Obama woos Europe
I'm having one of those days off which doesn't really feel like it. I am still on watch and wait for the accused in a helicopter. But as it looks as if Karadzic won't arrive before Monday, I am back at home, for the first time in three weeks, rather than in The Hague. It means I am observing the other big European story on TV, rather than in person. I would have loved to have been among the crowds in Berlin to see Barack Obama. 
How much is this European enthusiasm for him, or just a chance to gawp at a celeb? Bit of both, of course. It is always dangerous to talk about "European attitudes towards America" (or anything else) when there are so many divisions of opinion within any of the 27 European Union countries, let alone between them.
But...I am going to anyway. It is broadly true to say that most leaders of the EU nations would like to see the United States engaged in the world, able to use its overwhelming military strength, but with an administration that is much more cautious about how and when it does this. This is probably the majority feeling even in countries like Poland, Britain and Italy, where the governments backed the Iraq war. The enthusiasm for an engaged US is stronger in "New Europe", the ex-communist East, than in the West.
As for the peoples of Europe, in France, Spain, Germany and of course other countries there is a strong feeling that the US has often not used its power wisely or well. Of course there are huge shades of grey within this coalition of the unwilling. At one end of this scale, those who would deplore all American military action, perhaps allowing that the intervention in the two world wars was a good thing. At the other end, those who would applaud most interventions, from the Balkan conflict to Afghanistan, but draw the line at Iraq.
Some, including some of my colleagues, call this "anti-Americanism", but I am not sure that being against a perception of a country's foreign policy, even over a long period of time, is the same as being anti the country. Of course it is true that there are many in France who dislike Coca-Cola and Hollywood movies, but both sell pretty well there and I haven't noticed even a Left Bank distaste for blue jeans, American music and literature. It seems pretty clear that one could be against present-day Irish neutrality or German militarism of the past without being viscerally anti-Irish or anti-German. Indeed, isn't it the same as those who argue that someone can be anti-EU without being anti-European?
Still, Obama's speech was a mixture of tough and tender that many Europeans would applaud.
It is no wonder that the spotlight is trained relentlessly him, and a recent fascinating article in the FT highlights an electoral barometer that suggests he can't lose. It would justify this sometimes monocular view of the presidential race. 
Still it is surprising there hasn't been more European reaction to Obama's rival John McCain. I"ve just been reading a fascinating, if highly critical, analysis of his politics called "The myth of a maverick" by Matt Welch. He concludes that McCain wants the States to "embrace its role as global cop", putting more money into the US military and increasing troop numbers by 150,000. This would be so there could be more Americans on foreign soil to back the mission of "rogue state roll-back". Welch writes this is driven by the assumption "that America should hit the accelerator on the drive to further global dominance... this approach borders on expanding US power for its own sake".
Whether or not this overstates the case, McCain wouldn't get as warm a welcome in Berlin, let alone Paris, as Obama. More, I hope, on the uncertainty of this unspecial relationship, next week.
Just to clear up a couple of points: for those who want me to say sorry for calling The Hague the capital: yes, I am sorry and kicking myself for stupidity, so another sorry for not saying sorry (I have learnt something from the McCain book). But no-one has yet answered my question "What makes a city the capital?" Just government declaration or something more definable?
"How long did it take the BBC to find out the Karadzic website was a fake?" someone asked rather scornfully. Less than an hour. But I was busy doing radio and TV and didn't have time to post that fact here: it was quite clear I wasn't prepared to treat it at face value. But wait, there's more. My colleague Christian Fraser, who is in Belgrade, interviewed Zoran Pavlovich, who says he helped to set up this website for Dr Dave, and this does appear to be genuine.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~13~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Just musing on a lovely summer day here in good old Blighty!.
I presume that US Democrats are the liberal, left-of-centre or more obviously socially aware US Political Party compared to the Republicans who seem to be the more sober, right-of-centre to hardcore redneck US Political Party?
If that is the case, is it any wonder that, any US Democrat Presidential Candidate will get a more warm welcome in pretty much all of the European Capital Cities compared to a US Republican Presidential Candidate?
There is rapturous applause for Barack Obama because he is such a good candidate and everyone presumes he is the likely winner but would he get just as warm a welcome if the US Republican Party Candidate was a "dead cert" to win the US Presidential Election?
As a mute point, no one seems to want to play the race card in the American Presidential Race and thus both candidtaes do appear to be running quite close to being neck and neck when I read Justin Webb's blog. I just wonder if, when the voters do go to the booths and cast their floating chads or whatever, whether, on a personal basis, the influence of colour prejudice will actually make a big difference? What I mean is that people will always deny that they are racially prejudiced but it does take a huge leap of faith to NOT believe that most people are racist when it really comes down to the nitty-gritty and what they actually feel in their hearts!
And musing about Capital Cities and rapturous welcomes: the definition of "Capital City" seems to be defined by laws within the respective country - apart from France where Versailles is the seat of government and no Capital City is defined in French statute.
Arguably the other discrepancy would be the UK where the Scots would probably hold that Scottish law dictates that Edinburgh is the Scotland's Capital City but this is superseded by the Act of Union which does dictate that London is the Capital City of Great Britain.
For me this is mute point really as I fully endorse that Scotland should separate from the Union (as soon as practicable) and the Scots can have Edinburgh as their Capital City if they so wish.
Gosh my mind goes from pillar to post but that's what I like about your blog Mark. It makes me think a bit more deeply about things than I might not do otherwise!
I think I'll go have another glass of lemonade shandy. It's 32 degrees Centigrade out there and I had a lovely round of golf in the sunshine this morning but I do need liquid!
Do you think Barack Obama brought the sunshine with him. He'd get my vote for that if for nothing else!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I am very concerned about the 'bias' being shown to Obama from the likes of CNN and others. It started during the Primaries, when I think Obama received many more favourable reviews from ' pundits' and Political commentators and is continuing apace now even before the Presidency run - off.
Obama has made so many promises about so much to so many - he will NEVER be able to even scratch the surface.... his 'change' idea supposes that he will be treated like a messiah by Congress and all of the real power brokers in the US, let alone the rest of the World.
He is a complete rookie in so many areas.
As a Brit who is unable to vote, personally
see him as unproven and would not feel safe if the US public make him their President.
He will be eaten alive - mark my words.
My preference is for John McCain a grizzled veteran, who won't be hoodwinked by baddies within or without.
Complain about this comment
The FT may have a pointer to the lkelihood of Obama or McCain, but another (71% reliable) indicator is that the taller candidate wins
After two terms of party A, if the taller candidate is from party B, 98% of the time they have won!
So bets on McCain might be wasted money...
Complain about this comment
Menedemus, it's 'moot' not 'mute'
I'm pretty sure that someone on this blog has pointed that out before
Complain about this comment
Yes - that site was certainly created by Pavlovic Consulting. There has been no attempt to cover their tracks as there was with the spoof site.
As to anti-Americanism, I agree 100%. The distinction you rightly make between disliking a particular policy and having a bias against an entire nation is well made and I think the choice of this phrase to charcterise perceived tensions between Europe and the US on another blog site has led to some very spurious postings. It has, however, sparked a lively debate.
Complain about this comment
When I go to vote this election year the last thing on my mind is voting what Europe is enthusiastic about. I know that the rest of the world puts on American voters the responsibility of electing a world leader. But for me I'm just electing my country's leader. Shallow or arrogance? perhaps but economy is priority for now.
Europeans would like a cautious US president (as stated above), but do they know the difference between a cautious or a careless president ? To me cautiousness stems from experience, and Obama is on the opposite side. So the Europeans should trust our judgment, and give this kind of welcome to the real US president.
Complain about this comment
chrisboote @ 5
Thank you for pointing it out. I am so very, very, very sorry.
Darned spellcheckers they never protect you from correctly spelt words used in the wrong context.
I hang my head in shame!
Complain about this comment
I am not sure if this ‘for the people but against their government’ line can really be applied to a democracy like the USA. It is more accurate to say that while the overseas perception of any country is largely shaped by its foreign policy, foreign policy rarely decides general elections, so a representative government can pursue a foreign policy which makes it unpopular overseas and which many of those who elected it do not much care for themselves.
This problem is by no means unique to the USA, but the USA is more unpopular than other western countries because it is uniquely powerful. It inevitably attracts the ire of those in Paris, Berlin and Brussels that so clearly lust for the same position of global pre-eminence themselves. Obama can be popular with the malcontents of the global order in the same way that Ronald Reagan was popular in Iran when he was running against President Carter, but such popularity will rapidly fade should he become the public face of the world’s most powerful country. The only way that America could ever satisfy many of its critics would be to go into decline, or better yet self-destruct. The demographic and economic trends however indicate the USA will very likely even more powerful relative to the Continent in the 21st century, so its critics are likely to remain frustrated. This does not mean that the US cannot do anything to improve its popularity. It should work to advance the universal causes that it was founded on, such as liberty and democracy. Of course GWB would say this is what he has been doing, but the lesson of the Bush years is that you cannot force western values on others at the point of a gun without actually contradicting those values. President Sarkozy indeed might want to reflect on the same before his next meeting with the Irish Taoiseach.
Complain about this comment
2 - love234america
"Western Europe has severe problems with the Muslims which you welcomed with hopen arms in the '80s."
Western Europe has a problem with a tiny minority of radicalised Muslims who are making life very difficult for the law abiding majority.
"we don't want your comments and advise; in fact, we resent them".
Good point for Justin Webb's blog where it has been made repeatedly. If you don't like Europeans having their say on Mark's Euroblog, don't join it.
"- the islamic groups you have managed to place among your countries."
There is a substantial indigenous Muslim population in south eastern Europe dating back to the time of the Ottoman occupation. Many thousands of them - mainly innocent civilians - were killed in the nineties. It is why they are waiting in Den Haag to play host to Dr. Karadjic.
"Our allies are now in Central Europe."
I live in Budapest and I promise you the other flag which flies alongside the Hungarian tricolour everywhere is the EU flag.
Complain about this comment
Media are exagerating the obamamania in Europe. There were 100.000 people in Berlin hailing Obama. How many of them were Americans themselves? And in any case, is such a figure a reflection that Old Europe adores Obama?
It's true most Europeans prefer the Democratic candidate, including the Daily Mail readers (see poll in this paper). He is anwe face, represents a full stop in the Bush's era and therefore a possible reconstruction of the transatlantic bridge and the end of unilateralism.
Oowever Obama has little knowledge over Europe and deep America has not interest at all on what the Old continent thinks.
So Obama's warm welcome in Europe doesn't mean too much, neither in Europe nor in USA. As I said: journalist's exagerations, in this news summer desert.
Complain about this comment
Mark,
even in the US, McCain's campaign is being completely overshadowed by Obama. It is a complete joke: just have a look at thedailyshow.com and you'll see what I mean. So it is not surprising there haven't been many European reactions: McWho?
Also, from a European perspective, McCain is a puzzling candidate: on the one hand he's a Republican, the anointed successor to George W. Bush, and has a very hawkish foreign policy outlook. On the other hand he's long been warning against global warming and political corruption, has sponsored a rather left-of-centre immigration reform (scuttled by his own party), and is very openly scornful of the neocons. Of course, he's very much in the line with what the Republican party used to represent pre-Nixon, but an Eisenhower Republican is something rather at odds with European stereotypes.
Complain about this comment
Madeiraman57:
I agree with your post.It was unbelivable during the primaries that everything Obama said had positive reporting,and everything Clinton said had negative reporting.Not that I was big fan of Clinton (even though I think she is way better then Obama,much more perceptive and politically mature) but i just failed to understand what all the hysteria was about.
Another thing i want to add to your comment is the race issue.And there is an race issue.How would it look like if more then 90% of white people had voted Clinton during the primary? Is a good thing it did not happen.
Well more then 90% of black voters voted for Obama,and there is a problem here.
And the intelectual level of what was one of the closest people in Obamas life,(Jeremiah Wright?) is scandalous.That a future president could have for so many years taken advice from such an character full of hate but little logic,is a cause for concern.
In my opinion he did not even condemn him the way he should have.I think this issue will come back to haunt Obama,and it well should be.
Is only sad to see that at this difficult times,two not so very favorable politicians are in line to become presidents of the U.S.A
Complain about this comment
Xenophobia from an American… I am ashamed to say that “love234america” is a countryman, but the right to free speech is one of the things that make my country work.
I would say I am an independent voter, but I am leaning towards Obama for this election. It is precisely his lack of experience that I am voting for him. His capabilities are unproven, that much I will admit. However, he has proven his charisma – not only with many of us here in the states but, as many of you saw this week, with Europe and abroad as well. With that, he has the potential to do great things.
McCain is a patriot; there is no doubt about it. But it is his faith in the American ideal that worries me. He is willing to step on toes in the international committee to make sure the interests of the United States come out on top. That is exactly the line of thinking that encourages the “arrogant American” opinion.
Obama is a patriot in another sense. He believes strongly in the American ideals, and his lack of experience makes him less jaded when dealing with the international community. I believe him when he says that all options are on the table. He is open to dialogue with Iran – an overwhelmingly young country that is ripe for change, yet has a government that hangs on to power by rallying its population behind anti-Americanism. The stand-off has lasted almost 30 years, and its not doing anybody any good.
Supporting Obama isn’t Anti-Americanism. The difference in thinking I see between the candidates is this: McCain is trying to ensure the livelihood of the country by increasing the influence of the United States, while Obama bases policy decisions on the principles that the Americans pride themselves for.
Either way this election goes, I know the United States will have a good man at the helm. I can live with both.
By the way, we do value the opinion of the international community. God knows we have trouble keeping ourselves in check.
Complain about this comment
First, let me apologize for the tone of my post in Mark’s previous blog about capitals; it was meant to be more of a chide than blindside-swipe- clearly my fault in coming on so strong.
Regarding “Obamamania” on both sides of the Atlantic, he is a blank slate onto which we can project our own aspirations. Mostly, a good many Americans are exhausted by the last seven and a half years and love the idea of a clean break with the past- this, more than any other factor, lead to Obama narrowly beating Clinton in the primaries. Going from George I to Clinton I onto George II and then Clinton II would have been a blow to vigorous democracy. Many of us are happy to leave the bitterness that has been characteristic of the W and Clinton administrations behind.
As for continuity and experience, both are Senators, neither has governed, both are untried. For better or worse, each will be surrounded by experienced bureaucrats from their party. As much as it seems that America is two countries, red and blue, most Americans are centrists. W took the country about as far right as it is comfortable and now will come the inevitable drift back to center.
As for post #2, well, at least they are reading a BBC blog instead of watching Fox news all day, maybe that’s a start…
Back to the capital question Mark, I imagine it is like the difference between head of state and head of government; sometimes they are represented in the same person, often not. One is often ceremonial and the other functional.
Complain about this comment
Regarding capital cities, I am not terribly familiar with the Dutch case, but there is likely a distinction between a capitol city and a residence city. This, at least is my translation of the German phrase "Haupt- und Residenzstadt" referring to Vienna, which was both the seat of government of the Austrian half of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the residence of the Emperor. Budapest was the Fovaros, but I can't remember whether it was also a Lakasvaros. In other words, I think that Amsterdam was the traditional seat of the United Provinces, and subsequently of the Dutch government, while the Stadhouder, and subsequently the Queen, resided at The Hague. If British monarchs had had different habits, I suppose Windsor, or Richmond, or Balmoral might have been given the same sort of status as the Hague.
Regarding Messrs. Obama and McCain, I was quite worried during the primaries that Senator Obama might try to pull the US out of NAFTA or the WTO. Confident that Senator Clinton was a liar, I voted for her as the lesser of two democratic evils. Now I realized that my fears of Senator Obama's honesty were quite overblown, and I feel secure with either candidate.
Complain about this comment
*sigh*...How many different ways, and how many different blogs do I have to explain this until it finally gets understood?!!
Look! Of course disagreeing with a certain American foreign policy is not "anti-Americanism"!! Its a strong dislike of, and disagreement with a policy or with certain policies!!! However, what I've seen on this and other blogs expressed countless times, is the amount of over the top, exadurated atacks on everything from American culture and film, to every bad thing the country has done over the past 200 years!!! The whole "You have done X, Y, Z and then some throughout successive administrations...no wonder everyone hates you!!" Not to mention domestic American policies that have nothing whatsoever to do with Europeans/the world, such as the death penalty!!! And that is what I would deam to be "anti-Americanism"!! So Mark, forgive me, but I think I'm going to have to disagree with you on the whole 'people viciously atacking American culture/fashon/films/food, whatever as not being anti-American. As you explained '"It seems pretty clear that one could be against present-day Irish neutrality or German militarism of the past without being viscerally anti-Irish or anti-German." Yes and this is totally exceptable and expected!!! But again, those who are against these nations previous policies/current isolationist tendencies, are not, I'm willing to bet you, dragging German citizens and Irish citizens down a long lawndry list of their respective governments's done wrongs over their histories!!
