Bush and Europe: moving apart?

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Jun 07, 2002 7:02 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
It's not Dubya sticking to his convictions that I have a problem with, but that I believe his convictions in this case are being dictated by business interests, not scientists. Dubya is also an a different position than Blair vis-a-vis the EU because the US has the economic and political means to do the bullying and not be bullied.

Do you think the recent Enron fiasco may affect the Bush administraion affair with big business, or have they got too deep a connection?

Do you think Bush would allow himself to be bullied by Europe if he was in the same situation?

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Jun 07, 2002 7:07 am

I think the the Enron debacle has made Dubya and his buddies think twice about their close relationship with big business, but they give too much money to abandon them entirely.

This is pure speculation, but I think that if any world leader were at the head of the most powerful nation on the planet (as Dubya is) then they would exercise a lot less restraint than he is. I hate to defend Dubya twice in one thread, but historically speaking Dubya could be a lot worse. Remember what Napoleon, Ghengis Khan and Hitler did while they were the most powerful people in the world?

I think that when a nation is not dealing from a position of relative strength, as Britain may not be right now, they will take the bullying because they have no choice. If the US were not the world's Alpha Nation, we would be taking it, too.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Jun 07, 2002 7:22 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
I think the the Enron debacle has made Dubya and his buddies think twice about their close relationship with big business, but they give too much money to abandon them entirely.

I wonder what would happen if they did just cut them off?

This is pure speculation, but I think that if any world leader were at the head of the most powerful nation on the planet (as Dubya is) then they would exercise a lot less restraint than he is. I hate to defend Dubya twice in one thread, but historically speaking Dubya could be a lot worse. Remember what Napoleon, Ghengis Khan and Hitler did while they were the most powerful people in the world?

I don't usually use this statement but "times change", things aren't quite the same as they used to be and there is a lot more media and other influences on most leaders, i don't think that the leaders of past time are comparable to Bush, his administration has a different environment. You are right in saying he shows restraint. The Gulf war for instance had very little (in my opinion) to do with Saddam, it was the price of oil that was the concern. A leader of yesteryear wouldn't have had that kind of problem as a main concern, perhaps Hitler but not Khan and Napoleon.

I think that when a nation is not dealing from a position of relative strength, as Britain may not be right now, they will take the bullying because they have no choice. If the US were not the world's Alpha Nation, we would be taking it, too.

Personally i think Britain lives too much in the past, but that is another issue

I am not so sure on your point; the US strikes me as a country that is willing to go that extra mile for their own ends when most other countries would be subservient. Every american i have ever known is willing to push themselves a little more than the person next to them. There is a reason why the US is the strongest nation on the planet, i think it is a state of mind as much as anything that has brought the US to the forefront.

Quark · Post by **Quark** » Fri Jun 07, 2002 7:33 am

Originally posted by Mr Sleep

There is a reason why the US is the strongest nation on the planet, i think it is a state of mind as much as anything that has brought the US to the forefront.

So we can thank Protestants for something! The work ethic

*Just a joke people, please don't overreact. I just watched a George Carlin act so my comment seems harmless beside him ...*

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Jun 07, 2002 7:37 am

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
the US strikes me as a country that is willing to go that extra mile for their own ends when most other countries would be subservient.

I think we push people because we can. America is usually dealing from a position of strength where other countries may not be (especially when dealing with us). That gives us the extra clout we need when we want to impose our will on others.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Jun 07, 2002 7:44 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
I think we push people because we can. America is usually dealing from a position of strength where other countries may not be (especially when dealing with us). That gives us the extra clout we need when we want to impose our will on others.

You would know more about American culture than me, i still think that mexican investigators promote gun's in the home and everyone in America walks around in a trilby spouting things about Rocko...however i am speaking from a point of view of the people, i am saying that there is an intrinsic competitive nature, maybe i am wrong (wouldn't be a first

) but i think that most American's have a need to succeed over others and this governs the whole culture. The fact that America is the power is secondary in my opinion to the nature of the public as a whole.

@Quark, LOL two of them also gave birth to me, another thing to be thankful for

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Jun 07, 2002 8:23 am

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
everyone in America walks around in a trilby spouting things about Rocko...

