand of ideological thought so I find your condemnation of some lecturers teaching Marxism rather astounding. Many Americans seem to have a very poor level of geographical knowledge and yet every morning are imbued with a new sense of Christianity and American patriotism. It seems inevitable that a nation will teach a subject from its own viewpoint to a varying degree (although I do not accept that Marxist teaching is as pervasive as you stipulate).

My point that nationalism is outdated is not a Marxist view since Marx based this statement on his vision of a united proletariat which transcended international boundaries whereas I’m arguing that nationalism is outdated due to the fact that the need of multilateralism and cooperation in confronting contemporary issues such as global warming and terrorism is paramount. Of course national sovereignty exists and should exist, but it is important not to become blinded to wider interests by over-egging the importance of such sovereignty and autonomy to the point that it becomes essentially hostile.

You argue that the term “anti-American” is fully-justifiable as it is essentially the truth may be true for some people but certainly not for all. The American democrats for example, seem far more prone to criticising American foreign policy as it currently stands, emphasising the need of multilateral action, the importance of the UN and so on, yet even these people who are themselves American are accused of hating their country, regardless of whether or not the democrats’ criticisms are actually valid. Rational discussion rarely takes place due to the Anti-American rebuke. When John Kerry claimed he had the support of five foreign leaders many Republicans responded by passing them off as belonging to nations such as North Korea which are hostile to the US. Anti-Americanism is as much something perpetuated and believed by Christian-conservatives with their own goals in mind than something which is genuinely popular among western states. However, the more the US perceives there to be widespread international hostility and that all those with different religious faiths and cultures are incompatible with America and acts accordingly (ignoring international institutions and the like) the truer this hostile world image becomes.

My points regarding religion was more an assertion that Christianity in America is outdated than anything else. Whilst I would defend the importance of secularism and internationalism I would not dub any argument to the contrary as being “anti-British”. Whilst I may not agree I would still be prepared to listen and any refutations would be on logical grounds rather than ones established by blind patriotism. The French seem to be the exception on this issue and I thoroughly condemn

European nations are not anti-capitalist despite all the rhetoric, they merely embody both capitalist and socialist values. Welfare for example does not argue that the rich are to blame and must be punished or engage in some ‘class-war’ but rather that some support for the less wealthy must be provided in order to provide the opportunities for a truly fair and meritocratic society which in turn benefits everyone. In the US you have in effect a system of economic patronage to a large degree whereby a quality education and thus good prospects in life run in accordance with how much that particular person can afford. Regardless of how much academic merit is shown many people simply cannot afford the $30,000 annual fee many ivy-league universities charge. This is profoundly unmeritocratic, it stifles social mobility and freedom and is certainly not just. Whether or not welfare is expensive does not refute the fact that it and similar programmes involving state funding embody a sense of public interest and opportunity that the US sacrifices in favour of market forces.

I cannot argue that Europe is flawless and that the US is not an extremely successful, economically and militarily powerful state, which it is and which it should be. Yet at the same time it embodies a nationalistic sense of values that are not progressive and run contrary to the teachings of the 20th century. Whilst Europe may have been devastated by two world wars I do not accept that these wars have wrecked Europe but rather it is a better place because of them, partly because it understands that the road of nationalism was the one that led them there and was the cause of so much death and destruction.

I don't wish to get involved in the US vs Europe debate, fascinating though it is (no sarcasm). I agree more with Genaia, though I don't really support either side. In the UK, we barely hear anything about Marx.

I wish to respond to Womblingdon concerning treatment of the Roma and 'hyperliberalism'.

Roma: I specifically had the Czechs in mind as the worst offenders on this issue after the Slovaks. The Hungarians are improving, the Bulgarians I don't know about (though other ethnic minorities such as the Turks get a raw deal).

Huperliberalism: this term bears no relation to the meaning you ascribe it. Hyperliberalism would more accurately describe anarcho-communism/capitalism. Yet again, someone incorrectly conflating 'liberal' and 'left-wing'.

Sigh, sigh, sigh...

The US itself is rather fond of teaching pupils its own particular brand of ideological thought so I find your condemnation of some lecturers teaching Marxism rather astounding. Many Americans seem to have a very poor level of geographical knowledge and yet every morning are imbued with a new sense of Christianity and American patriotism. It seems inevitable that a nation will teach a subject from its own viewpoint to a varying degree (although I do not accept that Marxist teaching is as pervasive as you stipulate).
My condemnation of teaching Marxism was to demonstrate you that yes, Americans have their own ideology to preach- but so does Europe. So does every existing social and political system on the planet- and therefore accusing Americans of holding on to their ideology is sheer hypocricy. It boils down to you accusing them of not replacing their values with yours, because in your opinion your values are better, yet you protest when they fault you for exactly the same, but from their perspective? Doesn't it remind you of a certain conversation between a pot and a kettle?