But with respect of Obama's popularity in Europe, all I can say is if God forbid, should he actually not be elected, it is my dearest and sincerest hope that Europe will not disown America!!
Complain about this comment
The first thing to remember is that Europe is on holiday. Sen. B Obamo's speech in Berlin before a large crowd of holiday makers had nothing to do with European politics whatsoever. The idea that we love Obama is a media myth, no more. Perhaps it has to do with American politics, although what relevence it could have on a Presidential Election nearly four months away on the other side of summer is beyond me. Perhaps somebody from the U.S. can enlighten me?
To Airspace86 - post 7
The last thing we want to see is an American President who thinks he is World Leader or any such nonsence.
We hope the next President will concentrate on beginning to tackle some of the current worries and problems of the American people at this time. The economy, jobs, healthcare, education, etc.As far as relations with the New Europe is concerned, would would like him to do two thing:
A) Close all remaining U.S. military bases and installation in Europe within three months. We will help in the packing.
B) Recognize that the Middle East is Europe's backyard and not America's. Stop breacking the china, pack up and go home, bag and baggage and leave it to the people of the Middle East to sort out with the aid of their neighbour and partners in Europe.
That sould release quite of lot of funds for better use within the United States.
Complain about this comment
threnodio #10: ""we don't want your comments and advise; in fact, we resent them".
Good point for Justin Webb's blog where it has been made repeatedly. If you don't like Europeans having their say on Mark's Euroblog, don't join it."
Woe!! People have not said that offten, if at all that I can think of, that they "resent" European comments and advice!!! They have said that they don't want to feel pressured by foreigners on who to vote for and that's a reasonable request, don't you think? But I have never (except for on this one and from Marcous Aurelious who's a bigot any) seen any American who has said that they "resent" European views on our elections!!
And for my 2 cents, I think 'Love234America is "anti-European!!!"
Complain about this comment
Old-Man-Mike 18: I'm sorry, but I wouldn't hold my breath for any of those two things to be achieved by either of the candidates if elected if I were you. McCain certainly won't leave the middle east--he'll stay in Iraq and of course Afghanistan!! Obama will leave Iraq, but will focus his efforts on Afghanistan to fight the talliban (a battle which I, but it seems very few Europeans, sadly, feel is the right one to be engaged in.) And neither of them has mentioned at all, yet, shutting down our millitary bases in Europe. Perhaps you could petition on both sides of the atlantic? Just a suggestion.
Complain about this comment
Mark, I wouldn't believe everything you read in the FT.
Just as in recent british elections, I trust the bookies more than the pundits: McCain will be the next President.
Complain about this comment
Old-Man-Mike @18
Sorry but who gave you the authority to demand the US get out of Europe on behalf of 480 million people.
You don't speak for me!
The fact is that, albeit late, the Americans have saved the British in two World Wars eminating from within Europe.
The Marshall Plan was a godsend to Europe and, without the generosity of America, the Continent of Europe would have become a very poor place to exist.
In the Second World War, without the Americans coming over to help us out the British, Canadians and other Commonwealth and Free Armies would not have had the manpower to launch D-Day and recover western Europe.
Some people even have the gall to suggest that it ithe EU that has kept the peace in Europe in the past 60+ Years - sorry to disillusion them but it is NATO that has been there to step into conflicts to try and keep the peace.
NATO was formed out of the Allied Armies in 1945 and today the US Troops based in Europe are part of NATO and I, for one and probably for many, am glad they're still here!
Complain about this comment
To Old-Man-Mike:
Some responses to your comments:
"A) Close all remaining U.S. military bases and installation in Europe within three months. We will help in the packing."
We'd love to, but unfortunately as you Europeans rebuilt Europe after WWII you forgot one little matter. You forgot to build up your militaries to help defend yourselves. It's a well known fact that Europeans look to the outside (mostly the US and the UN) for protection. This allows you the freedom NOT to spend on your militaries and the freedom to spend vast amounts on your social programs. Were the US to leave Europe completely, YOU'D be 100% responsible for your defense. Can you really see European leaders slashing their social program spending in order to build up proper European militaries? Can you really see Europeans cheering an increase in taxes and a decrease in govt. spending on social programs just so the Americans will leave? I think you live in a fantasy world.
"B) Recognize that the Middle East is Europe's backyard and not America's. Stop breacking the china, pack up and go home, bag and baggage and leave it to the people of the Middle East to sort out with the aid of their neighbour and partners in Europe."
You mean you want EUROPEANS to fix the mess THEY made of the Middle East? Good. Nice to hear a European finally admit that.
Iraq is a European invention. So is Afghanistan. Oh and Israel too. Also, much of Africa is in chaos due to good old-fashioned European colonialism. Ever wonder why Europe can only get but so involved in the Middle East and Africa? Think your past has a lot to do with it?
Maybe you shouldn't be so worried about others breaking the china when you've broken so much yourself.
Complain about this comment
#19 - NoRashDecisions
Yes - I don't think I over reacted. That was just downright offensive.
But perhaps I have been a bit harsh about some remarks over on Justin's blog. Sorry - no offence intended.
Complain about this comment
#16 - Kozepkorasz
As I said in 10 above, I live in Buadpest.
Budapest was indeed Fovaros but I have to tell you that we are all a bit bewildered about Lakasvaros and what precisely it means. Can you help?
There is a Hapsburg Royal Residence in BP on the Buda side overlooking the Duna if that helps.
Complain about this comment
SkepticMax #21: Why do you trust the bookies over the pundits? What makes you think McCain will win? No offence, but didn't the pundits predict, with pretty astonishingly acuricy, Blair's election in 97? Its pretty hard to ignore an articulit, carismatic politicion in my opinion.
Menedemus #22: Thanks for those kind words regarding the US!! While I disagree with you somewhat on Europe's ability to defend itself now in the 21st century (I, personally, think it is perfictly capable), but nevertheless, those comments are rare, most welcome and kind!!
threnodio #24: No offence taken! Just know that its a hard position to be in; balanceing one's personal desires with other's.
Complain about this comment
Obama made EU look like third world country..people screaming, and loving everything made in US, hoping to get culture and be like USA.. EU is imature, and naive..
the more EU loves Obama, the more US voters will punish him.. all those years of anti-americanism will pay off and cannot be changed by going crazy to a US presidential candidate..
Who is Obama? just answer this...
Complain about this comment
EU: no WTO deal, war with Iran, middle east in fire, oil 250, high gas prices for some countries, none for others, inflation skyrocketing, political crisis in EU countries, break up of EU, eastern europe gets punished by russia, financial crises spreads.. fall of governments.. no solution, no change, no hope,,,, people beleive.. but is not enough.. someone will come, and save us,,,,perhaps, maybe. who knows..
the future is bleak, gloomy, and the system must be fazed out
Complain about this comment
kcwhattrick #23: FYI, the EU is revamping its millitaries both individually and as a continent with the French being the latest!! And their wellfare programs are nothing to be sneezed at (probably some of the best in the world) and one's which I feel we can learn some serious lessons from!! As I've said before, I think Europe is perfictly capable of protecting itself! Isrial too! Isrial has nukes (though it doesn't like to talk about it) and I wouldn't be surprised if we got to where we are today by training with Isrialy soldiers! Lets instead focous our troops on where it really matters I.E. Africa and Afghanistan!!
A bit judgementle, don't you think?
Complain about this comment
To #23. kcwhattrick,
Re "We'd love to, but unfortunately as you Europeans rebuilt Europe after WWII you forgot one little matter. You forgot to build up your militaries to help defend yourselves."
Yawn, yawn, not surprising you forgot that the war debt was only recently paid off and the true history of the USA help several years into WWII. There have been many posters in the last few weeks who have given details of the USA help to the UK and how it also helped Germany before the US entered the war. Somewhat similar the WWI I recall, all I can say is that if the American dream is 'if you've got it flaunt it' you deserve Obama as the dream is fading fast.
Complain about this comment
NoRashDecisions @ 26 asks:
"Why do you trust the bookies over the pundits? What makes you think McCain will win? No offence, but didn't the pundits predict, with pretty astonishingly acuricy, Blair's election in 97?".
The pundits and the bookies both 'predicted' Blair's victory in '97. But that - like Gordon Brown's current position (but in reverse) - was not a very hard prediction to make.
All pundits - consciously or otherwise - have political positions, theories or persons that they favour. This skews their calculations.
Bookies, on the other hand, deal in hard cash - hence they're more motivated to use cold rationale rather than wishful thinking.
That is why they correctly foretold Tory victories in London and Crewe and Nantwich, and SNP victory in Glasgow East long before the political classes (if they ever did).
As for Barak Obama: he is an empty suit - a rookie Senator with no executive experience. He has charisma, but he ain't no JFK (which is actually just as well, 'cos JFK was highly over-rated).
Complain about this comment
To kcwhatrick 23
Yes and Yes
Regarding (A) you are exactly right - Europe would be 100% responsible for its own defense.
The Marshall Plan could well be regarded as the father of European Unity. And like any grown up son, Europe should and must stand squarely on its own feet.
Regarding (B) The mess in the Middle East goes back to the carve up of the old Ottoman Empire between various European Staes, mainly Britain and France, after the First World War. In the greedy scramble, promises of freedom and independence made to the Arabs in return for their direct support and aid was quickly forgotten.
Since the Second World War it has gone from bad to worse. Antony Eden managed to drown the 'special relationship' between Britain and America in the water of the Suez Canal. And it has only gone from bad to worse with no end in sight. A European approach, making the countries and people take the prime responsibility for solving their difficulties, may fail. But there are already signs of the beginnings of a possible break through.
I do not believe that the United States can continue to spend 6% of G.D.P. on Defence. Nor should the rest of the world go on expecting it to.
Complain about this comment
love234america,
You seem to truly believe that America was responsible for winning World War II. As a European I can see this is complete ludicrous. Why do I think this? No it's not because I thought we could've won it ourselves, it's because there's another force that rarely gets spoken of that truly allowed the World War II win that was gained. It was neither Europe, nor the US, it was Russia.
Of course, I'm sure they either never teach you that or you simply wish to acknowledge that a nation that has been long time seen as the opposing force to the US is the nation that really deserves majority credit for the defeat of Nazism. The US comes a firm 3rd place behind Russia then Europe in the defeat of Nazism in Europe.
Slightly more on topic, I note that you talk of how you don't want Europe's opinion on which leader you should elect - that's fine, just don't come crying when the US further isolates itself on the world stage and it's economy further declines at a rate much faster than that of other nations.
America didn't listen to Europe with Bush and one would hope a lesson was learnt, Bush was clearly the inferior candidate in the last two US elections and is responsible for so many of the US' problems. Yet despite this, there are still people in the US who somehow think that Europe's opinion is worthless.
There is a good reason why Europe is getting ever stronger whilst the US is getting ever weaker - it's just a shame there are people in the US who throw the offer of growing strong with us back in our faces. Needless to say, I'm sure the offer wont be open forever and a term of McCain will leave the US isolated and a second class player on the world stage behind the likes of Russia, China, India and Europe.
Perhaps more scary than all this however is that some American posters here are even in denial over the very fact the US is in such a decline economically and politically! If they can't even recognise the problem and this is a trait that is common amongst many Americans then the US really does have quite a bleak near future.
Complain about this comment
iwinter:
While I disagree with 99% of what love234america has written, your take is equally misguided. You say that Europe is more responsible for the defeat of Nazism than the US? Half of Europe was Nazi! And of those countries that were occupied, there is a mixed record at best of resistance. Yes, Russia deserves far more credit than it gets for victory in Europe and Britain and its Commonwealth allies fought a heroic fight, but your take betrays an amazingly ethnocentric worldview. WWII was fought well beyond Europe. The fight in the Pacific was far more deadly and costly than Europe, a fight that Russia did not participate in, nor to a significant degree, did Britain.
But beyond the deficiencies in historical perspective that both of you betray, like it or not, the US and Europe need each other and will continue to for the foreseeable future. So I suggest you give each other a big transatlantic hug and get on with your weekend.
Complain about this comment
I'd like to know who thinks which Nation would be the most likely potential enemy in the event that there was a need to defend Europe with an army be it NATO with US/Canadian Forces or an EU Army using troops from all member states?
Which is the Nation that NATO has always had to plan against for being the most likely to invade Europe?
Why else would we need NATO, let alone an EU army, other than to defend Europe from invasion?
Complain about this comment
Why is every BBC blog being over run by McCain supporters? It happened to Justin Webb and now appears to be happening here.
I have a message for the McCain supporters, if you really don't care what us Europeans think as you claim then kindly refrain from commenting on a European news outlets website. We'll leave you to lose to Obama if you'll leave us alone to discuss the news as sensible adults.
Complain about this comment
There seems to be a focus currently on the idea either that Europe does not matter to many Americans or that we simply do not understand the American mindset.
Some of our friends might do well to pause and reflect on Europe's position. Europe has been the front line ever since the colonial empires began to fall into decline. It was Europe which was carved into trenches in 1914-18, Europe that was the western battlefield in the 1939 (yes, '39, not '41)- 45 war, Europe that was divided by the Iron Curtain. We do not have the cushion of the Atlantic. Africa is just off the south coast, the Middle East is around the corner.
The EU has a population of about 500 million and generates about 30% of global GDP. The poor cousin it is not. A significant proportion of its Muslim population is not immigrant but indigenous. It can trace it's cultural identities back through an unbroken time span of over 2,500 years. Of course our perceptions are going to be different.
On the other hand, it is only in the post war period that western Europe has recognised the futility of its internal feuding and put in place safeguards and institutions to hopefully ensure that it does not happen again. It is barely 20 years since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact facilitated the logical expansion of this concept to embrace central Europe. Russia, having come to terms with the loss of empire is now reaping the advantages of not having to chastise it's wayward children and cling to outdated ideologies, is emerging as a vibrant modern state. We share a continent with them, so far harmoniously. We are heavily reliant on them for natural resources, especially gas and oil but they represent a huge and rapidly expanding market for EU goods and services. In this sense, the new Europe is the new kid on the block.
It is the balance between its collective status as a 21st century superpower and its traditions dating back millennia, its need to move on from the outdated concept of colonialism while still being part of a global community and the necessity to put behind us the atrocities of recent history and focus on a shared future which makes us both powerful and vulnerable. Powerful because of the sheer scale of the endeavour, vulnerable because we all to well aware of the terrible events that can still happen on European soil barely 60 years after the 'never again' message was delivered at Nuremburg.
We want to be collaborators and allies to our American friends but we are not made in their image and the sooner the more abrasive elements on both sides of the pond recognise this and accept each other for what we are, the better we will all be.
Complain about this comment
22. Menedemus :
"The fact is that, albeit late, the Americans have saved the British in two World Wars eminating from within Europe."
How many times does one need to point out that the USA entered WW I very belatedly and then only because US interests had been attacked? No one would deny their right to defend themselves but their intention was NOT to "save the British". It's a similar story with WW II. The US entered the war in Europe because Germany declared war on and attacked the US. Britain was simply a convenient place to gather forces together to (quite justifiably) attack Germany. US manufacturing made pots of money on both occasions selling arms, munitions, ships, trucks, etc.
"The Marshall Plan was a godsend to Europe and, without the generosity of America, the Continent of Europe would have become a very poor place to exist."
The Marshall Plan was a loan to buy US goods. Agreed, war-ravaged Europe needed to buy in the goods it could no longer manufacture but "generosity" didn't really figure in it.
"In the Second World War, without the Americans coming over to help us out the British, Canadians and other Commonwealth and Free Armies would not have had the manpower to launch D-Day and recover western Europe."
Hm. That's debatable. Although Hollywood would have you think that D-Day was a primarily US affair, half of the forces taking part were British (UK or Commonwealth) with a smattering of Free Forces from various occupied countries.
Don't get me wrong. Lots of brave (and maybe some not-so-brave) Americans died in both conflicts but they did so, quite rightly, in the interests of the USA not of anyone else. Any "saving" of the British was a happy by-product.