Say what??? Is this some more of the Empire's bizarre slang like Aegis was using yesterday?

however i am speaking from a point of view of the people, i am saying that there is an intrinsic competitive nature, maybe i am wrong (wouldn't be a first ) but i think that most American's have a need to succeed over others and this governs the whole culture. The fact that America is the power is secondary in my opinion to the nature of the public as a whole.

American culture is very competitive, especially with regards to the acquisition of stuff; we place a high value on living in the right neighbourhoods, wearing the right clothes, driving the right car, etc.

However, I don't think that Americans are so obsessed with outdoing their peers that we'll sell our mothers and daughters into slavery (though certainly some of us would). I think that the American Dream (and this was addressed in another thread) is that anyone who has an original idea and is willing to work hard to get to the top (and stab other people in the back on the way up) can do it. We like the rags-to-riches stories that are not possible in other cultures due to existing social structures.

One thing that we have going for us is that we are a homogenous culture that welcomes other cultures, bastardises them and makes them all into Americans. While we have a singular dominant group (the white, middle-class, heterosexual, protestents, and mostly men at that) that does most of the governing, the fact that anyone can come here and succeed is a driving force behind America's rise to the top. So long as people are willing to buy into America (and all that it stands for), they can do well in the US. The entrepreneurial spirit is not the only determinant, though. America has been blessed by its size (roughly equivalent to western Europe), abundant natural resources and isolation from war and destruction. That fact that we've been able to go about our business without having neighbours to fear and without our cities being firebombed has been a terrific boon for us.

Despite this, I believe that if the US were not the world's only superpower and if we were not usually negotiating from the position of power, we wouldn't be half as bold as we are. I think someone would beat us down if for no other reason than because they were at the top of the heap and they could.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Jun 07, 2002 8:39 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Say what??? Is this some more of the Empire's bizarre slang like Aegis was using yesterday?

It was a reference to Key Largo, namely Ed G Robinson

"I'm Rocko see"

The other one was Charleton Heston just to clear up any confusion

American culture is very competitive, especially with regards to the acquisition of stuff; we place a high value on living in the right neighbourhoods, wearing the right clothes, driving the right car, etc.

That doesn't so much sound like competition as a need for conformity...

anyone can come here and succeed is a driving force behind America's rise to the top. So long as people are willing to buy into America (and all that it stands for), they can do well in the US

Buy into America, i like the way you put it

I would presume most countries are the same in this respect.

Despite this, I believe that if the US were not the world's only superpower and if we were not usually negotiating from the position of power, we wouldn't be half as bold as we are. I think someone would beat us down if for no other reason than because they were at the top of the heap and they could.

You almost make them sound like children at playschool

I always get the impression of politics being very childish, they deal with such grand scales and so often are offended by the smallest slight. They also spend their entire time lying...SYM is more mature in my opinion than most of international politics.

I stand corrected and will bear your comments in mind

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Jun 07, 2002 8:55 am

Originally posted by Mr Sleep
That doesn't so much sound like competition as a need for conformity...

It's a little bit of both. Americans are basically insecure. We derive our self-image and self-esteem from someone else (often the media). So if we see that [insert latest trendy fashion here] is popular, we've got to have or do it.

But we also like to look at our neighbours and see what they've go and how they're doing, and this is where the competition comes in. If my neighbour just bought a new Corolla, I think that I have to have a new Camry. If they have a Xbox, I've got to get one and I've got to get the DVD controller that Microsquish sells separately.

We're told what to like and then we have to make sure that we like it more (through having more of it) than our neighbours.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Jun 07, 2002 8:59 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
We're told what to like and then we have to make sure that we like it more (through having more of it) than our neighbours.

I have to appreciate sometimes that everyone isn't as cynical as myself, i can't believe people would be that shallow, how much of a generalisation are your comments?

fable · Post by **fable** » Sat Jun 08, 2002 7:24 am

Originally posted by Mr Sleep

I have to appreciate sometimes that everyone isn't as cynical as myself, i can't believe people would be that shallow, how much of a generalisation are your comments?

How well versed are you in marketing techniques? Did you know that more money is spent on the commercials run *during* programs, than on the programs, themselves? This is hard, cold fact. We're talking tens of millions of dollars per program, here. It bears thinking about. And don't you think that watching this kind of thing since childhood, taking in the voice of commercialism as a friend during shows you like, and staying with it through your teens and into adulthood, makes the buying and possession of goods the essential ingredient around which a cuture is founded?