My point that nationalism is outdated is not a Marxist view since Marx based this statement on his vision of a united proletariat which transcended international boundaries whereas I’m arguing that nationalism is outdated due to the fact that the need of multilateralism and cooperation in confronting contemporary issues such as global warming and terrorism is paramount. Of course national sovereignty exists and should exist, but it is important not to become blinded to wider interests by over-egging the importance of such sovereignty and autonomy to the point that it becomes essentially hostile.
Frankly, I have always been suspicious of people talking about common good. As a rule, nothing good comes out of this sort of thinking. I also do not see any kind of progress towards benevolence and pursuing common good at the cost of personal/national interests. All I see is alliances of convenience, fight for economic interests and attempts to trick others into paying the bill. Germany and France demand the candidates for EU membership to hold to economic standards that they themselves cannot afford (is anyone aware that it is a third year in a row that France and Germany have a bigger budget deficite than EU rules allow?). Which country during the last 150 years did anything for the benefit of others that would run contrary to this country's national interests? That's right, no one. You want to fault the US for not being benevolent enough? Fair enough, but don't forget the "but". Don't forget to fault yourself as well- for the sake of balance, if not for the sake of honesty.


You argue that the term “anti-American” is fully-justifiable as it is essentially the truth may be true for some people but certainly not for all. The American democrats for example, seem far more prone to criticising American foreign policy as it currently stands, emphasising the need of multilateral action, the importance of the UN and so on, yet even these people who are themselves American are accused of hating their country, regardless of whether or not the democrats’ criticisms are actually valid. Rational discussion rarely takes place due to the Anti-American rebuke. When John Kerry claimed he had the support of five foreign leaders many Republicans responded by passing them off as belonging to nations such as North Korea which are hostile to the US. Anti-Americanism is as much something perpetuated and believed by Christian-conservatives with their own goals in mind than something which is genuinely popular among western states. However, the more the US perceives there to be widespread international hostility and that all those with different religious faiths and cultures are incompatible with America and acts accordingly (ignoring international institutions and the like) the truer this hostile world image becomes.
This is absurd. You cite the internal American debate as the main source of anti-Americanism? How ridiculous is that?
Accusations of not looking out for the country's best interests is one of the most common pre-election debate tools in every single country. It works the same way everywhere, and the US is no exception. When non-Americans make references to it, however, it strikes me as incredibly hypocritical and dishonest. I could build the same case about the Spanish based on anti-Aznar rhetorics if I wanted to.
This sort of logic has become so common it makes even me, a non-American, sick to my stomach. What business is it of yours or mine, pray tell, what kind of verbal artillery presidential candidates of another country use against each other? How does it validate or invalidate anything in the international debate? Why should a French or a Belgian care about the supposedly flawed American health care system? What business is it of a foreigner if the US welfare system is good or bad?
What it does demonstrate, however, is the willingness of the America bashing crowd to use anything and everything that can portray America in a bad light. "Look, even Americans think that America is bad! I can't be anti- American if there are Americans who think like me!". As if self-hatred and self-loathing were anything new. Like I said in another thread on another issue, it makes about as much sense as saying that humans cannot be cannibals.


My points regarding religion was more an assertion that Christianity in America is outdated than anything else. Whilst I would defend the importance of secularism and internationalism I would not dub any argument to the contrary as being “anti-British”.
Of course not. Being an internationalist, it wouldn't make much sense for you to dub it anti-British. You would dub it anti- progressive though.


Whilst I may not agree I would still be prepared to listen and any refutations would be on logical grounds rather than ones established by blind patriotism. The French seem to be the exception on this issue and I thoroughly condemn The Germans, who seek to impose a similar ban, would be another exception, then. And these are the two countryes that embody Europe as such, the two countries around which the EU is being built. And everyone seems calm about it (except for those whose symbols are banned). I shudder to think of the size of a backlash if it was the US banning symbols of Muslims faith.