Complain about this comment
my bad, I didn't mean to say Britain did not fight in the Pacific to a significant degree, I meant to say to a lesser degree... I hope I didn't offend any veterans or children of...
Complain about this comment
pgumbrecht @34
I pretty much agree with what you wrote but please don't write off the British war effort in the Far East too readily.
My father arrived in Hong Kong on 16 December 1941 and was captured by the Japanese on Christmas Day 9 days later. He then spent 6 years in Japanese POW captivity and I have seen photographs of him on his eventual release.
He was a big man, tall and broad shouldered but after captivity he was as thin as a victim of any Concentration Camp.
He did his bit for the war effort. He survived!
Similarly, (the then British) Commonwealth and British Troops fought in the jungles of Malaya to prevent the Japanese invasion of India. They fought disease, sickness and the Japanese with great disregard for themselves and did their duty.
In all theatres of the World War II, men women and children lost their lives to fight against tyranny and oppression - be they American, British, French, Russian, and free peoples of the Commonwealth, free Polish, free Czechoslavakinas, free Serbians, etceteras.
The list is endless.
I would not be here today and able to write on this blog if it were not for there sacrifices and to be honest they were just men, women and children doing the right thing by us all.
The Russians fought and died to defend their country and then bring the war to the NAZIs. The Americans fought and died to set us free in Europe. Most of them were poor Joes who probably didn't even know where Europe was but they fought and died and sacrificed themselves just as did the Russians to bring the war home to Germany.
Who did what matters so much less that any one man give up his life for his fellow man and gives that man his freedom!
Like you, I thank both the Russian and the Americans for rescuing Europe from tyrrany and oppression. But I do not overlook the sacrifices made by men and women and children from many, many other nations of the World including Europe who lost their lives in that same endeavour!
Complain about this comment
andfreedom @ 36
Sorry, but doesn't that work both ways?
If you don't like what you read on a blog or it's comments you either write comments in response as a sensible adult or you go elsewhere.
You, personally, cannot pick and choose who can or cannot write blog comments. That restricts freedom of speech and thought?
And, before you go off on one, I am 'European' and I am interested in what both other 'Europeans' and Americans who either support Barack Obama OR John McCain have to say!
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot @ 38
You are a revisionist of the worst kind.
The USA did not need to enter into a war with Germany - Yes, Hitler quite stupidly declareded War on the USA immediately after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour but a declaration of war means nothing unless you can take the war to the other nation. Roosevelt deliberately chose to concentrate the US War Effort on the Defeat of Germany. There were many other americans who though the effort should be the defeat of Japan! Fortunately the majority of americans went with their leader and Victory in Europe was assured.
At worst German U-boats could have attacked and indeed they did sink US Destroyers guarding convoys on the US East Coast to Iceland leg of the Atlantic Convoys - but to be fair even to the Germans, in 1941, they were busy with Russia and could not have attacked US interests anywhere else in the world other than the Atlantic Convoys.
In fact, before the German Declaration of War, the US had been guarding the Atlantic Convoys on the Iceland leg for some time previously and without their supplies Britain was at risk of starvation. They didn't do this to save their precious goods, they did this to relieve British Destroyers to protect the Archangel and murmnask Convoys taking British and American Armor and supplies to Russia.
Now I accept fully that America was more rich because of the WWII but is that wrong? The US is a capitalist society and in that kind of econonmy even the workers during wartime want to be paid. It doesn't make the Americans greedy it just means they can pay their bills like everyone else in a capitalist economy.
Even British Workers who were excused boots and considered unfit to fight worked for money during the WWII. Bevans Boys didn't go down the British mines just because they were conscripted - they did get paid!
I cannot see how you can debate D-Day and the contribution of the Americans. There were 5 beaches - 3 for US Troops and only two for British-Canadian Troops with contingents of free French, Polish and other nationalities.
Without the Americans (or Canadians for that matter) the Allied Forces would have been decreased to 1/3rd of the troops used and D-Day was only won after 72 hours. It was not the pushover that everyone imagines.
367,000 US Troops lost their lives in the European Theatre of war. Most of them were young men who had never been outside of their home towns, let alone their State and yet they came to Europe. They volunteered to join up before there was conscription in many cases and they fought, not because President Roosevelt told them to do so but because they had a duty to perform.
Without their efforts, D-Day would not have even been tried. France would not have been liberated and the US and Russian force would not have met at the River Elbe in Germany in 1945.
Belittle the USA as a country if you must but please do not denigrate the sacrifices of the young American boys who came over to Europe and fought by their Allies to fight tyrrany and oppression from 1943 onwards! They gave up a lot so that you and I could write our thoughts in this Blog!
You may be ignorant enough to not see that theirs was a mighty sacrifice.
Personally, I thank them for their sacrifice - and for the GIs that lived - I am alive and free because they lived to take the war into Germany.
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot @ 38
"The Marshall Plan was a loan to buy US goods. Agreed, war-ravaged Europe needed to buy in the goods it could no longer manufacture but "generosity" didn't really figure in it."
How wrong can you be. The Marshall Plan was a gift to various European Countries.
It was $13 Billion in economic and technical assistance.
If it is to be criticised it was that it came with a certain degree of political strings attached.
France was possbly the biggest beneficiary of the aid - and the political string was . . . . . the French had to show US Films in French Cinemas. No wonder the French dislike the Americans so much!
The Marshall Plan was provided free of interest and was not a loan that required repayment. Some countries refused it including Russia simply because of the political strings that came with the provision!
The Marshall Plan has also long been seen as one of the first elements of European integration, as it erased tariff trade barriers and set up institutions to coordinate the economy on a continental level.
That could be seen as a flaw as the concept of the EEC ("The Common Market") arose from the Marshal Plans effectiveness and without the EEC there would not be the EU of today.
Drat it, now I think I wish the Yanks had kept their $13 Billion!
Complain about this comment
On this website I read:
"The European Union's top court...
The court overruled a law in the Republic of Ireland..."
Sarko wants to know what the Irish don't like. I can't say. I can guess because I know what I (English) don't like. I am an insignificant little person. The only way in which I am significant is that I usually (USUALLY) find that I agree with about 70% of the British population or they with me, however you like to see it.
I don't want strange people in Brussels or Luxembourg or three-headed aliens on the planet Zog telling us what we can and cannot do in our own country.
Co-operation YES!
Dictatorship - NO!
My guess is that many Irish people agree with me.
Complain about this comment
35. At 11:58pm on 25 Jul 2008, Menedemus wrote:
"Why else would we need NATO, let alone an EU army, other than to defend Europe from invasion?"
"EU"-lovers need an army to feel BIG. It is part of the megalomaniac dream.
They like to try to bully other countries e.g. Switzerland, Morocco, Canada. An "EU"-army will make this easier.
They have created an illegitimate, anti-democratic monstrosity. Some have told me that the UK has no right to leave. Some of those supported the Argentinian invasion of the Falklands. If they have an "EU"-Army they might think they can stop us leaving. Some e.g. Franz Fischler have stated that the "EU" has made war impossible amongst the "EU"-countries. It makes it more likely.
"EU"-lovers should remember that more US Americans were killed in their Civil War than in WWI and WWII together and have I heard more than in those two plus Vietnam.
Some have told me that the Falkland are part of a geographic unity with Argentina and that a geographic unity should be a political unity and that therefore the Argies had the right to invade the Falklands.
Switzerland! Watch out!
Expect trouble!
Complain about this comment
Loads of "EU"-lovers I have spoken to have soon got onto cursing the Americans. They could have talked about love, peace and joy in Europe but the Americans seem to be very important to them.
Why?
Because the USA is the big Superpower which is what they want to be. They can't come out with the truth about their objective because it would be rejected. That is why they come out with Bullfeathers like "streamlining the workings of the EU."
It is very appropriate that the symbol for Europe should be a bull.
Complain about this comment
#36 andfreedom wrote:
Why is every BBC blog being over run by McCain supporters?
You are right what are McCain supporters doing here, why arent they clinging to their guns and religions instead?
I love to hear what Europeans think, maybe that is why I am addicted to BBC, and not watching FOX.
But as Mark Mardell pointed out the reception that Obama received in Europe, McCain would only dream of. But why? the thing is McCain is not hardcore republican, he's a veteran, experienced, he's a fighter.
Im from Chicago, and people would scorn me that im for McCain or Hillary (even though she was born in Chicago suburbs). Just like Chicagoans, europeans are not getting the whole picture. Sorry that obamania hasnt caught up with me, so i can comment on the European websites. Maybe knowing both candidates before jumping to the die-hard support wagon wouldnt hurt.
Complain about this comment
Menedemus
I wish I sent my follow up out quicker, I need to check before I hit the send button...
I know that the effort and sacrifice of Britain and the Commonwealth were equally important in winning the Pacific... my point was meant to be about Russia in the far east. But I agree, with you, it little matters to add up points or try to keep score, everyone did their part. Again, we need each other more than we often like to think...
By the way, on 9/11, as a New Yorker living abroad, I was proud and honored that NATO planes for the first time flew around the clock to protect the US borders; British, Dutch and yes even French...
So have a great weekend all, I live in California now, it's 7:30 p.m. and I plan on lighting up a barbeque and raising a glass to a contentious, cantankerous, but essentially strong transatlantic relationship.
Complain about this comment
@ Kozepkorasz, post 16:
"Regarding capital cities, I am not terribly familiar with the Dutch case, but there is likely a distinction between a capitol city and a residence city. [...] In other words, I think that Amsterdam was the traditional seat of the United Provinces, and subsequently of the Dutch government, while the Stadhouder, and subsequently the Queen, resided at The Hague."
Confusingly, in the Dutch Republic/The Netherlands this was not the case. The States General (basically the national assembly with representatives from all represented provinces) always met in The Hague. The Stadhouders of Holland also resided there.
Amsterdam, however, was until about 1750 (when it was replaced by London) the most important trading centre in the world and so in a way it was more influential. Rich merchants and bankers from the city often played an (at times unofficial) part in Dutch politics. Amsterdam was also an important centre in colonial politics, as it was one (of multiple) seats of the East India Company.
The sort of double capital in the Netherlands reflects Amsterdam's historic position as the economic heart of the country, even though nowadays the city is no longer as far ahead as it used to be. Rotterdam has approximately the same amount of population as Amsterdam, and economically the harbour of Rotterdam is also very important.
Personally I'm not a fan of Amsterdam and wouldn't mind the capital moving to Den Haag.
To answer Mark's question, capital cities are defined by the government, but they should reflect, if possible, a real leading position within the country. This position can be both political and economical.
Complain about this comment
I was positively surprised by Mr. Obama's speach in Berlin and the way he has presented it. It was inspiring, and he has pointed out many values and goals Europe and the U.S. share. Actually, I can imagine that that Mr.McCain could agree with large parts of this speach too. But expressing it in the same way wouldn't fit in the concept of his election campaign, so he objects or complains publicly.
I assume that after the experiences with the war in Iraq and the events leading to it, even in the U.S. many see the necessity of tighter cooperation with european governments taking their critical remarks and objections more serious than the Bush administration did, until Abu Ghraib. Apart from the people and the soldiers in Iraq, it's the american tax payers paying a high price for this adventure, still leaving many other points of this bill unmentioned. And it would be rather unfair, to blame only Mr.Bush for the negative consequences.
From my european/german point of view both, Mr.Obama and Mr.McCain, are interesting politicians and both seem to have gather interesting experiences in the course of their careers which will allow them both to see effects of U.S. politics in a global context more clearly than recently. No matter who will win Europe should be prepared to be faced with higher expectations in return for stronger consultations.
If I were an american, I would probably see Mr.Obama as a more appealing option because he showed conviction, determination and "preparedness" against a highly experienced and able politician, Ms.Clinton . But I must admit that this judgement is baised at least by less informations about Mr.McCains campaign and political program.
Complain about this comment
@41 Menedemus
I never intended to suggest that McCain supporters shouldn't comment on BBC blogs, the wide range of opinion from people all over the world is what makes me read the comments section. I am merely pointing out the waste of everybody’s time when we all have to trawl through message after message of "we hate Europe because you hate McCain" (exaggerated of course but I'm not wasting my time to find real examples). These comments add nothing to the debate and in all honesty are probably from the same person with some form of multiple blog-personality disease. Just as Brian Taylor’s' blog is over run at times by the Nats decrying every story whilst adding nothing, or James Reynolds' blog is full of "you British hate China" comments, they add nothing more than space to the comments.
and @47 airspace86
In all honesty if I were an American and could vote in this election I would be voting for McCain, Obama may be the flavour of the month and all but Tony Blair was once and look where that got us. Inexperience isn't a crime and I certainly couldn't support everything McCain has proposed but I fear Obama is getting caught up in his own hype and beginning to promise all things to all men, I worry how he would cope as President come the hard times, as the opinion polls begin to slide (as they always do) and people who were waving his flag and wearing his badge begin to worry they have made a mistake.
And if you ever bump into McCain tell him to sack his PR men (or women) and get better ones, spending all day crying over a "media love fest" surrounding Obama is just going to make him look like a bitter old man. He should be making the speeches in front of thousands of people, having the crowds cheering him on; if he wants to become President it's going to take more than being a Republican war veteran. You don't win elections by appealing to your grass roots; they will vote for you anyway, they have nowhere else to go.
Complain about this comment
about postings 45 and 46:
expecting such trouble from the EU can't be justified, I think.
Germany has very strict rules about actions on foreign soil, each being required to be permitted by parliament (Bundestag). Some other european countries have different rules concerning such decisions, yet they'll have to conform to their respective constitutions. As can be seen with the difficult process of negotiating and installing early warning and targeting facilities against missile attacks in eastern europe, strategic things quite often happen slowly, if at all (older examples concern former Yugoslavia, Pershing missiles).
Your views seem to be an interesting example of the different perception of the EU in GB, France, and Germany: neither french nor german people would question the EU so fundamentally as seemingly so many britons do, despite their discontent with the EU's overwhelming bureaucracy contrasting its democratic transparency. Astonishing even more since GB draws quite some advantages from this membership (eg. farmers, car industry).
Complain about this comment
Please #52 bugbyter, at least do some research, the last financial report released by the EU concerns 2006, search on fin_report_06_en, in Annex 4 you will see the figures for revenue and expenditure by state. Guess what the UK is the second largest net contributer at the moment, and would be the largest if it were not for the rebate, facts my friend, so where are the 'quite some advantages'. As for Farming and Car industry I think you're mixing up the UK and France there, as there is little car industry left in the UK these days, and the farming has always been pretty efficient and therefore doesn't qualify for the same level of subsidies as French farming.
By the way, the people I talk to here in Belgium are questioning what is going on in the EU and what it's leading us in to.
Complain about this comment
42. Menedemus wrote:
"greypolyglot @ 38
You are a revisionist of the worst kind."
You are mistaken. I do not offer opinions - only facts from proven sources. Please try to do the same.
"The USA did not need to enter into a war with Germany - Yes, Hitler quite stupidly declareded War on the USA immediately after the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour but a declaration of war means nothing unless you can take the war to the other nation."
Hitler declared war on the US because the US declared war (quite justifiably) on his ally, Japan. Please check US government archives.
The US had no choice but to join in the war in Europe once Germany had declared war and attacked US Atlantic coast shipping. Pleas check US Navy histories.
"At worst German U-boats could have attacked and indeed they did sink US Destroyers guarding convoys on the US East Coast to Iceland leg of the Atlantic Convoys."
U-boats sank 675,000 tons of American shipping in American waters in the first three months of 1942. And that was just for starters.
"Now I accept fully that America was more rich because of the WWII but is that wrong?"
No. It is simply hypocritical to suggest generosity was the spur to action. To take a modern example, whose industries are making billions out of Iraq?
"I cannot see how you can debate D-Day and the contribution of the Americans. There were 5 beaches - 3 for US Troops and only two for British-Canadian Troops with contingents of free French, Polish and other nationalities."
I didn't. I simply pointed out that the Americans were from being the only troops taking part. The number of men is of greater relevance than the number of beaches.
"367,000 US Troops lost their lives in the European Theatre of war. ... but please do not denigrate the sacrifices of the young American boys who came over to Europe and fought by their Allies"
I am quite aware of their contribution and have never done so.