Our politics are marketed, as well. When the media were slower in communications and less potentially emotional in form (writing is far less "hot," to use McLuhan's term, than television), national leaders were more inclined to persuade their colleagues in "democratic" government, who owned the votes of their constituencies. Now, these same leaders can simply appeal over the heads of their colleagues, directly to these constituencies, using television. Money commands opinion.

This isn't cynical; it's simply fact. Did Bush get elected because he was a great thinker, or had a remarkable character, or an extraordinary gift for consensus? No; he got elected because he had tons of money behind him, and employed it better in marketing strategies that offset the natural advantage of his opponent. Does Bush naturally hate Europeans, and is he out to separate the US from the rest of the world? No; but Bush recognizes the dissing of Europe as part of a strategy that could win him votes with a core constituency of his in the future. The fact that he's turned on his traditional GOP allies in the process shows a curious assessment of values. But he has money on his side, and what is more, a variety of terrorist organizations who will obligingly make good his claims about America being in a War on Terrorism.

Marketing is, unfortunately, the key.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Sun Jun 09, 2002 9:19 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
It's a little bit of both. Americans are basically insecure. We derive our self-image and self-esteem from someone else (often the media). So if we see that [insert latest trendy fashion here] is popular, we've got to have or do it ...

Well, HLD, you didn't want to be in the position of agreeing with me, and now we have something to disagree about. I don't want to get off-topic here, but I simply could NOT let such a ridiculously stereotypical (and, IMO, offensive) statement go by.

Let me ask you: do you think fable (an American citizen AFAIK) derives his self-image from buying the latest fashion? Do you derive your self-esteem from buying the latest fashion? Hmmm. I don't think I do, either. So maybe you should re-think your idea of Americans - ?

All I'm asking is that you please leave broad, biased, and stereotypical statement out of the debate, or, at the very least, throw in an "IMO."

@fable: It is not "simply fact" that Bush was elected because he had more money backing him. How can you honestly state such a thing? Do you really believe that the American people are such mindless automotons that they are simply forced into voting by money and marketing? Hmmm. Maybe you do. How sad. You must find it terribly difficult to live among us.

Sorry for getting off-topic, and I apologize if my comments here sound harsh. I always tell myself that I shouldn't be offended by comments like these ... but it is not easy.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Sun Jun 09, 2002 11:58 am

Originally posted by Lazarus
Let me ask you: do you think fable (an American citizen AFAIK) derives his self-image from buying the latest fashion? Do you derive your self-esteem from buying the latest fashion? Hmmm. I don't think I do, either. So maybe you should re-think your idea of Americans - ?

I can't speak for fable, but I think the American culture in general is driven by consumerism. Individually, people may or may not succumb to peer pressure to buy certain things or have others, but if you look at people in general, they follow fashion, and we devote a lot of time, energy and money in wearing the right name brands and driving the right cars.

If you don't think that wearing certain clothes is important, why are kids being beaten up on school playgrounds and having their new Air Jordans stolen? Have you ever watched a bunch of boys interact together and listened to their conversation devolve into an I-have-an-Xbox-and-you-don't contest? Or try taking a teenage girl shopping and tell her that she has to get her clothes from Wal-Mart instead of the Tommy Hilfiger outlet, even though the quality is the same and the only difference is the label and the price. We as a culture are very into material things and spend a lot of energy comparing the things we have with the things that others have.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Sun Jun 09, 2002 12:48 pm

I assume this will all remain civil?

As for the issue of stereotyping, i am afraid that everyone does it. What is the average opinion of someone from Britain?

We as individuals are different but as a collective there is quite often a certain trend that follows the group around.

Quark · Post by **Quark** » Sun Jun 09, 2002 2:23 pm

Lazarus, stereotypes are never always right, but they are generally created for a reason.

America as a whole is run by consumerism. My neighborhood is perfect proof of that. One family bought a brand new Dodge Viper for their newly (High School!) graduated son. I can't think of any valid excuse for that.

Ever notice the American Dream? It's not for a happy life; it's for a rich life.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Jun 09, 2002 3:56 pm

Sorry for getting off-topic, and I apologize if my comments here sound harsh. I always tell myself that I shouldn't be offended by comments like these ... but it is not easy.