European nations are not anti-capitalist despite all the rhetoric, they merely embody both capitalist and socialist values. Welfare for example does not argue that the rich are to blame and must be punished or engage in some ‘class-war’ but rather that some support for the less wealthy must be provided in order to provide the opportunities for a truly fair and meritocratic society which in turn benefits everyone.
Does it not? Who pays the welfare bill from their taxes? The poor? The very idea of welfare is that the rich are obliged to pay for the poor's well-being. Its not a bad idea when taken in moderation- but moderation is exactly what European welfare lacks. When people perfectly capable of working can remain on welfare for DECADES- and I know quite a few in Germany who do just that- this is way overboard. And it certainly doesn't stimulate any kind of progress or development. On the contrary, it provides many with a perfect opportunity to turn into consumers netto, completely excluding themselves from production cycle.


In the US you have in effect a system of economic patronage to a large degree whereby a quality education and thus good prospects in life run in accordance with how much that particular person can afford. Regardless of how much academic merit is shown many people simply cannot afford the $30,000 annual fee many ivy-league universities charge. This is profoundly unmeritocratic, it stifles social mobility and freedom and is certainly not just. Whether or not welfare is expensive does not refute the fact that it and similar programmes involving state funding embody a sense of public interest and opportunity that the US sacrifices in favour of market forces.
Well, here you are 100% right- but this does not contradict what I said above about welfare. I am very pro-capitalist, but I believe in moderation. Any idea taken to the extreme becomes destructive. It seems that merging both systems- stricter limits for unemployment welfare plus subsidized education- could be the way to go.


I cannot argue that Europe is flawless and that the US is not an extremely successful, economically and militarily powerful state, which it is and which it should be. Yet at the same time it embodies a nationalistic sense of values that are not progressive and run contrary to the teachings of the 20th century. Whilst Europe may have been devastated by two world wars I do not accept that these wars have wrecked Europe but rather it is a better place because of them, partly because it understands that the road of nationalism was the one that led them there and was the cause of so much death and destruction.
But you still haven't explained to me why nationalism is all of a sudden contrary to progress. Judging by the American success, the two can work together perfectly well. And frankly, I cannot accept your opinion that Europe today is a better place than America, for a simple reason- I haven't been to the US yet. I've been to Europe though. Its not a bad place but hardly an ideal one.

I wish to respond to Womblingdon concerning treatment of the Roma and 'hyperliberalism'.

Roma: I specifically had the Czechs in mind as the worst offenders on this issue after the Slovaks. The Hungarians are improving, the Bulgarians I don't know about (though other ethnic minorities such as the Turks get a raw deal).
Well, I am not quite sure what kind of "offending" we are talking about (there is a hell of a lot of difference between a generalized dislike and state-sanctioned discrimination policies). I am even less sure as for how exactly it relates to what I was talking about- the attitude of the said states in international affairs.


Huperliberalism: this term bears no relation to the meaning you ascribe it. Hyperliberalism would more accurately describe anarcho-communism/capitalism. Yet again, someone incorrectly conflating 'liberal' and 'left-wing'.
Which part of my description does not correspond with the reality of the present day European mindset?

Concerning the Roma - yes, there is state-sanctioned persecution in the Slovak Republic. The Czech Republic tacitly allows local persecution. What tends to happen next is that the Roma flee to the UK, who turn down their applications for asylum on the basis that the Czech Republic is on their 'white list' countries from which they will not accept refugees. As you may be able to tell, I'm not proud of my country's attitude here.

'Generalised dislike', Jesus wept...

Relevance to the debate? Not a great deal, the original comment was an aside.

'Hyperliberalism' - I wasn't questioning your opinion of western European politics - you're entitled to think that, even if I disagree (and I am not a fan of the EU). I merely suggest the label you have given it is a misnomer.

I am not condemning the American system for not replacing many of its values and systems because I believe that others are better, I am condemning it for refusing to engage in a rational debate regarding many of these values and systems simply because the system is deemed anti-American and because it does not conform to an established world view.

How can you possibly argue that nothing good ever comes out of an attitude that supports just that. The US currently claims to adopt a foreign policy which promotes freedom as it is in the common good that people are free, they make strides towards combating terrorism, how effectively is debateable but they do so partly because it is in the common good that terrorism is eliminated.

France and Germany have indeed violated European economic rules but that is not necessarily reflective of the EU system, especially when you consider the fact that subsidisation for the EU comes largely from France and Germany and the fact that many smaller nations in European receive economic support for various parts of their economy from the EU. Countries can often act against their own interests – Kosovo, the US’ intervention in WWI, banning landmines (the US being exempt from that one of course), the idea that no nation has done anything in the past 150 years that was against its national interest is simply untrue. How on earth can you possibly argue that selfishness is justified because it is widespread.