Complain about this comment
You should be in Geneva, not the Hague (okay the guy's been caught and will be tried - thats it). Won't greatly affect people in the UK. What's going on in Geneva will.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23,
I'm sorry that I see no reason for doing the deeper research you ask for. Of course the UK is a large net contributor, which I'm grateful for since you take a share of the load all net contributors carry. Basically it is reasonable for a community (here of states) to create at least comparable conditions, especially since this community is growing. If the rate of groth and the conditions and ways of its growth are healthy should be discussed. But after decades of western europe advertising its values of freedom, cooperation, and exchange in Europe especially its function of garanteeing peace, some recent arguments about where and what is Europe, and who belongs to it and who shouldn't make some of us look a little bit mean. There's nothing bad about the UK receiving money from the EU if there are good reasons to do so, eg. structural change in some regions, supporting agriculture in order to support reasonable economic, environmental, or cultural goals.
Second I don't object your point that some institutions and procedures with the EU should be reevaluated more seriously and critically. But the idea of Europe as a larger uniting political structure supporting our common values as well as our cultural diversity is still a fascinating and, I believe, rewarding one. Sometimes I suspect, that the problems some people attribute to the EU are more deeply rooted in a flaw of many western democracies: politics has become a business almost exclusively of expert bureaucrats, expert law professionals, expert lobbyists, and expert pressure groups all with sufficient media attention passing responsibilities around. Who represents the majority of the electorate actually ? Who wants to actually ? Do our political parties and institutions really still care about the majority of Europe's citizens ? Not only on the european level but on the national one as well. Are these really the questions people in Brussels discuss ?
Complain about this comment
#43 - gcandon
One problem may be that the Commission which the British electorate favoured in 1975 is a very different animal from the post-Maastricht manifestation. Although a wider European agenda was certainly on the cards, the primary function was in the sphere of economics. This has changed with the Commission increasingly powerful in the area of social policy particularly. There are real problems with a common defence and foreign policy but the impetus is in that direction.
Although I am British, like Buzet23, I now live on the European mainland. While euroscepticism is alive and well - not just in the UK - I have a sense that what is troubling many is not the European project itself. It is rather a sense of a democratic deficit. The Commission is seen by many as unrepresentative and unaccountable. Many believe that the Lisbon process is an attempt by key member nations to drive through a constitution under the guise of a treaty to avoid the humiliation of 'no' votes all over Europe were it to be put to the people. The Irish may well have put a few noses out of joint in the centres of power but many Europeans believe that, as an exercise in bringing their leaders back down to earth, it was no bad thing.
My personal view is that, if we are going to have a European constitution, it should be put to all the people on the same day asking the same question, the count should be Europe wide and take no account of nationality and the result should be binding. One of the key features of this constitution would be a shift in the balance of power away from the Council in favour of the Parliament. I understand why this may not suit some national governments or indeed some of the vested interests in Brussels and Strasbourg but democratisation is needed before the cynicism becomes too widespread and some of the more progressive policies begin to be rolled back.
Complain about this comment
Of course Obama is more popular in Europe--he is the more 'european' of the two candidates. I believe if he is to be elected he could help our relations with the EU and perhaps the middle east(although he did shy away from saying anything about the recent settlement plans in the west bank). But will he actually bring all of this 'change' that he constantly speaks of? I hope so, but don't think he will. I think Europe will be disappointed in the sense that he is not as 'european' as they might of thought.
As far as his reception back here, I don't believe it will help him that much if at all. What the EU thinks of him doesn't matter to many. It certainly won't hurt him, but people are more concerned with the economy and Iraq.
Complain about this comment
This mass showing of European support for Obama will only hurt him at election time. Americans do not view European political indorsements with any merit. As a matter of fact it is viewed by most Americans as interference and an uneducated opinion. It is very easy for Europeans to fall prey to the media frenzy that has surrounded Obama. All of the major American newspapers and television networks have already portrayed him as the next US president. However, unlike the Europeans, Americans must live with the consequences of an Obama presidentcy.
First, Obama will tax Americans like they have never been taxed before (and Americans don't like to be taxed as the British well know).
Second, he will cut military spending which will weaken American.
Third, he will create a socialist state where achievement is not rewarded and mediocrity is accepted (much like Europe is now).
Obama will weaken the US economy with his policies and thus weaken all economies around the globe. I don't believe anyone wants a lesser standard of living then they have now, even if it is in the name of "change" which Obama always talks about but never defines.
Tom B.
Wayne, NJ
Complain about this comment
Surely this website is also a fake? It has a forum link, which has no dates prior to last week, and links to a variety of sites of questionable content.
Also, for a Serbian, it seems unlikely that the default language for the chat and the forum are both English.
Complain about this comment
greypolyglot @ 54
Your anti-americanism shines through bright and clear.
I'll not argue with a bigot!
Complain about this comment
#60 - rebecacaca
The domain was only posted on 22-May-2008 and it would not be unusual for this to happen while work was in progress. It has, as I am sure you can tell, been built 'on the cheap'. The forum is an open source php template and probably is not available in Serbo-Croat. I think, if it was fake, they would have taken steps to cover their tracks. In fact, if you know how, you can even find Mr. Pavlovic's postal address. So eccentric maybe but a fake, I think not.
Complain about this comment
@61 Menedemus
As a fan of free speech you must argue with a bigot, for his opinion is worth the same as yours or anyone elses. Free speech means someone will say something that offends you, and you have no choice but to accept that.
Complain about this comment
@threnodio (57)
Any attempt at a constitution should (have) be(en) put to a referendum to all countries separately. I prefer to stick with national sovereignty having read about what ideologies that tend to ignore borders (communism, fascism) can do.
Especially worrying is how the EU is slowly but decidedly moving away from parliamentary democracy and transferring legislative powers bit by bit away from the parliaments towards unelected EU kommissars (commission aka politburo). National government ministers can go through Brussels and thus bypass their national parliaments altogether. No parliament can stop a law made by the commission/politburo and council combination. That and the centralising tendency (never in the history of EEC/EU has a single power ever been returned to the member states) are most troubling. And added to that, the frantic EU attempts at stamping out diversity by imposing 'one size fits all' solutions to everything they perceive as a problem.
As for Hitler declaring war on the USA on 11th december 1941. He was under no treatized obligation to do so. It was an act of imperial hubris. Hitler, who had merely 6 months earlier only been at war with a beleaguered Britain, now was also at war with the two foremost industrial powers of the world.
And iwinter (33): what a ludicrous statement. Europe was the one place which tried to impose fascism (and later communism) on the rest of the world. Even Stalin acknowledged that without US aid it would have been very difficult. Almost all army trucks, boots and canned spam the Russians had, had made in USA seals on them. Russia was good in building 3 things: tanks, planes and artillery. Russia, by january 1942 did not enjoy a serious advantage in manpower (one third of the Russian population was under nazi occupation). However, Russias zeal to throw in every last man (which the Germans most decidedly did not do at the time) frustrated the Germans tremendously.
Contrary to popular belief, most of the German armies invading the Soviet Union were infantry (some 120 of 151 divisions). Most were not mechanized. Russias armies collapsed early on because of non-existant leadership, officers who were afraid to be shot by their own political commissars would rather await complete annihilation rather than show initiative and be deemed a 'threat' to the communist state.
Germany was not prepared for war at all, it simply did not have enough tanks, planes, artillery, fighters and submarines. 80% of the divisions entering Soviet Russia were infantry. Only because of the tanks did the Germans advance so quickly early on. But when more and more tanks were damaged or destroyed the German armies bogged down.
Hitler's hubris and lack of strategic skill are all to obvious. Military history shows that with a competent strategic leadership Germany could and should have defeated Soviet Russia by late september 1941 at the latest.
Imperial hubris is what killed the Third Reich. That and American industry and Russias zeal to throw in every last man.
Complain about this comment
andfreedom @ 63
"As a fan of free speech you must argue with a bigot, for his opinion is worth the same as yours or anyone elses. Free speech means someone will say something that offends you, and you have no choice but to accept that."
Please! Think about what you are saying?
You are mixing the concept of freedom of speech with the freedom of choice. Both freedoms are inseparable but distinct!
Free of speech (or expression) is that a bigot MAY say or write what he or she likes without being repressed. I would fight to ensure that a bigot may speak (or express) their opinion,
Freedom of choice is that I can shut my eyes and ears to what the bigot says or writes and ignore his bigotry! I would fight to ensure that I retain that freedom.
"greypolyglot", as far as I am concerned (because I am a fan of free speech), may say or write what he/she likes (within the BBC House Rules).
BUT
my freedom of choice is to reply or ignore his/her bigotry.
That is Freedom at work.
You may disagree with this comment, you may even ignore my comment, you may wish to reply to my comment. Feel FREE to do whatever you want.
Complain about this comment
So, Tom, you're still despising old Europe awaiting the invasion of Moscow's fifth column from your northern or southern border ? ... makes life surely very exciting in your shelter. (hmm ... from south ... could be trotzkyites too)
Complain about this comment
If Barack Obama was white and the cold war was still raging, the prospect that so much power and responsibility could be put in the hands of someone so inexperienced and unprepared to use it would scare the life out of Europe. Has it ever occurred to Europeans that this power will still be used for achieving American goals exclusively and that it could be used very ineptly, either far too sparingly, far too eagerly, or applied inexpertly and ineffectively? That is what Iraq and Afghanistan are about, the lack of skill with which it was used. The next round could be far worse. BTW, Obama seems to have no real sympathies for Europe. He is no less American than McCain, Bush, or Clinton. He might give Europe one more chance but if they flub it as they invariably do, Obama will be Bush's third term and things will be right back where they they are between Europe and American now. If he wins, that's what I see happening.
Complain about this comment
#64 - mcdv-1975
Paras 1 and 2. You are entitled to you view.
Para 3. I have not ventured an opinion on this subject - you must be referring to another post.
Para 4 onwards. The same is true but I will now in response to your assertion that 'Europe was the one place which tried to impose fascism (and later communism) on the rest of the world.' That is one of the most outrageous generalisations I have ever encountered. Facism was an entirely Italian phenomenon which differed from national socialism (Nazism) in a number of respects. The core members of the Axis were allied by the belief that they could together conquer Europe and divide the spoils. Franco's Spain remained neutral despite German pressure and Salazar's Portugal not only respected the letter of the law in respect of neutrality but also the spirit of it allowing safe passage to allied prisoners who got that far. Neither country attempted to export its right wing government model.
Stalin's wartime and post war imperialism owed far more to Hitler's model than to Marxism and the expansionist tendencies of Khrushchev and Brezhnev had everything to do with trying to win the Cold War and little to do with exporting ideology.
The Swiss, Swedish, Finnish and Icelandic democratic models remained intact for the duration by virtue of their neutrality. The Danish and Benelux versions were certainly compromised by occupation but emerged unscathed. Britain was not occupied and provided the springboard which enabled the democratic systems which come naturally to most Europeans to be quickly restored. The smaller nations of central Europe were less fortunate and had no option but to co-operate first with the Nazis and later with the Soviets. Some did so more willingly than others.
The curious thing is that most of your argument is sound and your final paragraph right on the mark. Why you see fit to preface your argument with such a blatant misrepresentation is beyond me.
Complain about this comment
At least he is interested in us (europeans), and listens to us, as he did to soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Until now he avoided to separate Europe into willing and unwilling countries, old and "new" Europe.
He'll be president of USA, no news. He'll have to look after political interests of his country, no news. He made charming appearance instead of trying to teach lessons about a new world order to us. He reminded us of our common interests, and gave an impression of his style of doing international politics, let's wait and see.
First, the majority of U.S. citizens need to like him; then we'll see how he'll match with our expectations. And relistically, neither one of both candidates will turn everything upside down. Too much trouble on the table to jump over it.
My impression of him was, that he was really pleased by the welcome he received in Berlin. But he knew that under these circumstances being nice wasn't really a challenge neither for him nor for the people he has met.
Even if he wanted to be really nice to us europeans, he aims to sit in the Oval Office with many advisors and consultants around him. They'll probably tell him rather sooner than later to stop being too nice to us, or anyone else outside the US.
However, I don't expect that Mr.McCain will return to the attitudes shown by the Bush government before they realized that they actually went to war insufficiently prepared, in mindset as in equipment.
Complain about this comment
Concerning who'll be in the White House by the end of this year, i reckon that Europe is so pro-Obama because they'll take anybody who's not a gun-totting Republican fool child as a President who'll be expected to make decisions that affect the rest of this world. Now i'm not saying Mr Mc'Cain ticks this box but it goes without saying that GWB has invariably tainted his chances for future election by reason of his Republican association.
Having said that i believe that, unfortunately, Obama isn't destined to be in the White House because they'll be more Hillary supporters who'll vote McCain than for Obama - Why? - Well, Race still plays a big role in the US and there'll be plenty of Whites who wouldn't be able to stomach the sight of seeing a Black man as their President.
As for the trans-atlantic alliance, it's great to see at least one of the candidates taken an interest in what it's European allies think though lets not hold out any hope that either candidate will listen to what we think when push comes to shove and decisions have to be made.
Complain about this comment
Does anyone know if NATO plans for protecting Europe from invasion or is a staging post for european-based troops to invade other countries.
At the moment it seems to be that NATO is in Afghanistan which is not quite the same as defending or keeping the peace in Europe?
If NATO ceases to exist as an organisation because the US withdraws it's troops from Europe - from whom would the replacement EU army be prepared to defend Europe?
What about the battlefield tactical nuclear weapons that NATO controls. How would the EU order the control and deployment of these weapons or do they get withdrawn with the US Troops? Or do we ask the UK and France to supply them to the EU Army?
Complain about this comment
Dear Mr Mardell,
Here's a link to the Dutch constitution (in English): http://www.minbzk.nl/contents/pages/6156/grondwet_UK_6-02.pdf
You've asked what makes a country's capital. In this case the answer is: Article 32. It's the same in Poland (http://www.sejm.gov.pl/prawo/konst/angielski/kon1.htm), in our constitution it's put simply: "Warsaw shall be the capital of the Republic of Poland." (Art. 29).
I have no idea what makes London the capital of the UK, as your country has no written constitution. I suppose there's a royal edict for that somewhere...
Does that satisfy your curiosity? :)
Best regards,
Pawel
Complain about this comment
61. Menedemus wrote:
"greypolyglot @ 54
Your anti-americanism shines through bright and clear.
I'll not argue with a bigot!"
Please re-read what you have written, what I have written and then consult a dictionary to check your understanding of the word "bigot".
Complain about this comment
#72 - Pawel_M
'I have no idea what makes London the capital of the UK, as your country has no written constitution. I suppose there's a royal edict for that somewhere..'
Come to think of it, that is a very interesting question. The Queen's London residence (Buckingham Palace), Parliament, most if not all the Ministries and the Royal Courts of Justice are in the City of Westminster, Her Majesty's Palace and Fortress (The Tower of London) is in Tower Hamlets. What does make London the capital?
Complain about this comment
This ordinary American just came back from 10 months in Spain, one of the richest, most beautiful and welcoming countries I have ever visited. I will say unequivocally that Spanish enthusiasm for Obama reflects Spaniards' detailed knowledge of and interest in every aspect and nuance of this long American campaign season. Be it a primary election in North Carolina or Oregon, a speech in Nebraska, this or that new poll--every candidate and every perspective are of utmost importance to the discerning, patient and civilized Spaniard. I will leave it up to you to interpret what such patience and curiosity means with respect to opinions about America, and about Obama, but I will say, it has nothing to do with clueless moths gathering around the nearest light bulb. If only ordinary Americans knew the name of the current Spanish president, much less the names of Spain's regions and provinces, form of government, last election...
(A special thanks to Alberto Cano of El Pais)
Complain about this comment
Menendemus,
I guess that NATO is still primarily an alliance for common mutual defence obligations, yet after 1989 it had to change its strategic orientation which was almost exclusively directed against eastern europe. But exactly for several easter european this task still makes sense after their experiences with the Warshaw pact and COMECON. However, western europe rather sees chances and a large market in Russia, and for some special purposes also a strategic ally, especially when it comes to decisions in the security council. Iran and North Corea are good examples here.
To some extent, the fall of the iron curtain seemed to be mainly a good chance to put a lot of money into more reasonable areae than military equipement and large armies. And possibly the last trails of this reorientation are still going on. But with terrorism and disintegrating states new challenges and tasks start to replace and change the original agenda. But this requires much more cooperation with all sides that are affected, since misinterpretations of aims and misunderstandings of attitudes would do serious harm to the goals, values, and, last not least, our reputation and credibility.