@Lazarus, moderator's cap on--first off, please watch the mocking tone. It's the kind that sets off flames even if it's borderline, itself. Let's keep this a friendly discussion among people who present different and often contrasting ideas, okay? Apologies don't cut it. Just don't do it.

Second point: please keep on subject. If you want to disagree with a point anybody has raised tangentially in a post devoted to a thread's issue, post your remarks as a separate thread. I've already done that for you, in this instance, and provided my answer, there. Feel free to join in.

Moderator's cap off.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Sun Jun 09, 2002 6:52 pm

Originally posted by Lazarus
Wow. This global warming debate pops up in the strangest places!

posted by Gaxx
Question: Why is global warming such a big issue? Who cares?

Without further discussion of details regarding global warming, it's not surprising that it turns up in a thread devoted to the increasing political distance between the US and Europe. The US stance on the Kyoto protocol and the global warming issue in general, is upsetting many people in Europe since it's viewed as plain short-sighted stupidity. If the models proposed by a majority of scientists are even close to correct, global warming will change life patterns on earth in a way that will also change life for humans in a direct way. Ecosystems and climate systems are vast, megamultifactorial systems where change in one factor can result in changes in 100000 factors. It's not a coincidence that the mathemathical model chaos-theory is usually illustrated with examples from climatology.

When climate change, living conditions for all life also changes. Ultimately, there is a possibility of this planet being uninhabitable by humans. So to us Europeans, it seems crazy that Bush, despite all the scientific evidence also from his own panel, denies global warming and refuses to act with the argument that "it might harm US industry".

I think many of us in Europe has a problem with the richest and most powerful country on the world being so unwilling to sacrifice the slightest little finacial risk for a globally better world. The US spend billions of the war on terrorism because the attack was on US soil. The US spend billions on producing weapons. But making AIDS medicines cheaper for the very poor 3rd world countries with HIV-rates of 50% of the population is refused because it "might harm US drug industry". Quit selling grenade lauchers to non-stately actors, or stop producing land mines is also refused because it "might harm US industry". To many Europeans, politicians as well as ordinary people, these kind of statements give the impression that not only does the US only care about itself and it's money, it doesn't even care for it's own population since for instance global warming, terrorists with weapons harm also the US.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon Jun 10, 2002 6:20 am

I have heard theories that state most of the European countries that have signed the Kyoto agreement only did so for the rather large pat on the back, their interest in "green" issues was secondary to making themselves look better.

Perhaps Bush (and his cronies) saw this and decided to avoid embarrasing their friends in big business, instead being shuned by a rather less influential pro green minority.

Anyone read Stark by Ben Elton?

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Jun 10, 2002 7:57 am

I just heard that the European Union has unanimously voted in trade sanctions against the US, following Bush's slapping of 30% tarriffs on all imported steel. The sanctions include, among other goods, US exported clothing, fruit juice (which is really big in parts of Europe), and steel. The sanctions won't be binding until the vote is put before the World Trade Organization, which is supposed to happen shortly.

Audace · Post by **Audace** » Mon Jun 10, 2002 4:15 pm

Personally I think you guys already have answered the question this topic started with, but to give ya'll my (avarage dutch-guy) view:

The (obvious)reasons why the US and Europe are estranging are the arrogant and overtly nationalistic politics of US government, and the vanity of the bigger European nations and the growing sense of union within Europe.

And to be honest, I don't think that people in Europe ever liked the US, (if you wish I'll elaborate on it)(of course I'm generalizing, but I'm afraid that my grasp of the english language is insufficient to put to many nuances in my sentences), and maybe it's the other way around as well.

The US and Europe are not drifting apart, but rather getting back to their old positions again after 8 yrs. of Clinton and his more outward politics. Europe and America where sorta forced upon eachother by history. And now we have Europe sobbing about past glory, while believing we are on a cultural and moral high-ground, and the US (being the strongest nation) acting like they rule the world but not taking it's responsibility as the leading nation by falling back into it's old isolatinonist politics. (What's that spiderman quote again? "With great power comes great responsibility"or something)

The second part of the Q. that started the topic should probably, "Do we wanna solve it, and if we do how?".

Anyways sorry for ranting and maybe sounding a bit incoherent, it's late and i just read through ten pages of this topic....hope ya'll forgive me