I would be quite prepared to criticise my own nation for its failures at home and abroad if necessary, yet considering this thread is mainly about American nationalism (mainly) the UK does not come into it.

Yes many nations have arguments on policy especially prior to elections, but when a policy is criticised in most nations it is usually done because they feel that the policy is logically flawed, whereas in the US this can often be done simply because it does not conform to an ingrained set of values that are triumphed and perpetuated, hence the dismissive phrase anti-American, you hear no such similar phrase “Anti-Spanish” or “Anti-British”. This is not to say that if the debate was given air the forces arguing for a continuation of “the American way” would not succeed or are not right, merely that by refusing to open a discourse regarding different cultural, political and economic ways of life the result is that you have a superpower whose people have a very limited knowledge of the rest of the world thus basing all their knowledge on empty rhetoric and stereotypes, but yet at the same time loves to impose its own values on other people because they know no other way.

Indeed the argument – why should I care about what goes on internally within the US could be equated to – why should I care about what goes on internally in Iraq, or Syria, or Sudan or other places with equally appalling human rights records. But that’s irrelevant since the point I was making regarded the fact that this so called “verbal artillery” is indicative of US foreign policy and the way it views the world.

I would only dub a policy as being flawed or “anti-progressive” after I had given the policy consideration. I would not dismiss it offhand simply because it is indicative of a different political, religious or cultural creed. That is the difference between dubbing something “anti-American” and after serious consideration deciding that the idea is unwise.

The banning of religious insignia in French schools has not been because most French people are not Muslims or because they see the two as being incompatible but because it is felt that in French schools religion is a divisive factor that does not promote either successful integration or a healthy learning environment. Thus the decision has been based on policy rather than the view that religion does not conform to a predefined sense of Frenchness. And lets make one point clear – it is not merely Hijabs that are being banned in schools but all religious insignia from all religions – including Christianity, therefore if the US did try to impose a similar bill the idea that the term “anti-American” would not be used by any discussing the bill is ridiculous.

Welfare provides for a socially mobile society whereby the opportunities offered through welfare allow people to advance themselves in society to the point where they in turn are providing others with the opportunities they benefited from. Many people in Britain have benefited from a free university education which was paid for by the taxpayer, many more then want on to become higher earners as a result who then in turn paid for others to have opportunities. There are not simply ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ society is more interchangeable than that, the rich are not simply paying for the well being of the poor. Whether or not the degree to which welfare has been administered is too great or to little is neither here nor there, it does not detract from the argument that welfare per se, is a good thing. (although I agree with the former regarding benefits but the latter regarding services)

Nationalism is outdated as in the communications age it seems illogical to be isolating yourself from the rest of the world, refusing to engage in international dialogue, or in dialogue concerning alternative values and lifestyles but instead dismissing them without any rational thought, and then imposing yourself as the representative of the Western world in spite of this. What of George Bush’ infamous quote “you’re either on our side, or you’re with the terrorists” – as if the American approach to terrorism is the only way. Nationalism is outdated due to the fact that the need of multilateralism and cooperation in confronting contemporary issues such as global warming and terrorism is paramount and cannot be achieved by one nation alone. Nationalism is outdated because the last century has repeatedly demonstrated what happens when nations do not cooperate or engage in open discourse.

I do not argue that the Europe is a better place than the US, it has a lot to learn from the US just as the US could learn a lot from Europe. This streak of nationalism however, seems to have logically crippled a large part of American political thought by promoting a hostile environment where other nations’ values are simply neglected and dismissed. It is true that the success and a nationalistic outlook are not incompatible, yet that does not mean that nationalism has necessarily played a positive role in bringing out the former. Blinkering yourself from the world cannot be a good thing.

Belated BUMP

The reason why Eastern Europe is rather hostile, if you will, to the Roma people (or Gypsies) is because of their reputation.

In Poland, they are known to be thieves, swindlers, and adepts in the art of deceit (attitude might be changing, but truthfully, I don't see much difference from my visit there in 1998, and 2003).
In Polish, a Gypsy is called a Cygan, of which the verb cyganić comes from, which means to swindle, gyp. (same as in English, Gypsy, to gyp; considered offensive).
My grandma remembers Gypsies "raiding" farms in her podunk "town," in the 1950s.
My moms remembers them stealing money out of peoples' pockets (1970s onwards).

When I last visited (Poland), it was inculcated into my mind that the average Roma/Gypsy is a wandering supplicant, with dirty clothing, swarthiness, and (many) babies; I'm afraid many other people in Eastern Europe might have a similar opinion, but I cannot represent the whole E.E.