After experiences like Yugoslavia, or Ruanda we also know that negotiations and UN resolutions can't always help, sad but true, and a fact to take really serious. Darfour being the most recent example.
So the impression and question of the mid nineties, "for what do we need our armies" has been answered to some extend. But the least thing I'd expect is, that NATO or the WEU would aim to become an agressive invasion army. I seriously doubt that there's any place for such an animal. And the West has made really good experiences with negotiations during the old war.
Complain about this comment
again on #71:
I think that Afghanistan is a very special operation which has a good justification:
- Afghanistan was put under control of the Taliban, a radical Sunni organisation mainly supported and manned from Saudi Arabia, and nearby states. They received support from the local population driven by desparation over the soviet invasion but then demanded more until deliberate destruction of their cultural heritage.
- the strong ties between al-qayda and the taliban finally rose fears that a terror organisation would take a complete state and its population as hostage, and render it into an operation basis for terror attacks which became ultimately obvious on 9/11/01.
- we don't want to turn Afghanistan into a western country, we want to help them getting back their stability and security which they have the force to do any more. So additionally, we also try to give them the required force by training their troops and police units.
This is an enormous program, and the US should have stayed with us there until it is turned into a convincing success, which was really possible then. Meanwhile, they had to open yet another front, put a multiple of material and men there, and precious time for Afghanistan was wasted. Honestly, that's what's making me still very angry about Bush and his aides.
One can make a mess, but he should take care to clean it up as quickly as possible before others find out how much he might have been stuck in it. Yet, Mr.Bush seems to have thought he needs another mess to distract from the first. A really bad idea.
And now, I come back to listening: I don't think that europeans are actually still so arrogant to think they should tell an american president what to do, if they ever were at all. The fact that Mr.Schroeder was near an election campaign then, might have made some people think he'd need something to look good. So they failed to see that even many conservative politicians had serious doubts concerning such an operation. And they had good reasons for that. Even the israeli prime minister Mr.Sharon gave advise not to start this operation although it could be prima vista in Israels very interest. At least I know of three men who could be quite happy with the outcome: Mr.Ahmadinedjad, Mr.Assad, and Mr.Nasrallah .
In the middle ages, starting war was an every day trade, look at the many ruins and remainders if still present from that time. But population density was very low, and only few operations affected a larger region, such as the crusades. Perhaps that's one of the reasons, why europeans had such difficulty understanding Bush's will to got to war: too many still remeber what that means, and ask for a well founded justification as well as a properly worked out plan about how to build up the affected region afterwards. And especially the latter was never answered satisfyingly.
I really hope, that the U.S. will learn from the lesson they've been tought not by "Old Europe" but by the cost of lives, supply, and reputation for this adventure. It could have been avoided, at least in extent.
Maybe, that's one of the reasons why Europeans put so much hope in Mr.Obama: he appears to make sure that we don't have to expect another mess of this kind.
Complain about this comment
So, here's a more serious answer to Tom B. #59:
look at what your country has spent during the last 5 years for its military, especially the war in Iraq, and then look at what it has spent on education, health and social welfare. Which expenses will create more opportunities for your country ?
And how did your socialist neighbor, one of the poorest countries in the world, fare when being hit by Katharina compared to yours ?
Complain about this comment
bugbyter @ 76/77
That does sound much more realistic than the concept of 1945 when NATO must have seen Russia as the potential enemy.
With America soon to be choosing a President who is also, effectively, leader of the 'western world' I just wonder whether, if NATO were to inwardly collapse as an organisation with withdrawal of US and Canadian support, (a) a cohesive European Army could be developed and (b) how large it would need be in order to be effective.
For example, the British Army is really too small and too underfunded to really effectively achieve the objectives of the United Kingdom Government today (allegedly holding a training role in Iraq but formerly a policing role AND fighting a guerrilla war in Afghanistan) - it is too large a presence in Iraq and so hides from any obvious contentious action that might invoke further hostility in that country and it is too small a presence in Afghanistan to do more than engage in relatively small firefights that sees the loss of young soldiers lives but hardly seems to make any inroads into the capability of the resurgent Taleban guerrillas.
I do not intend to denigrate the professionalism of the British Army or it's soldiers - I merely question whether it is too small to do all that IT wishes to achieve with what it is tasked to do or whether it is simply tasked to do too much by IT's political masters?
Could this be a problem for any EU Army. No country truly likes to pay for a war machine but when the war machine is required - it is often found to be underfunded, understaffed, underequipped and very quickly can be found unable to achieve what is expected when it goes into battle.
Can the EU really fund a replacement war machine for taking the place of NATO?
Would the cost of funding a war machine capable of meeting the political objective of the EU mean the individual states would need to give up the funding for their own nation state armies?
Complain about this comment
To: Susie in Spain (75) I am glad tou have such a good opinion of my adoptive country and agree with all that you say
El Pais (The Country) is the most informativeand open minded newspaper I know in either Spanish or English. As you doubtless know, it is on the web but I guess only in Spanish. It also gives an importantly different perspective to both the British and American media.
Modern prosperity (consierably greater than the official figures would indicate) has been achieved the hard way. Spain has few natural resouces or advantages. Hard work and sound investment has been the key.
Spain took advantage of Marshall Aid and used it wisely but the real breakthough came with membership of the European Community. Today Spain is at the forefront of the spread of Community interest world wide.
Today the Mediteranean Union has given the Community nearly 300 million what could be called asssociate members. A new South American Union has been founded on the E.U. example. And if you want to know what is coming over the horizon you might do worse than check who the King is meeting the summer.
To: Menedemus (71)
NATO was founded, in the words of the then Chief of the Imperial General Staff (i.e.Head of the British Army) at the time,: To keep Russia out, to keep Germany dowm and to keep America in. Does not seem very relevant to the 21st century to me.
Complain about this comment
Menendemus,
actually I can't see any alternative to the NATO, and even more I can't see any reason justifying its replacement. All german operations beyond its borders are under command of NATO as far as I know.
It's a proven institution of sharing duties, equipment and experience among its allies. It's a really useful tie between the U.S. and Canada on one side and the european members on the other. So far it has even proved to be a good frame to talk with Russia about sensitive issues when it makes sense. It is one of its strengths, that this alliance wasn't only a bond between its members but a partner to talk with, too, demanding that its member clarify what they want seeking a common denominator.
Technical progress will allow specialisation and smaller armies, so that for its members this alliance really makes even more sense than less. Maybe, its playing a different role for its european members than it does for the U.S., but general strategic planning of the U.S. has been independent from Europe most of the times, at least that's my impression. Possibly, NATO is simply an expression of the attitude that all of its members see good reasons to rely on each other in this field of politics to a rather significant extent. For all of them, it makes funding their requirements easier due to sharing expenditures and experiences.
BTW, NATO was a consequence of a global political split, hence its tasks were entangled with politics reaching beyond Europe. If organisations or states outside of Europe trust this alliance and ask support from it, I think there are enough guards to determine limiting conditions allowing NATO to accept duties in a wider context, such as Afghanistan.
Perhaps, NATO shouldn't be seen as a strategic military alliance only, but as a political community of allies that very strongly trust each other albeit different views in details.
I must admit that I haven't any idea which infuence the EU could take on NATO or vice versa. Interesting question, is this organisation entirely decoupled from the EU and especially its parliament ? Probably, since most states regard defence as one of their very last resorts of souvereignty, it would be the last one to be yielded.
Complain about this comment
Menendemus,
as I suddenly suspected you asked what if Europe had to setup its own military forces. The goals of NATO don't necessarily have to be the same like those of each single member, or in other words NATO covers only the common strategic goals. Anything beyond is each country's biz.
So, I'd presume that Europe would reevaluate its strategic needs, adapt to it, and not completely replace the gap caused by a withdrawal of the U.S. and/or Canada.
But honestly, such a withdrawal is rather improbable at the moment. I guess that really noone, even Russia, would see any advantage in it. Nor would Canada, or the U.S., or did anyone see any hints in this direction ?
Complain about this comment
bugbyter @82
It's not that I see the imminent demise of NATO but quite often and even in this thread there are statements of wish that American Troops should leave Europe.
Some comments are also made occassionally from the other perspective that the US wishes to reduces it spending on the military and withdraw from stationing troops in Europe.
These may merely represent wishes similar to "Dorothy clicking her heels and wanting to be back in Kansas" - a fantasy dream and possibly never going to happen.
But, having previously stated my opinion that I did not want the US to leave Europe nor see the end of NATO, I think it is right to discuss the options. I am open to persuasion that a European Continental Army could be a good thing with economies of scale and 'ever closer cooperation'.
I would think that US troop withdrawal, however unlikely, is certainly more likely to be viewed as an option by a Democrat President and less likely to be considered by yet another Republican Administration. Hence I have raised the question as to whether a Democrat or Republican President impacts upon how Europe, the EU and it's people are 'defended' within this thread.
And, of course, in the background is President Sarkozy for France emphasising his willingness for France to rengage with NATO but also re-emphasising French support for an EU Army.
I just don't know if an EU Army can co-exist on the continent where several smaller armies exist (at nation state level) or are coordinated together and combined at NATO Alliance level. If that were to be a problem then the future of NATO, the existence of a European Continental Army and the funding of such an army do have to be considered.
Complain about this comment
Old-Man-Mike at #80
"NATO was founded, in the words of the then Chief of the Imperial General Staff (i.e.Head of the British Army) at the time,: To keep Russia out, to keep Germany dowm and to keep America in. Does not seem very relevant to the 21st century to me."
Nor me either.
And I was rather antagonistic to your comments @ #18 with my reply @#22 so I hope you will see my later comments and especially my comment at #83 (and my interesting discussions with bugbyter) as an indication that I am trying to think along the lines of consequence as to US Troop withdrawal, the purpose of NATO in this day and age and whether independent nation state armies (with even some of those armies 'owned' by neutral countries) is the best way to maintain the defence of Europe.
Has Europe grown up enough to no longer need NATO? I know I said NATO had kept the peace for 60+ years but does anyone seriously think that any country in the EU is likely to become embroiled in warlike complication in this day and age? Does this mean that NATO is now obsolete?
Is an EU Army a solution or a nightmare? Can we have each EU nation state controlling it's own army but the EU either having it's own standing army or an EU army based upon trust and cooperation as modelled by NATO.
Could ultimately there simply be a European Standing Army (presumably controlled by the EU) and no individual member state having sovereignty over it's own defence? Is that at an objective we should aspire to?
these are big questions but your comment at #18 did set the agenda for me as a Democrat President could seek to spend less money on European-based US Military support and spend those savings and more US dollars on the US issues closer to the hearts of Americans - their economy, US Recession and the US quality of life.
That could make for fundamental changes to the way we view military spending in European Countries and could ultimately make the questions I ask today much more pertinent.
Complain about this comment
84. At 2:31pm on 27 Jul 2008, Menedemus wrote:
"Could ultimately there simply be a European Standing Army (presumably controlled by the EU) and no individual member state having sovereignty over it's own defence? Is that at an objective we should aspire to?"
No way Jose! No way Hose B!
I spent most of the seventies in Germany. I believe that the sole treason the did not have a military coup was the presence of American and British soldiers on German soil.
We have seen with the Lisbon Treaty how anti-democratic and arrogant the people in power of the "EU" are. They would have no qualms about organising a pan-European military coup.
The only thing those people are good at is producing Amazons of manipulative bullproduct. They would sell it to us as an improvement on democracy.
Complain about this comment
Menendemus,
the U.S. maintain a large amount of infrastructure around their forces in Europe. In some places in Germany they are an important employer so that especially in those regions people are very loyal even despite some nuissance like erratic artillery shots, noise from exercise areae, or environmental issues. Some time ago, the U.S. government announced to relocate some installations to countries of the alliance of the willing. But then they found out, that it wouldn't help their cost situation, yet they'd possibly face worse conditions for operation. Some of the best US army clinics are in Germany supporting troops in Iraq. It's not that easy to replace such facilities, and its not only a matter of money.
France and Germany already have common units, I think one is in Rastatt, Germany. If we assume that, caused by whatever, relations between Europe and the US would deteriorate so far that NATO would be dissolved, I'm sure that Europe had enough resources to setup its own forces, and even larger ones than we have currently. But who would want that, if alternatives exist ? Would you accept excessive (in contrast to necessary) military spending if it could be avoided easily. I'm sure Israelis would love to pay less taxes if they could rely on peace treaties with their neighbors. During my school days there were two large military installations in my home town, at least once a week a fighter plane flying low over our valley, sometimes several ones on one day. Germany was in a constant state of alert during the cold war until 1989. Hardly a day passed without being reminded of the situation which means that money was spent just as continously.
I think, that the necessity of such efforts will inevitably be reevaluated from time to time, independent of who governs in the U.S. or somewhere else. Yet as long as there's a NATO, it'll be the most important framework in which planning and decision will take place concerning military operations with european participation. I'm quite confident about the future of this institution.
Complain about this comment
#85 - SuffolkBoy2
Sounds to me like someone who spent most of the seventies in a military base surrounded by Germany. The real German was the other side of the fence.
Complain about this comment
Re: love234america's post
Yes, love234america has the right to post his/her opinion, but I am dismayed by the hatefulness in that post. Most Americans do not react that way to Mr. Obama. Love234america represents a small faction of intolerant Americans who literally hate anything and anyone that doesn't comply with their narrow set of beliefs. These people are characterized by their reverence of hate-spewing media entities like Rush Limbaugh and Fox News. Regrettably, they have a tendency to base their beliefs on what they hear from these sources rather than on intelligent research.
airspace86
"To me cautiousness stems from experience"
Cautiousness can also stem from innate intelligence and common sense. Oft times "experience" can be based on a series of bad choices, immoral acts and other negative factors.
Complain about this comment
returning from reading a german Wikipedia entry on NATO I've learned that NATO has already undergone a couple of reforms, and redefinitions. BTW, even before 1989 since the situation was reevaluated several times.
This seems to imply several things:
- the alliance had to redefine parts of its agenda from time to time even in the past. It has done so already in the more recent past, so we'll have to expect it'll do in the future too.
- NATO is still there; it has no link to the EU, at least no immediate or apparent one; it seems to have worked out as an appropriate setting for resolving military issues of its members, able to adapt and evolve; isn't that fine ?
- US forces are still here in Germany and Italy (and GB ?), in contrast to British, Canadian or French (appart from common units). I don't think that these are issues being decided easily depending on flipping political moods. At least I hope so ...
Finally, they couldn't help us against the Vogons anyway, so don't panic (esp.suffolkguy).
Complain about this comment
NATO Forces
The original thinking behind NATO was that it was to be a military alliance of like minded nations which were committed to the democratic process and would pool manpower, technology and aspects of command and control. This stemmed from the underling principle that any attack on a member state was an attack on the whole alliance. (This is, incidentally, why there is a specific provision in the non-proliferation treaty concerning US deployment of nuclear weapons).
In some ways, nothing very much has changed. The Warsaw Pact has gone and the former Soviet bloc is no longer perceived as the enemy but the principle remains intact. Any nation that launches an attack on any member will receive a response from the alliance as a whole. France and the UK continue to be members of the club of 'legitimate' nuclear powers and, as such, permanent members of the Security Council.
There are a number of problems associated with replacing national forces by a pan-European force. The first is precisely what happens to the French and British nuclear forces. Placing them under the control of a European force would not I think be seen as an option in Paris or London and in any event, it would probably violate the existing non-proliferation rules and certainly require constitutional changes in a number of European countries where having nuclear weaponry is explicitly forbidden. On the other hand, to simply hand control over to NATO would be in effect to hand both political and operational control to Washington.
Secondly, there is still a hangover from the days of empire and various parts of the world which some EU and NATO countries perceive as 'their back yard'. British involvement in Somalia and an active French role in Chad are cases in point but the outstanding example is the Falklands. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that war, it clearly would not have happened at all if the decision had been a European one. The nations might see advantages to pooling resources in a defensive role but it is very difficult to see them surrendering aggressive capabilities for so long as there are factors of this kind.
Thirdly there is the question of conflict between political interests and operational necessity. Commanders in the field are concerned with using their forces optimally. The idea of a European Defence Minister sending a force to Afghanistan on the basis that the commanding officer is allowed to send British troops to Helmand but not German ones is patently ridiculous.
I do not say that a European defence system will never come about but I do think that it is premature to talk about it yet. The EU has to decide about its internal institutions first and seek the support of its people first. Before you start defending something, it is a good plan to understand what you are defending and why. So technical and operational co-operation, by all means but full integration, not for a long time yet.
Complain about this comment
Well, Republicans seem to share a special favour for Germany.
Citing from an article of Ari Melber in 'The Nation':
"...failed to recognize the need to visit wounded combat troops, instead choosing to continue on with a schedule that included meeting with international leaders and fawning Germans."
At least his wording got a rather strong yet accurate translation in german media which are spreading it eagerly. Mr.McCain might look a little bit older now ... here at least.
Obviously some people aren't really aware of the amount of media coverage which the presidential election campaign receives in old Europe.
But maybe that's what his electorate expects to hear from him - who knows ?
Why ? And why again from this corner ?
Apart from that, I hope that the patients in Landstuhl will recover well and soon.
Complain about this comment
I need to say that it wasn't Mr.McCain but his campaign spokesman Mr.Tucker Bounds who made the statement I've cited above.
Complain about this comment
catching up on the thread - apologies, can't list all the contributions
Menedemus/Bugbyter
European force?
I think pragmatic rather than political problems could sink this. NATO has enough problems with the limited language range within it; the UN has far worse problems transmitting orders and with the I've-lost-count-how-many languages within the EU, this is a real stumbling block.
And what about all the early negotiations (backbiting?) over the Eurofighter? Any technological unity would be immensely difficult to negotiate for legacy reasons, and logistics/supply is a nightmare if it doesn't succeed.
lotsa people
Chiming in with all the others who state the obvious: that Americans will vote for their own leader and the rest of the world comes nowhere. Of course it does. We object when other countries try to tell us what to do. We just aren't as good at it.
And the McCain supporters have a point in that he's getting precious little attention from Europe, not that it should matter in the US. Not fair and certainly not reasoned and it would be foolish to continue to ignore him like this. Maybe if he gets more exposure we'll start getting a different kind of post from the US. Or maybe not, if it turns out to be mostly adverse.
Complain about this comment
@threnodio (68)
I most certainly respect your arguments too, though I do not always agree with them.
One point you fail to address is, that after WW II ended, Britain, France and Netherlands too (which I must admit) all tried to keep/re-establish their colonial empire. So much for democracy. Yes what they meant was democracy for them, and occupation for their colonial empires.
Take India for example, despite that a vast majority of Indians had wanted independence Churchill and co wanted to hear nothing of it. When Churchills party was voted out the new government only reluctantly 'granted' independence to India. Which would not have happened if Britain hadn't been bankrupted by WW II.
Britain and her European allies did not fight to restore democracy, but to prevent the collapse of the colonial empires. Just ask the French about Dien Bhin Phu. The Americans could have easily prevented the Vietnam war altogether if they had simply supported their WW II ally Ho Chi Minh in his desire for Vietnamese independence instead of selling them out for French support. Only when the Americans turned him down did Ho Chi Minh seek help from Moscow and Beijing.
I remember reading that France and Brit
If only the Japanese had not been so brutal during their 'liberation'/occupation and if the greater Asian co-prosperity sphere had been an alliance on a truly equal basis then all of Asia would still be grateful to them today and Asias freedom would have been their everlasting legacy.
Curiously enough, although Hitler had no such intentions (he wanted to colonize and exploit the Russias west of the Urals), his war spelled the end for the colonial era. The troublespots we are now stuck with in the world, however, can all be traced back to France and Britain carving up the Middle East and Africa, and the Balkans.
Complain about this comment
ArgylJenny,
within NATO there are still only two official languages: english and french - for 59 years now. It seems to work somehow.
There's a european fighter plane project: Eurofighter, and an american one: Joint Strike Fighter, which is favoured by GB. Still it will work, it must. The situation is well known from Breguet Atlantique and Lockheed P-3. But why shouldn't these things work out with the EU when they've already done several times ? There are surely no technical reasons in its way.
I think the question which reasons would really justify replacement of NATO is more relevant. It appears all very speculative and hypothetical to me. Threnodio has mentioned some really relevant political reasons why we won't see a EU force in the near future. But the pragmatic obstacles are the same, for NATO or a possible EU force. With all the technical means we have today, they don't seem to be so unavoidable than they might have been about twenty years ago (eg. speach recognition and processing).
I wouldn't be angry at all if the US electorate would ignore us just the way they did in so many previous elections. But measuring a candidate by his ability to insult allies is a different kind of game. But maybe I'm just concluding to soon, that Mr.Bounds speculation on a positive effect on his campaign would be a proper indicator of political attitudes of his target audience. I apologize sincerely, and let's hope it's not.
Complain about this comment
Mark:
It is sad that you have been sending time in the Hague...But that is a news story...
it is nice to have a regular blog from you....
i know, you are upset, that you are not able to cover the visit to europe from barrack obama.....
Complain about this comment
#94 - mcdv-1975
I don't disagree with you but you need to remember that there were some very different attitudes prevalent then. Today colonialism is seen as anachronistic and unfashionable at best, antiquated and immoral at worst. In the late forties, the British and French would not have seen it that way. They would have viewed their paternalistic policies as enlightened and liberating. There is a considerable amount of hypocrisy in this of course. Certainly Britain would have viewed India in particular as a source of wealth at a time when it was very much needed. Nevertheless, I do believe that the old colonial powers genuinely thought they were doing the right thing in the colonies, at least in the early days.
There is even a certain amount of strength in the argument. The British, for example, laid a foundation of sound administrative practice and and effective judicial systems in many parts of the world which survive to this day. The one thing they were not willing to concede was democratic accountability. This accelerated the end of empire for sure but the days of empire were numbered anyway. The continuing relevance of the Commonwealth is testimony to the fact that while Empire is dead, the legacy in part survives.
I think you should also avoid sweeping statements about Africa, the Middle East and the Balkans. There is a tendency to view regional conflicts as symptomatic of much more widespread problems. This is not actually the case. The Gulf states, for example, are a model of stability and prosperity and to infer that the whole region is in chaos because there are problems elsewhere is simply not true. As to the Balkans, the is no credible case you can make for laying that at the door of the British or the French.
The last colonial empire was the Soviet Empire which endured until the end of the eighties and it was until that collapsed that Europe as whole could turn its attention to the democratic project. It is to be hoped that Europe's leaders continue to recognise the importance of democratic accountability as the project progresses.
Complain about this comment
I suppose you are right, Mark, the seat of government makes a city the capital, but not in the Netherlands. The reason can be found in the country's history. The United Provinces or United Netherlands, as it was known from 1579 to 1793 (when the name was changed to the Batavian Republic), were a peripheral federal state, bordering on confederation, somewat like today's EU, only much smaller.
The United Netherlands had no single ruler, as every province was sovereign and had its own stadholder, the 17th century Dutch equivalent of a governor. Because the republic was founded during the second longest war of the last two millennia of European history, the provinces did have one overall war leader, Prince William of Orange.
When he started his revolt against Spain in 1568, initially only a few cities joined him, later a few provinces and only after some time did all 7 northern provinces join him.
At that time Amsterdam was the most powerful city, being very wealthy as a result of international trade. For that reason, Amsterdam became the centre of this alliance of provinces that was without a real government at the start of the revolt. But when the Union of Utrecht was signed and the United Netherlands became a federal state, The western province of Holland became the biggest and most powerful province.
The residency of its stadholder was The Hague. At the time that was not much more than a small fortress on the bank of a lake. There was perhaps a village around it, but it was far from being a town, let alone a city. Still it became a rather important location in the United Netherlands. So it became a habit to have meetings of the parliament, the States General, in that castle. As Holland grew in power, the other provinces elected the same stadholder as Holland. Eventuall the stadholder of Holland thus became the stadholder of the etire federal state, with The Hague as its seat of government, but with its most important city, Amsterdam, as its capital.
Of course The Hague did become a centre for people to settle, but it could never rival the riches and dominance of Amsterdam in trade. Although The Hague is the 3rd largest city of the Netherlands today, it was never awarded the right to be a city and have city walls, like other cities at the time, such as Delft and Leiden and also Amsterdam.
Oh and the castle and the lake still exist today. The lake has become somewhat smaller, but today it is known as the Hofvijver, Court Pond. It is still fed by the brook that also fed it all those centuries ago. What remains of the castle is the 13th century Knight Hall, which serves as the Dutch throneroom and the room where united meetings of both chambers of parliament are held. Around the Knight Hall, there are the houses of parliament themselves, as well as the Prime Minister's tower, together known as the Binnenhof or 'Inner Court'. The queen's office-palace is at a small distance from there, in a former palace of the stadholder of Holland an the United Netherlands. And although the stadholder has left the scene, his line has been continued by the House of Orange, the Dutch royal house. That much has changed in four centuries of history in The Hague.
Now please quit apologising, I don't know who asked for it, but there's really no need to :) Amsterdam's role as a capital is only symbolic.
Enjoy your trip to The Hague tomorrow!
Complain about this comment
It always amazes me when people like madeiraman57 say that there is a liberal bias in the media. Good heavens! Do they never watch Fox News? Well, in my circles we call it Fox so-called news.
Trying to get any press in the U.S. for a liberal cause, a march or a meeting, whatever, is so very seldom possible. Liberal bias? I think not.
Complain about this comment
Re #94 mcdv-1975:
I dunno i can find it quite funny when Americans start talking about fighting to spread democratic principles across the world. Like look at Saudi Arabia for goodness sake - To even think of calling SA a democracy is practically a joke yet the US has helped prop up that regime with a garrison of its soldiers since the end of the 1st Gulf War in exchange for raw materials and a strategically placed ally in the region (Btw remember that Osama says he attacked USA on 11th Sept because of the presence of said 'Christian Crusaders' in his native SA) - Same goes for the UAE and Jordan though minus the US garrisons.
And then there's Iran boy oh boy what a cock-up! The USA hated the Democratically Elected Mossadegh so much for nationalising Iran's oil reserves that in a CIA coup he was over-thrown and replaced by the Shah of Iran and we all know where that road led!
Need i even mention the support the USA gave to Pinochet's military junta in Chile among many other questionnably democratic countries in South America and the Carribean (Batista's government in Cuba being a great example) - No wonder Chavez and the rest aren't your best friends!!
And then look at USA's colonial past in the Phillipines - Don't get me wrong but you guys weren't exactly wanting to leave there at first either thus the resistance movements set-up against your presence back in the day.
The list goes on...
Now Western Europe did a lot of atrocious things to its former colonies in the past and even now but it really irks me to hear some Americans indulging in this self-righteous talk of spreading democracy to the world as if the rest of us didn't know what the word means.
Complain about this comment
“1. Menedemus wrote: As a mute point, no one seems to want to play the race card in the American Presidential Race and thus both candidtaes do appear to be running quite close to being neck and neck when I read Justin Webb's blog. I just wonder if, when the voters do go to the booths and cast their floating chads or whatever, whether, on a personal basis, the influence of colour prejudice will actually make a big difference? What I mean is that people will always deny that they are racially prejudiced but it does take a huge leap of faith to NOT believe that most people are racist when it really comes down to the nitty-gritty and what they actually feel in their hearts!”
Yes, sadly, I believe there will be individuals who once in the voting booth will cast their vote based on race alone. However, I hope, and based on the conversations I’ve had with other Americans strong suspect, that there will be far fewer votes based on race alone than one might expect. The situation is just so dire that even those who in the past would never have considered voting for a black man are more inclined to consider the issues and set race aside. Whether that will translate into an Obama victory come November it's impossible to predict. I am encouraged by the sheer number of Republicans and Independents who have told me that they will be voting for Obama. It is also encouraging (at least for those of us who support Obama) that the public appears to be deeply motivated, more so than they have been in decades, to actually get out and vote. If the momentum holds strong there should be a record turn out.
“3. madeiraman57 wrote: I am very concerned about the 'bias' being shown to Obama from the likes of CNN and others. It started during the Primaries, when I think Obama received many more favourable reviews from ' pundits' and Political commentators and is continuing apace now even before the Presidency run - off.”
That’s just laughable. Yes, Obama’s been given more airtime, but it's not all positive coverage by any means. Surely, I can’t be the only one to recall the way in which the pundits shamelessly tried to promote the idea that Obama held the same views as his “radical” preacher Rev. Wright. The way the pundits carried on you would have thought Obama was trying to resurrect the Black Panthers. Meanwhile, McCain flip-flops on Roe vs. Wade, the religious right-wing, Bush’s tax cuts, votes against the new GI Bill, and even abandoned his own campaign finance legislation! The media here hasn’t spent much time discussing any of that, now have they? It may actually turn out to be a boon for McCain that they haven’t spent much time reporting on his campaign. If they did they might actually have to discuss all the lies, half-truths and waffling that he’s been engaging in.
Complain about this comment
“100. robetterule wrote: I dunno i can find it quite funny when Americans start talking about fighting to spread democratic principles across the world.”
It’s called hypocrisy and it goes both ways. Many Europeans, though admittedly not all, can become quite self-righteous where our misdeeds are concerned, behaving as though their own governments are and always have been angelic. That just isn’t true. I do thank you for being fair enough to point out that Europeans were also guilty of atrocities in the past and that this isn’t some how a purely American phenomenon. Of course, that doesn’t excuse the misdeeds committed by my government (the Americans government) and not all of us are ignorant enough to actually buy into the nonsense about our bringing freedom to all corners of the earth. Contrary to popular belief, we have done some good, but we have also done great ill and harmed many people both intentionally and unintentionally. Personally, though I’m an American, it irks me too when I hear my compatriots blather on about our supposedly about our freeing people. Most of Western Europe has become far democratic and progressive than we are at present. That’s simply a fact and many of us fully realize it. Unfortunately, for some reason mainly right-wing Americans seem to blog on websites like this one.
“100. robetterule wrote: And then there's Iran boy oh boy what a cock-up! The USA hated the Democratically Elected Mossadegh so much for nationalizing Iran's oil reserves that in a CIA coup he was over-thrown and replaced by the Shah of Iran and we all know where that road led! Now Western Europe did a lot of atrocious things to its former colonies in the past and even now but it really irks me to hear some Americans indulging in this self-righteous talk of spreading democracy to the world as if the rest of us didn't know what the word means.”
I feel that someone should point out that Operation Ajax (the overthrow of Mossadegh) was a joint MI6-CIA operation that was actually dreamt up by your government – the British government – not ours. The only reason that MI6 didn’t simply carry out Operation Ajax themselves, without the Americans, is because they didn’t have the ability to do so. Your country, as I’m sure you well know, was left virtually penniless after WWII. They needed our funds to carry out Mossadegh’s ousting. Unfortunately, the anti-Communist zealots and business titans over here, Averill Harriman among them, were only too happy to oblige Churchill.
To be a bit more specific, in 1951 Iranian oil was nationalized and they seized control not of an American company, but of the British owned and operated Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. Needless to say the Brits weren’t happy campers. Your government declared that it wouldn’t allow Iran to export any oil that was produced in the formerly British refineries. The Royal Navy then set up a blockade in the Persian Gulf to prevent Iran from shipping oil abroad. The British Government also forbade the exportation of British commodities like sugar and steel to Iran. The Brits then took their anti-nationalization case against Iran to the International Court of Justice at The Hague in late 1951. Mossadegh correctly predicted that the Brits would lose their case declaring that the world would see Britain as a "cruel and imperialistic country" unfairly punishing the “needy and naked people” of Iran. I’m not sure that the court’s ruling was that blunt, but the UK did lose the case.
The British didn’t have to fret for long, though, as a new opportunity to reclaim their lost oil revenue soon presented itself. In 1952 the Shah was overthrown and Mossadegh became PM. Churchill went straight to Pres. Truman and requested that he help your government overthrow Mossadegh. He attempted to convince Truman that Mossadegh, because of his alliance with Iranian Communist politicians, was himself a Communist. Churchill knew this to be a lie. To his credit Truman told Churchill no and refused to take part. However, to the great good fortune of Churchill’s government, in Nov 1952 Truman lost his reelection bid and Republican candidate Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower became President.
All throughout Nov. and Dec. of 1952 British intelligence officers held meetings with American officials doing their best to convince them that Mossadegh was a threat and Churchill and finally managed to convince Eisenhower that it was our duty to help the British oust Mossadegh. In August 1953 the CIA and MI6 carried out the operation and the rest is history.
Sadly, it was the “success” (for lack of a better term) of this operation that gave the CIA the confidence that they could play a vital role in helping to “spread democracy” abroad. After all, why bother with potentially expensive and lengthy diplomatic efforts where the outcome remains uncertain when for $1 million you can simply pick a country’s new leader yourself. I think we all now know precisely where Mr. Dulles’ logic (or lack thereof) has led my country and the rest of the world. They never bothered to consider the long term effect for either for the US or the nations we “liberated” that would result from their actions.
Complain about this comment
Opposing American policy is definitely NOT anti-American. However, many people--including Europeans--DO have an unflattering opinion of the United States which is not based on reason, and will not change depending on what the United States does. There is a tendency by some to deride this and pretend that anti-Americanism does not exist--and is the figment of some hyper-sensitive Americans' imaginations. That is not the case, anti-Americanism is a reality, but too often the definition has been so diluted down that nowadays charged of anti-Americanism are easy to dismiss.
Personally hold the view that 'capital' is defined by the state. Burma, for instance, moved that country's capital recently, and South Korea seems about to do the same. The United States has the (general) location of the capital and configuration enshrined in the Constitution. Brazil also made a capital. Yet Rangoon/Yangon and Seoul are still the biggest cities of Burma and South Korea, and Washington, D.C. and Brasilia are not the biggest cities in their respective countries. The location of the capital is set by the government.
And McCain could be greeted more warmly than Obama in the non-Berlin part of East Germany, if you get the drift (just a reminder that all countries have their bad sides).
Most Americans wouldn't want the United States to be a stronger 'world cop' policing the globe, and suspect that McCain is one of them. However, if such was the choice of the government, now is the time to move before American power wanes too much and China rises to the level that that country can rival the United States. You can only grab power if you are able to.
Complain about this comment
@auroradawn25 (102):
"Unfortunately, for some reason mainly right-wing Americans seem to blog on websites like this one."
Odd, from personal perspective, mainly left-wing Americans seem to blog on this website..... ;-)
Will agree with you that that's unfortunate, though.
Complain about this comment
[Last post--not trying to spam].
@Named-Erion (13):
"more then 90% of black voters voted for Obama"
The way you've written your post, that does seem racist, and technically that voting pattern was.
However, your analogy does not add up. Imagine if there had not been a 'white' President in American history, 'whites' were a minority in the country, and historically 'whites' faced a great deal of oppression and discrimination. If that were the case, you almost definitely would see an overwhelming majority of 'whites' voting for 'their' candidate.
While every single American President to date has been a 'white' man, there has--as of yet--been no 'black' man as American President. There is HUGE potential for a social impact GLOBALLY if Obama becomes President--unfortunately the man's a naive idiot in the areas of foreign policy (promoting bombing nuclearly-armed Pakistan DURING the Red Mosque crisis for instance) and the economy (there isn't nearly enough money in the budget for his ideas), and his support for abortion is a red line that many Americans, including this American, will not cross, even taking into account the massive hope of social change and reconciliation that an election of a 'black' President could bring.
And on a cynical note, is 'Erion' an attempt to get 'Aryan' through the moderators?
Complain about this comment
Both extremes of the thread are myths: anti-americanism or filo-americanism in Europe (at least in western Europe).
There are American points very admired in Europe, like the support for research in all fields. But here are others, like death penalty which is seen from the Old Continent as a draconian anachronic measure, with little efficiency and no ethics at all.
On foreign policy, the neocon slogan "exporting democracy" is simply unbelievable, since USA applies double standards over this consideration: they can be mute friends with China or Saudi Arabia, but Syria must remain in the Axis of Devil.
Many Europeans think Obama can "correct" these undemocratic policies. But I'm afraid they don't expect too much: death penalty is out of debate, and "exporting democracy" will always be submitted under the national American interests, like other western nations do but without saying "they're exporting democracy".
Therefore, it's not about anti-americanism, it's about a different way to act inside and into the world.
Complain about this comment
From an European perspective I could live with either McCain or Obana, and won't try to advise a US citizen how to vote. However, what worries me about McCain is who will be his running mate? Will the Repubicans try for a balanced ticket? - 'Hey guys, we need to attract our core vote, so we need to balance McCain with a loopy right-winger!' Call me ageist, but McCain is well into his 70's and his health record is not perfect. There's aways the danger that the country could be run by a Dick Cheney or a Dan Quayle within three years.
Complain about this comment
Iantownhill @107
I hope you don't feel that you're going to be knocking at death's door when your in your 70's.
I am almost sure John McCain won't be feeling that he's too old in this day and age.
Heck, I even admire the guy's self-esteem that he has the energy and vigor to even want take on the role of President at 70+.
I am early-retired and have a long way to go to get to 70 but when I do - the most I want to be doing is still be playing golf!
Complain about this comment
To Menedemus (84) Sorry I did not get back to you yesterday - got a bit late and it is over 30ºC here.
The normal practice in peace time is to scale back the standing armies to a core which can be rapidly expanded in time of crisis. Likewise navies and airforces. As you well know, large military forces keep on a war footing have two great disadavantages. Firstly they are increadably expensive and not only in money terms. Secondly the are designed the war that does erupt is very different to war anticipated. The Viet Nam war was a classic example.
Turning to the posting by bugbyter 86
All that he says is quite true with one priviso. That is there is no radicale change in the Middle East. This brings me back to Sen. Obamas tour to the Middle East and Europe.
Now Barack Obama is one sharp cooky. I find the reasons given by his Foriegn Policy Adviser, than he whent on the suggestion that he went because Sen. McCain said he should, just a bit hard to believe. Perhaps he yust wanted a break and it was a good chance to get some P.R. footage in the can. Not very likely. This is an American aiming to become President needing to win votes from an American electorate that is interested in Amercan issue. So why the tour and way now?
I have been niggling at thsi all the week and this what I have come up with. Everything he did or did not do was planned down to the last detail, including not visiting that hospital. That was throwing a bone to McCain. He just made nearly everybody look the wrong way.
The key to Se. Obamas trip was in his visit to Berlin to meet Chancellor Merckel of Germany to discuss how the European Union could help him get the U.S.A. out of the swamp in the Middle East and do it with honour, when he become President next February. I could well be wrong, but that would make a lot of sense to me
Complain about this comment
Menedemus @108
I'm sure it's possible that John McCain could go on until he's 90, but the fact is that most people in far less stressful jobs than President retire at 60/65, probably with good reason, and it's clear that people are going to be asking "what happens if...?"
Complain about this comment
Iantownhill @110
"and it's clear that people are going to be asking "what happens if...?"
And I wonder what age the people asking that question will be?
I also imagine it is a question that will be given very high profile asking by supporters of Barack Obama?
Ageism is okay whilst everyone accepts that Racism is verboten. It would seem that it's okay for the Kettle to be called "too old" when it comes to being president!
Complain about this comment
It would be quite wrong to rule out McCain or anyone else on the grounds of age but I think it is quite legitimate to ask the 'what if . . ' question if only because he is currently engaged in the process of selecting a candidate for VP. His choice may well be revealing. Will he pick someone to help will the election or someone competent to take over if necessary? It is not necessarily the same animal.
Complain about this comment
#1 Menedemus,
I'm a little slow in getting into this discussion, and this is hardly the biggest topic being debated, but I'm not at all convinced by your musings about capital cities being determined by statute.
Why would any country need to specify in legislation where its capital city is? It is not the kind of thing that is necessary in legislation, although there may besome countries that do have such provisions anyway. It is basically an epithet that we give to centres of power and decision-making to make life easier for ourselves.
The UK, of course, has no written constitution, just a collection of various Acts of various parliaments and the principles of precedent and common law. Even what there is in writing doesn't specify what should be based where. Given that you mention Scotland, the Scotland Act 1999 describes the powers and responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Ministers, but doesn't say anything about where they should be based. They could up sticks from Edinburgh and move to Achiltibuie if they chose. I'm not aware that the Act of Union says anywhere that London is the capital city. It is just a fact brought about by the political reality.
On the point of whether Edinburgh can be considered a "Capital" given Scotland's place within the UK, my dictionary tells me that a "capital" is the administrative centre of a country or region. Ignoring for a moment the niceties of whether the consituent parts of the UK should be considered as regions or countries in their own right, it would seem by this definition that it is quite possible for London to have the dual role of capital of the UK and England, for Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast to be the capitals of Scotland, Wales and NI respectively, and to keep going down the administrative levels. So London is the capital of the UK, Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland, Dunfermline is the capital of Fife, and so on.
So, a capital is the administrative centre at whatever level of governance you are referring to. It is the location of decision-making bodies that seems to define it, not the size or economic clout of the place. This is why it is quite possible for Canberra to be considered the capital of Australia, Ottawa the capital of Canada, etc even though they are eclipsed by bigger, better-known cities in those countries.
As for US foreign policy; the relative merits of the presidential candidates; the prospects for NATO and/ or standing European forces; the spectacular paranoia of Suffolkboy2 at #84 and his ilk, I should really be working so it will all have to wait.
Complain about this comment
Hmmm. Is Obama running for President of the EU?
Elect him there and keep him, please.
He is not going to win in the US ... despite the fact that all the little socialists in the MSM are humping his candidacy.
Talk to your own bookies ... Obama is going to tank harder than Dukakis vs. Bush Mk.I. Far left socialists ( yes, he looks like a centrist to you-all ... but not to us ) do not win elections in the US, no matter how hard the US press closes their eyes and makes wishes.
Complain about this comment
threnodio @112
Nobody will ask the question "what if . . . " for Barack Obama because of his youthfulness but BECAUSE McCain is 70 it is then okay to ask the question?
It's identical an animal to a White Policeman stopping a Black youth in the street and the Black youth saying "You've only stopped me because I am Black!" compared to the likelihood of the same White policeman stopping a White youth of the same age and the White youth saying"You have only stopped me because I am young?". Both youths feel they are the victims of stereotyping and could be justified in their insinuation or allegation of racism or ageism depending on who it was that was stopped.
In my post at #1, I mused "I just wonder if, when the voters do go to the booths and cast their floating chads or whatever, whether, on a personal basis, the influence of colour prejudice will actually make a big difference? What I mean is that people will always deny that they are racially prejudiced but it does take a huge leap of faith to NOT believe that most people are racist when it really comes down to the nitty-gritty and what they actually feel in their hearts!"
If it is right for voter's to ask "what if...?" of McCain because of a fundamental difference in age between McCain and Obama then one must accept that voters will determine their votes on other obvious physical differences between the two candates.
Oh, and before anyone goes off on one, I do not have a view as to who should be President of the USA. Neither candidate inspires me that much and, as I don't have a vote, I don't care that much who wins - we'll get whoever the majority of votes deems fit for purpose cast in their millions by Americans. Thank goodness they have to make that choice!
Complain about this comment
drinkstable @ 113
You may be right. It is my view that the UK Capital City is London because Westminster and the UK Parliament is there.
The Act of Union that joined Scotland and England does not specify where the Capital should be but it did put the Government and Administration of Scotland into the hands of the Parliament at Westminster - at that time. I suppose then you are also correct to assume that with Devolution the Capital Cities of Wales, Belfast and Edinburgh come into more lilihood of being seen as Capital Cities but I guess it depends upon whether one sees the UK as a whole country or a group of parochial states and counties or regions.
Many other countries seem to determine the Capital City by declaration of Statute or Law but, as with all things, there are exceptions.
I guess the people who know where their Capital City is are the citizens of that country and people should, perhaps, be just little bit more forgiving for non-citizens not knowing where the Capital City is.
You wrote, "So, a capital is the administrative centre at whatever level of governance you are referring to. It is the location of decision-making bodies that seems to define it, not the size or economic clout of the place. " and that is exactly what caused the discussion to come about.
The Capital of the Nederlands/Holland is Amsterdam whereas the Administrative and Seat of Government City is The Hague - which Mark assumed, incorrectly (as he was quite vociferously told!), was the Capital City.
Thus you can, perhaps, see that there is no definitive answer and it is easy to blindly run up different alleyways and not find a true definition of what exactly makes a City a Capital City.
My personal view is that it really only matters to those to whom it matters and it doesn't matter to me!
Complain about this comment
#116 - Menedemus
Westminster is a city in it's own right. That was the whole point of my post at #74, para 2 - not that it really matters. Idle curiosity.
Complain about this comment
threnodio @117
I forgot you had mentioned Westminster in the context of it being a city.
Westminster is a borough of London. It happens to be the borough of London in which the Houses of Parliament are but the administration of London spreads to south of the Thames and from Westminster into adjacent boroughs from Victoria through to Knightsbridge.
Westminster Village has been granted "City" status by royal decree. City status in the United Kingdom being granted by the British monarch to a select group of communities. The holding of city status gives a settlement no special rights other than that of calling itself a "city".
On the other hand, London is the Metropolitan City encompassing many Boroughs including the "City of London" and"City of Wesminster". However, as a former London Citizen living and working in several of the London Boroughs, let me assure you that I lived in the Capital of the United Kingdom even though I did not live in Westminster.
I think London is deemed the Capital but it has never been given City Status as the latter is merely a status symbol originally provided by having a Cathedral located within it's walls and, more lately, for being a Town of significant population size.
On the criteria of population size alone, London could claim City Status but I imagine that no one is bothered about it enough to care.
Complain about this comment
on #109 from Old-Man-Mike:
the proviso might get easily replaced by some other paradigm, and the middle east isn't only Iraq. But the advantage of NATO can be seen in being completely disentangled from the EU, at least as far as I can see at the moment. It can follow its own selfcontained and independent agenda. The different approaches in former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq already show part of the spectrum of options, and hence the flexibility allowed by these different organisations where NATO always plays some role. I agree that a significant improvement in the political processes in the ME would more or less change the needs for continuation of European installations and facilities. Yet, the possibilities to draw such advantages from them didn't grow from one day to the next. Decision on such issues touch several scales of time.
Concerning Obama's motivation to visit Europe meeting politicians and other people here I agree with you too. It was one of the first ideas I had. Apart from the question what Europe could or should offer in this sense at all I think it would be a good idea to come and talk with people here about that. More or less, it's not only the U.S. that's affected by the situation in Iraq.
Complain about this comment
87. At 3:18pm on 27 Jul 2008, threnodio wrote:
"#85 - SuffolkBoy2
Sounds to me like someone who spent most of the seventies in a military base surrounded by Germany. The real German was the other side of the fence."
threnodio you do fool yourself. I spent my time in Germany working for German organisations having three meals a day with Germans and speaking mainly German. My German improved and I started being taken for a German.
I find it very embarrassing to criticise Germans because so many of them were very kind to me.
However a bunch of arrogant, anti-democratic megalomaniacs want to force their Greater European Reich on us knowing that we don't want it. They force me to concentrate on the unpleasant aspects of the continentals.
Soon after arriving in Germany I started to think:"I don't want to be in a political union with you lot." I saw a lot of people screaming at others for merely disagreeing. I believe that this has now changed. I have not seen this on my recent visits. Even the stewardess would not let me provoke her:
"Excuse me, Sir! Are you a citizen of the European Union?"
"No, I'm British. I am a prisoner of the 'EU'-dictatorship."
Something else that disturbed me in Germany: The reaction to the kidnap of Hans-Martin Schleyer. Many, many Germans went around saying "All power should be transferred to one man."
I do not believe that would happen now and I believe that German democracy is very secure. I do believe that people who run the "EU" could try to use a crisis to justify removing the last vestiges of democracy in the "EU".
Your government should make you feel secure. Mine genuinely has made me feel like the prisoner of a lousy dictatorship. I feel totally ill at ease in the "EU" and am just waiting for fascist continental policemen to appear on the streets of England.
Complain about this comment
To: bugbyter 119
Thinking a bit about it, I am sure your right, NATO does stand above the fray in the political sense and that role will continue to be of considerable even if the military role fades away.
I sometimes get the impression that Americans think the rest of the world will sit on their hands until a new American President is elected who then lay out his programme for us lesser mortals to meekly follow. At the present time, nothing could be further from the truth. Europe it using the perceived weakness and power vacuum to push its own agenda forward as rapidly as possible.
The extension of the Barcelona Process to cover all the countries bordering the Mediteranean including Israel, Syria and Egypt. The fact that the Paris summit was co-hosted by President Sarkozy and President Mubarak of Egypt cannot be lost on the US Administration. Also that the EU has gain nearly 300 million, what could be called associate members is suppose.
The other matter is the direct negotiations between the EU represented by Javier Solana the Iranian negotiator. No amount of spin can cover over the fact that William Burns was sent of in a bit of a panic to try and catch up with what was going on.
Obviously these and other initative are not going to bring peace and prosperity in the short term to a region that has known war and imposed governments for most of the last 5,000 years, but we can hope that is a shove in the right direction.
Complain about this comment
A maverick is a wild stallion. John McCain is a Cold War Warrior; an relic from the 20th cenury. He cannot even lower himself to believe that 200,000 Germans may be right. Obama is the man for change.
McCain like a great many Americans believe in a misbelief about history and the U.S war mistic of victory. The U.S. has not won a war since War in the Pacific in 1944. By the time the U.S. military go to Europe, the Russians had defeated the Nazis. What the U.S. did was mop up.
After the mop up came the Marshall Plan but by the time it was implimented Europe was on its way to recovery. The U.S. helped its own economy more than Europe's or Japan's. To the victor go the spoils and the telling of the tale.
The type of victory that McCain wants is not possible since the fall of Colonialism and Raw Imperialism because the Native populations are now too well armed. There is no more speer aginst the Gattling Gun. The Natives have WMD and are of a religious temeperment to use them.
One time the US Marines couple with the Native Quisslings could overthrow and government. Now the Quissling are more afraid of their own people than the might of the U.S. military.
Therefore diplomacy is the only answer. If it were not we would be winning instead of stalemating in Iraq. And the U.S. would not have to bully NATO into sending troops into Afghanistan. The Natives know what Colonization and Neoconlonization are and want no part of the Christian West or the Curse of the Ham, to be a slave unto his brother.
Complain about this comment
To #104. AnonymousCalifornian
"Unfortunately, for some reason mainly right-wing Americans seem to blog on websites like this one."
"Odd, from personal perspective, mainly left-wing Americans seem to blog on this website..... ;-)"
Having originated from a loony left council called Lambeth in the 60/70's I still recall that everybody that was not of their warped view was deemed a facist, thankfully London has finally ditched the main protagonist of that time. Your comment makes me wonder how close to the base mentality of the political circle that joins in Communism/Facism you are, as the two are identical is almost all respects.
PS. I really don't care who the USA elect as they're the one's who have to live with their mistake, ask the English who voted for Gordon Brown, oops I forgot they didn't in that case.
Complain about this comment
#120 - SuffolkBoy2
I stand corrected. I too have spent time in Germany and my experiences have been positive.
For what it is worth, I accept your premise that there is a democratic deficit in the EU but I would have thought that the way to deal with it would be to address the problem, not the institution. It may be that you see them as one and the same.
My problem is that I have come to believe that the democratic process is under the greatest threat in the UK itself and that the big bad beast is not draped in the EU flag. I now live on the European mainland and this may have affected my judgment somewhat.
Complain about this comment
You can say whatever you like about the UK, France, Germany, Japan or any other, but it's still America that has some of the finest politicians money can buy.
Complain about this comment
Re #102
Hello there auroradawn25 thanks for your comments. To be honest i totally agree with what you say. Whilst i knew a bit about British involvement in messing Iran around i got to say you make your point well.
All i was trying to say was that the US has been just as guilty as the rest of Western Europe in the past in flouting democracy in the name of economic or strategic advantage and that the US is not necessarily a beacon of shining light in a world full of hate as many of the crazies would try to potray - We've all been as bad as each other.
Complain about this comment
To #124 threnodio,
You said "I accept your premise that there is a democratic deficit in the EU but I would have thought that the way to deal with it would be to address the problem, not the institution."
I think that we have to accept that it is the institution that is the problem as it's become all things to all people, and that can never work with such a dissimilar and diverse population. If it had kept to it's original mandate of being a common market with open borders then it had a chance. Now EU democracy has fallen under the German consensus system which as anyone knows whose worked in Germany, there are 95% who obey and 5% who order, so there is little true consensus in reality as everything is decided by a few. This is the deficit in EU democracy as an unelected few decide the direction of all of us without our having a voice to affect those decisions.
As for the UK democracy being under threat, you're quite right, what is being done under the guise of fighting terrorism is fast becoming Orwellian. It is appalling that the UK has the second largest number of CCTV cameras after Russia.
Complain about this comment
Buzet23 @127
And that is not even to mention the current 500,000 a year self-authorised surveillance operations being mounted each single year by local authorities in the UK - using legislation that was introduced to 'fight terrorism' in a way in which it was never intended by Parliament.
Undemocratic and truly frightening abuse of power!
Complain about this comment
#127 - Buzet23 and 128 - Menedemus
This is being quite extensively discussed over on Nick Robinson's blog at the moment. Unfortunately it is down at the moment - hopefully for technical reasons and will return.
Complain about this comment
Obamamania is greatly overstated. I have only recently come to understand how incredibly biased the media can be - it seems undemocratic in its influence on our decisions.
I think I probably speak for a good many people in Britain in thinking that we've had a Blair inoculation against the soaring hopes people now seem to be projecting onto old Barak.
Maybe I'm over-cynical but I have a hunch the USA is eventually going to come in for a crushing disappointment if (and when?) Obama is elected. It took us 'til the build-up to the Iraq War to rumble Blair's brilliant acting for what it was. How long will it take Americans with President Obama?
Complain about this comment
@105 anonymous californian.
Here is my post again.
Named-Erion said:
It was unbelivable during the primaries that everything Obama said had positive reporting,and everything Clinton said had negative reporting.Not that I was big fan of Clinton (even though I think she is way better then Obama,much more perceptive and politically mature) but i just failed to understand what all the hysteria was about.
Another thing i want to add to your comment is the race issue.And there is an race issue.How would it look like if more then 90% of white people had voted Clinton during the primary? Is a good thing it did not happen.
Well more then 90% of black voters voted for Obama,and there is a problem here.
And the intelectual level of what was one of the closest people in Obamas life,(Jeremiah Wright?) is scandalous.That a future president could have for so many years taken advice from such an character full of hate but little logic,is a cause for concern.
In my opinion he did not even condemn him the way he should have.I think this issue will come back to haunt Obama,and it well should be.
Is only sad to see that at this difficult times,two not so very favorable politicians are in line to become presidents of the U.S.A
--------------------------------------------------------
And here is your ansewer to the above Post.
Anonymous californian said:
@Named-Erion (13):
"more then 90% of black voters voted for Obama"
The way you've written your post, that does seem racist, and technically that voting pattern was.
However, your analogy does not add up. Imagine if there had not been a 'white' President in American history, 'whites' were a minority in the country, and historically 'whites' faced a great deal of oppression and discrimination. If that were the case, you almost definitely would see an overwhelming majority of 'whites' voting for 'their' candidate.
While every single American President to date has been a 'white' man, there has--as of yet--been no 'black' man as American President. There is HUGE potential for a social impact GLOBALLY if Obama becomes President--unfortunately the man's a naive idiot in the areas of foreign policy (promoting bombing nuclearly-armed Pakistan DURING the Red Mosque crisis for instance) and the economy (there isn't nearly enough money in the budget for his ideas), and his support for abortion is a red line that many Americans, including this American, will not cross, even taking into account the massive hope of social change and reconciliation that an election of a 'black' President could bring.
And on a cynical note, is 'Erion' an attempt to get 'Aryan' through the moderators?
--------------------------------------------------------
Let me deal with your post now.
I put foward the issue of media suport for Obama,and brought a few examples of that.
I said that the vote based purely on the color of the skin of the candidate is a problem,be it a white candidate or a black candidade.Whatever the reasons,a racially motivated vote can not be a non-problem.
I also said that having been for many years so close to a person like Jeremiah Wright who has to much hate and carisma,is a cause for concern.
By the way,Erion is my name,is not an attempt to get Arian through the moderators.
Complain about this comment
Named-Erion @ 131
Cool name Erion! :o)
You said, "I said that the vote based purely on the color of the skin of the candidate is a problem,be it a white candidate or a black candidade."
I mused, "As a moot (corrected!) point, no one seems to want to play the race card in the American Presidential Race and thus both candidtaes do appear to be running quite close to being neck and neck when I read Justin Webb's blog. I just wonder if, when the voters do go to the booths and cast their floating chads or whatever, whether, on a personal basis, the influence of colour prejudice will actually make a big difference? What I mean is that people will always deny that they are racially prejudiced but it does take a huge leap of faith to NOT believe that most people are racist when it really comes down to the nitty-gritty and what they actually feel in their hearts!".
No one seems willing to discuss this. Is it fear of being seen as racist?
The fact is there are two different physical characteristics that differentiate the two candidates one is age and the other is ethnicity.
If people in America do vote on racial grounds then the US does have a problem. If people in America do vote on racial grounds then, potentially, the world has a problem.
Jeremiah Wright is the ugly face of anti-white racism and you are absolutely right to raise this as a concern.
The problem is that, probably because of fear of being denigrated as being racist, no one seems to have the courage to call it a concern or even raise it as an issue.
Is it merely poor lack of judgement by Barack Obama or is it that Obama HAS been influenced by Jeremiah Wright but simply wants to keep his friend at a distance until after he is elected?
Complain about this comment
Keep talking Obama-McChain, because they have magical power with a point of finger to solve everything... WTO failed as expected, so we are in same situations as before, which means more trade deficit for US, so how about this dear self declared politicos?
tight and thighter to the neck..
Complain about this comment
@ Menedemus.
You can see Anonymouscalifornian response to my post to see why not so many people dare to have a frank debate about the race issue.
All but acuse me of racism.
He talked so much about the black comunity in America and the historical injustice done to that particular community.
And here i would like to make a point.
But let me first start by sain that blind suport for a black candidate based on historical injustice of black community is ilogical,what does it matter if someone is black if he is not capable of leading the country?
First and foremost should be the political capability of the candidate,and if it happens that the particular candidate is black,then even better,by the time America had a black president.But one can not bring the historical argument as suport for a candidate,without taking into acount his political abilities.
My point was that Barack Obama is not part of the cultural and historical heritage of African-American community anyway.So i dont understand the big deal in the media about the African-American candidate.Obama is not.
His father is from Kenia,and his mother is a white American.
He Is Kenian-American and not African-American.
African-americans are the community of people that were shiped from all over Africa as Slaves.They have no Nationality to identify themselves with in Africa,and is a community with its own cultural and historical heritage,of which Obama himself is not part of.One only needs to look at his origines and the life he has lived.
The only thing conecting Obama to the African-American community is the color of his skin,the same as a Jamaican,Nigerian etc.
So can the media please stop calling Obama African-American?
Complain about this comment
7 hours to moderate one comment seems a bit harsh on you Named-Erion?
Maybe they don't want the rest of us to know what you think before we all get grey hair and are knocking at death's door?
Complain about this comment
at Named-Erion,
BBC just indirectly told you to shut-up, they freezed ur comment, you are out, fired..
10 hours and still no sign, this is freedom of speech.. BBC=EU propaganda voice
Complain about this comment
Menedemus,
I can guarantee there is nothing malicious exept a very honest opinion on my part.There is no offensive language used.
Perhaps is because I made a point about Obama not being an African-American at all.He is Kenian-American,of a Kenian father and white American mother.I find it strange the post has not come through yet!
Complain about this comment
Named-Erion,
I am sure there would not be anything offensive or objectionable. ;o)
It just seemed odd that the thread was stuck and 'awaiting moderation' for so long!
Maybe the BBC Moderators have all gone 'European' and they go on holiday in August as well as Mark?
Complain about this comment
Well, maybe it's been swallowed by a virus called "Heathrow" ?
Complain about this comment
Named-Erion @ 134
Here is an example of reverse racism.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/7534736.stm
Even a democrat opponent of Barack Obama can be criticised in mysogenist terms by this guy who obviously supports Barack Obama because of his same ethnicity but perhaps worse still the lyrics suggest that John McCain, the Republican candidate for the presidency, does not belong in "any chair unless he's paralysed".
I don't mind if Barack Obama is elected because the people think he's the best man with the best policies but if he is seen to be the ideal candidate because of his ethnic background then America is in trouble.
This would also be true if McCain was elected by voters who want to vote because of his ethnicity.
This link seems to me to follow on from Barack Obama's Pastor Jeremiah Wright's tirade against white people in America and could indicate that Obama's grassroot support of 90% Afro-Americans could be more significant and actually be a bad thing for America!
Complain about this comment
Is Obama running for president of EU or USA?What on earth was he doing here?Ridiculous.Who needs his speeches?
Complain about this comment
Everyone must realize that there are really two extremes to america at the moment, one is the conservative movement that controls the media, because it is owned by big business and controls in large part talk radio. Now these combined mediums have continuosly spewed lies and vile across the airwaves which makes it almost impossible to have a logical debate with any of the conservatives. Now the conservatives mainly falls in three categories, christian conservative(their like sheep they follow what ever their preacher say: a big thing being spread right now is that Obama is the anti-christ, so really these are fundamentalists-crazy nut jobs ) than you have dumb ignorant people that listen to talk radio-hannity rush limbaugh or read anne coulter. Now many of these talk radio heads advocate death of liberals, now this became formalized with the recent shooting of a liberal church in some redneck state in the south, and finally what is possible the most formidable conservative is the big buisness executive, they provide the money control the media, and filters the imporatant issues to the people. In fact our national public radio is largely financed by large corporations today and subsequently has stopped reporting on meaningful issues to it s listeners. Now this is a losing war faught against liberals, and unfortunately it would not suprise me if Mccain wins it. They spread around blatant lies that the media doesnt question and will probably swing the vote his way.
Complain about this comment
indlib @ 142
From what you say perhaps the American Presidential Election should not be decided by US voters as the ones who would vote for McCain are either religious fanatics or dumb ignorant people or big business executives - how can America trust them to vote properly?
Perhaps the US should just simply disenfranchise anyone who might vote Rebublican - they are clearly too dumb to know any better!
Or, perhaps the US should just simply elect their President by straw poll or even use the theory that chrisboote suggested at #4 - let the taller candidate win? Heaven help us all if they are both the same height - that would really screw up the US electoral system!
On a slightly more serious note, your comment sound suspiciously like an excuse for Barack Obama to not win the American Presidential Election. I thought that was impossible given Barack Obama's celebrity and star status - I was given to believe Obama could walk on water given some of his supporters reported comments?
Complain about this comment
@Menedemus (143)
the EU-elites would know a solution to the presidential election of the USA. They would suggest to simply abolish the election and appoint some politician without a popular mandate. And the EU would also suggest to move 90% of the powers of the US congress to an unelected body of US kommissars supported by a handful of appointed representatives of the states (who would no longer need to pass laws through their state legislatures).
As for the coming elections, I cannot believe anyone would seriously consider voting for such an empty suit as Obama who has no trackrecord or accomplishments whatsoever.
Complain about this comment
@inlib (142)
if you had bothered to actually follow political discourse in the USA and journalist approach to politics, you would know that most major networks (ABC, CBS, CNN, NBC) and newspapers (WaPost, NY Times, LA Times) are paid up members of the media wing of the democrat party.
They even went as far as to conspire with the democrats to influence the 2000 presidential election. The agreement was that one of the major networks would call the state of Florida early for Gore (votes returns permitting) at a moment when voting booths in the Florida panhandle (which is in a different time zone) and midwest to western USA were still open.
This most certainly deprived Bush (whether you like him or not is not the issue here) of a significant number of votes. Bush would have comfortably won Florida without this media/democrat party conspiracy and also would have won a majority in New Mexico instead of losing it by a razor thin margin. The final electoral college tally would then have been: 276-262. One or two other midwestern states were also only marginally won by Gore so the real margin could have been wider.
You know why talk radio is big in America? And why there isn't any major liberal talk radio? Because many people are sick and tired of the pro-democrat propaganda of the main stream media. Talk radio is their only alternative. And care to see hate-spewing moonbats with crazy conspiracy theories about Bush's supposed Reich or moronic theories about 9/11 being an inside job? Go to democratunderground or dailykos. There is where the real nutjobs be.
Complain about this comment
It would almost seem fitting that the election should be determined by straw poll, the majority of those able to vote lack even an acute understanding of world affairs and are simply captivated by the idea of change that is presented by Obama and not the consiquences of taking radical and unreasonable strives for change such as interfering with other countries issues (palistine) without an inkling of understanding for the conflicts with which he is adulterating, on the other hand Mcain is also interested in occupying foriegn countries with more american troops, who knows which canidate can cause the most damage, my vote is on Obama do to his lack of knowledge in the political field but who knows at this point it might as well be left up to chance
Complain about this comment
LillyAugusta:
Many U.S. citizens live in Europe; we have the right to vote, too. Why wouldn't Obama campaign among us, too?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS