A Nuclear IRAN

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by pigeonmeister

You really have no idea how hollow this 'America defends the interest of the world' crap has become.

Then the troops we have had in Germany and Japan and South Korea were NOT there to defend those places?

Why is the international community always wrong and America always right?

Are you asking the same questions of Russia and China with regard to Iran? Are you inveighing against them for defying the will of the rest of the world community on this issue, as you inveigh against the US for so doing with regard to Iran? Maybe that's going on in Europe, but we over here aren't hearing the same tideswell of public outrage against those two nations that we heard against the US and Britain...

Think about Iranian strategic aims.

Like hastening the emergence of the Hidden Imam?

A country that Inquarta admits would never even attack a country it despises (Israel).

Only my considered judgement, that. I could be wrong. I hate to think of the consequences if I am...if we are.



[quote]A country that at a drop of a hat can destroy any hope of peace in Iraq. A country that the head of the IAEA has said is not violating the NPT. A country that can cripple the world's oil marekt./quote]

To be fair, if it can do all of this now---and I agree that it can---how much more could it do behind the shield of a nuclear deterrent?

Worst of all, if it thought it could keep its fingerprints off the operation and evade consequences for it, what would stop it from providing a device to Hamas or Islamic Jihad? Or to a group in Baghdad, for that matter?

Now none of this is makes for a good situation, but why are you not contemplating an attack on North Korea?: profoundly more brutal, tyrannical, brazen in its WMD programme, unwilling to have any kind of inspection, overtly aggressive and in total defiance of America. I'll tell you why in one word: Islam.

One-word answers to problems of international relations? Isn't this the same tendency to oversimplify for which you take the Bush Administration to task?

How about adding: oil reserves, enormous wealth, a powerful patron ( China ), and a broad, easily replenished leadership base---things North Korea lacks---just for starters?

There is no law that says an ineffectual diplomatic strategy must be immediately followed, for lack of imagination, by an insane military strategy.

True enough. But there must be a credible threat of more to back up diplomacy, else it's just idle chatter to a committed miscreant. There is a reason why negotiators are backed up by a ring of SWAT teams in hostage or barricade situations: because without them the malefactors would be tempted simply to shoot their ways out. However patient the negotiators are, the SWAT teams remain there, just in case. And sometimes they have to be used.

[YankeeRebel]

Originally Posted by Epee_Pox

Really? Which would be the foolish message:

(a) "Iran, if you do not bow to international demands that you comply with international law... If you do not cease all attempts at nuclear fuel enrichment that create weapons-grade materials... Then we will not use any military force, but you can be sure we will pass resolutions condemning your actions and try to talk Russia and China into agreeing to some economic sanctions."

or

(b) "Iran, if you do not bow to international demands [etc.]... Then we will put economic and other pressures on you. If that doesn't work, then we will wipe out your military, remove you from power, and give control of your country to the masses you have oppressed and let them decide what to do with you."

Again, I'd like for somebody to tell me how we are going to wipe out Iran's military. It is all well and good to make a threat of military force, but our threat is only so good as our ability to back it up. Our own military is stuck in Iraq playing the role of peacekeepers. Would our military have to abandon Iraq to invade Iran? If so, how would we stop Iraq from collapsing to the terrorists? Could somebody please tell me how we could invade Iran while maintaining a real occupational force in Iraq?

[L.O.A.S.]

Originally Posted by YankeeRebel

Again, I'd like for somebody to tell me how we are going to wipe out Iran's military.

I imagine the smart guys in the Pentagon would say "we could tell, but then we'd have to kill you".

Originally Posted by YankeeRebel

It is all well and good to make a threat of military force, but our threat is only so good as our ability to back it up.

Yes, and our guys in green (tan) are all shiny boots and hot air.

Originally Posted by YankeeRebel

Would our military have to abandon Iraq to invade Iran?

I think the words "deploy from" works better than "abandon".

Originally Posted by YankeeRebel

If so, how would we stop Iraq from collapsing to the terrorists?

Graduation day for the Iraqi security force.

Originally Posted by YankeeRebel

Could somebody please tell me how we could invade Iran while maintaining a real occupational force in Iraq?

Actually, the force in Iraq will be the known as the "rear eschelon or REMFs" by the guys invading Iran.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by YankeeRebel

Again, I'd like for somebody to tell me how we are going to wipe out Iran's military. It is all well and good to make a threat of military force, but our threat is only so good as our ability to back it up. Our own military is stuck in Iraq playing the role of peacekeepers. Would our military have to abandon Iraq to invade Iran? If so, how would we stop Iraq from collapsing to the terrorists? Could somebody please tell me how we could invade Iran while maintaining a real occupational force in Iraq?

Really? You mean idle threats are of no consequence? Isnt that what the original point of this thread was?

If you really think the US and Israel can't turn the Iranian military into scrap metal, you just have no clue.

The Iraqi military's back was broken in a matter of weeks with nothing but airstrikes. At the time (Gulf war 1), Iraq supposedly had one of the biggest, most well trained millitary forces on the planet. Turned to scrap in a few weeks of pounding. And, the weapons technologies have improved significantly since then. And, you dont have to wipe it out. Just take away it's control structure, and plink away at it until they call it quits. The government collapses, and creates a popular uprising.

And you have a big base right nextdoor to Iran now. Mighty convenient.

[Slim]

Originally Posted by L.O.A.S.

I imagine the smart guys in the Pentagon would say "we could tell, but then we'd have to kill you".


Yes, and our guys in green (tan) are all shiny boots and hot air.


I think the words "deploy from" works better than "abandon".


Graduation day for the Iraqi security force.


Actually, the force in Iraq will be the known as the "rear eschelon or REMFs" by the guys invading Iran.

You got that ALL right.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Ripples in a pond, my good sir, ripples in a pond. The military force exerted in Iraq was the big stone we threw into the pond, Syria and Libya and Lebanon and the rest are experiencing the ripples.

So you totally reject the point that Libya first offered to disarm in 1999 and that the main cogs for Libyan disarmament were turning long before 9/11? The reason your 'ripples in a pond' analogy fails is because the still pond only becomes rippled after the pebble is thrown (the pebble can thus be the only catalyst- as there was total calm before it was thrown). This precludes the idea that there were ripples before the pebble- something even you cannot deny.

I think it fairly obvious that you are incorrect.

fair enough

I'll ignore the personal intimation.

because there was none

There is such a thing as "enough evidence", though.

true enough 'balance of evidence' is the best we can get.

Somehow I'm not surprised

Sorry to be so boringly predictable!

Beg pardon? You are saying you have no opinions or beliefs, no world view? If you do, that's an ideology...

And if one is "never" willing to reconsider a position, one is an ideologue, a priori. One has decided before the fact that nothing can change one's mind. No?

It's an interesting point. Perhaps it would have been more accurate to say that I don't subscribe to a rigid 'school' of ideology that could be characterised within a right/left or liberal/conservative perspective. I'll try and work on a world view, but I am young and my view keeps changing. I'll probably end up as an old conservative like everyone else. I don't pretend that Britain has an ethical foreign or economic policy. At the same time I like living in one of the worlds top 5 economies. It's people trying to claim both that annoys me. Maybe that's a world view?

Here's a question perhaps you can answer for me. I know the matter is complex, but hopefully you can boil it down somewhat:

What is the root source to which most attribute this animosity? Is it that Bush took, essentially, unilateral action in Iraq, against the advice of ( apart from a few exceptions like Britain ) the rest of the world?

Huge question. It's connected to the secularisation of Europe in my opinion. Europeans (particularly Britons) are very dubious of religious fundementalism. Bush basically mentions God too much in relation to his decision making and it worries us. This ties in to a Europe that has completely different perspective on social issues- the idea of abortion, gay marriage or evolution theory being an important electoral issue is totaly alien to us. The death penalty (particularly of teenages) represents another huge gulf in attitudes. It is basically because all of these issues are debated within the context of the bible, and lobbyied by religious groups.

Secondly it is style. European politicians are more formal, they wouldn't ever say things like: 'The good folks of (insert place) are gonna take out the folks that did this'. You have to admit he does say 'folks' a lot, but I admit this is probably just an issue of superificial cultural snobbery. I suspect that having the Terminator in charge of the 7th biggest economy in the world, with power of life and death, reinforces this idea.

Thirdly I am afraid that there is a genuine belief, held by I would say 90% of the people I have ever spoken to, that Bush isn't intelligent enough to hold the office. This becomes painfully apparent when he is speaking next to the hugely intelligent and articulate Blair. Type in 'stupid Bush quotes' on google and you can see that Bush is not good at thinking on his feet. It is felt that Bush makes decisions on a whim and without due consideration (not knowing the difference between Shia and Sunni before the invasion plans is an example). I think that Bush has made a career out of this kind of underestimation, he is a very talented politician. But in terms of pure intellect I don't think he is a hugely capable and without Rove he would be lost. You can't say that about European politicians now, and (just as importantly) you couldn't say that about Bush's father then.

Europeans perceive 2 America's: the blue bits around the coast and the huge red bit in the middle (gross geographical and demographical simplifications aside). Broadly Bush is from, and speaks more too, the middle. There is a feeling that you don't have to speak to the edge to win an election so (very simply) Bush isn't speaking to us either. Kerry spoke to the edge, thus Europe desperately wanted Kerry. Bush was seen as man who was a 'believer' and I don't mean this in a purely religious way. I mean a believer in himself, in American values, her world position, her abilties and her aims. It was felt he offered simple answers to a complex world and that broadly American's were voting for a man who lacked any kind of self-doubt, and that was dangerous. Bush was popular because ordinary Americans could relate to him as a person and in his beliefs- even how he talked. Blair, on the other hand, was popluar because he appealed to ordinary people. Working class Britain didn't/couldn't relate to his character. I think that you could probably say the same thing about JFK. Perhaps this is the reason JFK is so idolised in Europe.

I think there was a sneaking feeling that the Bush admin held Europe and the UN in contempt and that they really weren't interested in 'old' Europe's pomposity. I think that Americans quite liked this 'quality' in Bush, and Europeans picked up on this. On the other hand we saw America reject Kerry for basically appearing too European (in fact I think this claim was made many times by the right wing press).

Of course all these views are somewhat short-sighted and represent some level of stereotype. Europeans would prefer to think God got Bush elected rather than tax-cuts.

So before you even talk about Iraq (or indeed Kyoto or the Florida recount) it was clear Bush was not going to be popular. To be honest anti-Americanism in Europe was a significant factor before Bush. I see little point in outlining the reasons Iraq made it so much worse.

Telling about what? The terseness of journalists? The tyranny of editors?

There have been other accounts which have implied pretty clearly that the chain of events that ended in the Syrian pull-out began with the US invasion of Iraq. Are they equally telling? Offsettingly telling? Slightly less telling?

I will never understand journalism, I'm afraid. Which is one reason I hesitate to rely on it---even though we the public have nothing better at our disposal

I am not going to argue with that- the article wasn't evidence, take it or leave it.

[pigeonmeister]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Then the troops we have had in Germany and Japan and South Korea were NOT there to defend those places?

No they were- that is not connected to my statement though. I hate to be the messanger of bad news but most of the world doesn't see America as defender of freedom. Are US troops popular in either Germany or Japan? In a poll of 21,953 people in 21 countries, on average 47% said they now view US influence in the world as mostly negative, 38% saw it as positive.

This is quite a grim picture for the US," said Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA), which carried out the poll with GlobeScan.

Kull also said:

"Negative feelings about Bush are high and are generalising to the American people who re-elected him."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4185205.stm

Are you asking the same questions of Russia and China with regard to Iran? Are you inveighing against them for defying the will of the rest of the world community on this issue, as you inveigh against the US for so doing with regard to Iran? Maybe that's going on in Europe, but we over here aren't hearing the same tideswell of public outrage against those two nations that we heard against the US and Britain...

I can't get my head round this either, and can understand why this is an issue of genuine resentment for Americans. America may be fairly brutal in how it maintains its global dominance. But I know who I would rather run the world. Russian politics is a sick joke. In terms of morals, I don't think there is a brutal regime left that doesn't enjoy Russian or Chinese investment/veto protection. Yet nobody really goes around with T shirts saying Putin=World's Biggest Terrorist, and such garments are common on any anti-Bush rally. The poll I cited above, finds China more popular than America??

If you are the only superpower you have more interests, more to protect and more abilty to affect change. Thus American Foreign policy is magnified greatly. As I have said I don't as huge a problem with American hegemony as you might think, it is the hypocracy of the freedom loving rhetoric that smoke-screens it. American exceptionalism is morally repugnant, and American commitment to freedom, democracy and human rights is not anything like what is peddled. At least we were honest about the arrogant nature of the British empire- to serve Britain and spread civilisation to people who wore skirts made of grass!

Like hastening the emergence of the Hidden Imam?

That is not an Iranian strategic aim. It is a very weird belief held by the Iranian president. Its relevance is overplayed- much like the Christian Zionist connection to Israel (i.e Israel must control West Bank for the second coming to happen). I agree that it is worrying, but Ahmadinejad has no experience of foreign affairs and no control over Iranian foreign policy.

Only my considered judgement, that. I could be wrong. I hate to think of the consequences if I am...if we are.

We all could be wrong, but I think your (our) instincts are right. America is the only country in the world who thinks that threats of violence to Iran will achieve anything positive. The countries most likely to provide a way out of the deadlock are curiously probably the countries most hostile to US intervention (Russia and China). Indeed it is Russia who has offered the compromise of providing enriched Uranium to Iran in the short term.

To be fair, if it can do all of this now---and I agree that it can---how much more could it do behind the shield of a nuclear deterrent?

Or how much more relaxed would Iran be if it could guarantee its own national security? But I am not arguing that a nuclear Iran offers anything positive to the world, it is just my opinion that a US strike would offer something even less positive -to the point of serious counter-production.

Worst of all, if it thought it could keep its fingerprints off the operation and evade consequences for it, what would stop it from providing a device to Hamas or Islamic Jihad? Or to a group in Baghdad, for that matter?

That is exactly the same argument as 'would Iran use its nukes on Israel?' I have argued that it wouldn't.

One-word answers to problems of international relations? Isn't this the same tendency to oversimplify for which you take the Bush Administration to task?

How about adding: oil reserves, enormous wealth, a powerful patron ( China ), and a broad, easily replenished leadership base---things North Korea lacks---just for starters?

Touche! Not going to try and defend the point about oversimplification. I don't, however, agree with your judgement that iran is the greater threat, or agree with the reasons you give for this.

True enough. But there must be a credible threat of more to back up diplomacy, else it's just idle chatter to a committed miscreant. There is a reason why negotiators are backed up by a ring of SWAT teams in hostage or barricade situations: because without them the malefactors would be tempted simply to shoot their ways out. However patient the negotiators are, the SWAT teams remain there, just in case. And sometimes they have to be used.

You can't prove that Iran has broken the law, therefore talk of 'bringing in SWAT teams' is not appropriate. Encouraging Iran back into the international community is the only chance of success here, pointing guns at them wont help- they are not scared of America. A threat is only useful if those you are threatening actually feel threatened.

[Slim]

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/821b8e1c-8f...0779e2340.html

[jeff]

Interesting, that, but I don't think it surprising. The idea that Iran might become a nuclear power, with the pro-genocide remarks of their government, and the obvious ineffectiveness (to date) of the Europeans, Chinese and Russians in preventing this, is a strong agent for overcoming resistance to the idea of military intervention. If we could be sure that they only want nukes as a way to ensure they aren't invaded, had no other intentions for it and could be relied upon to safeguard the weapons, or if we could be assured that the diplomatic compromises would be effective in preventing them getting a weapons capability, that would be wonderful.

Of course, should the US (or Israel) successfully de-fang Iran - which appears to be a tall order - all those countries would publicly wring their hands about what a terrible imperialist act that was, while their leadership secretly (IMO) heaves a sigh of relief, not only that it was done, but that they didn't have to be publicly seen to have done it.

Switching gears, and taking Inq's position, I don't give a lot of credence to the idea that policies are stupid because large numbers of Europeans say so, or because they have a deep enjoyment of mocking Bush as stupid. I like to mock him too, but it can't be used as an alternative to serious thought on the issues. A lot of people mocked Reagan as a cowboy and warmonger, which liberated them to not have to think about deployment of Soviet short range nuclear missiles in Eastern Europe. The fact that so many people resent the US even for the act of preserving their liberty and safety (as pigeonmeister points out) indicates there is a disfunction in how they view the US that distorts their judgement and credibility.

[keith]

Originally Posted by jeff

.........obvious ineffectiveness (to date) of the Europeans, Chinese and Russians in preventing this, is a strong agent for overcoming resistance to the idea of military intervention............... should the US (or Israel) successfully de-fang Iran - which appears to be a tall order - all those countries would publicly wring their hands about what a terrible imperialist act that was, while their leadership secretly (IMO) heaves a sigh of relief, not only that it was done, but that they didn't have to be publicly seen to have done it............

............The fact that so many people resent the US even for the act of preserving their liberty and safety (as pigeonmeister points out) indicates there is a disfunction in how they view the US that distorts their judgement and credibility.

Sorry for the selevtive snippage - dude, how is the pointless anti-americanism of some europeans - do something!No not that! - any different from this kind of pointless "america has to spend its time fixing the problems europeans create" bull****.

When the arguement turns into euro vs USA finger pointing its kind of run its course.

Also bear in mind that the if the USA had 'saved' us from the evil Soviets our radioactive ashes would have been dead chuffed - lets hear it one more time for limited nuclear war in the European theatre .

[jeff]

No problem with the snippage. Snip away!

Finger-pointing of that nature is foolish regardless of who is doing it. There's just a lot more of it emanating from the European side of the pond than the US side. Or so it seems, based on the comments several have made on this board and earlier in this thread. (Perhaps because most in the US are oblivious to European foreign policy in the first place). Perhaps, with the US being more interventionist, that gives the Europeans a lot more activities to ***** about. "Quiet diplomacy" is much less dramatic, even when ineffective.

For the "saved from the Soviets". Yes, I quite believe that the US was the largest force preventing the Soviets from extending its domination to Western Europe, and hastening the end of the Soviet experiment. Quite worth a thread of its own if you think it debatable, but I think it clear that the players in the Cold War, and their contributions, are easily identified. As far as the specific subject of "limited nuclear war in Europe" is concerned, it's my recollection, perhaps faulty, that Brezhnev deployed medium range devices in captive Soviet Bloc countries, and that it was our similar deployment that called their bluff and made them withdraw. Perhaps my memory is faulty on that, but it's hardly the case that the US was spoiling for a nuclear fight in Bavaria.

[keith]

Originally Posted by jeff

Finger-pointing of that nature is foolish regardless of who is doing it. There's just a lot more of it emanating from the European side of the pond than the US side.

Really? I've always tended to find that the US tends to blame the inept wishful thinking Euros and the Euros the hamfisted simplistic americans. Which you hear more of tends to vary with which side of the atlantic you are watching the TV on.

Originally Posted by jeff

Perhaps, with the US being more interventionist, that gives the Europeans a lot more activities to ***** about. "Quiet diplomacy" is much less dramatic, even when ineffective.

I have also though US foriegn policy swung from studied indifference to 'save the day' - which is perhaps more a reflection of the publics that the European and American politicians serve. To get the america news media to notice something you need specifics Israel/Iran/nuclear weapons works - others don't. Of course this tends to mean that interventionist is about all you've got left .

European politicians are much better about 'being concerned' since their electorates demand it - but they also demand jobs, which the British labour party discovered when it attempted to apply its 'ethical foreign policy' to the arms trade

Originally Posted by jeff

For the "saved from the Soviets".

.. ahh thread drift.

Originally Posted by jeff

Yes, I quite believe that the US was the largest force preventing the Soviets from extending its domination to Western Europe, and hastening the end of the Soviet experiment. Quite worth a thread of its own if you think it debatable, but I think it clear that the players in the Cold War, and their contributions, are easily identified.

... but as you point out, relative contributions are debatable. After all what america got was somewhere to face the soviet threat at an arms length - quite a good deal I would have thought. I seem to remember a certain US president was willing to walk right up to the line when Miami was going to be at the same range as Munich......

Originally Posted by jeff

As far as the specific subject of "limited nuclear war in Europe" is concerned, it's my recollection, perhaps faulty, that Brezhnev deployed medium range devices in captive Soviet Bloc countries, and that it was our similar deployment that called their bluff and made them withdraw.

Which is the perfect example western (and eastern) europe was were NATO and the Warsaw pact pushed up at each other - the idea that the way things turned out was somehow an inevitable consequence of brilliant strategic thinking has always struck me as quite scary.

Originally Posted by jeff

Perhaps my memory is faulty on that, but it's hardly the case that the US was spoiling for a nuclear fight in Bavaria.

Better Dead than Red.... or was that Better Red than Dead?

[jeff]

I don't think we're all that far apart, and will try to elaborate what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by keith

Really? I've always tended to find that the US tends to blame the inept wishful thinking Euros and the Euros the hamfisted simplistic americans. Which you hear more of tends to vary with which side of the atlantic you are watching the TV on.

Those are the relevant stereotypes, but there is much more energy spent on vituperation on the European side. We don't have street protests against Europe in the US, or widespread "we hate-<insert name of leader here>" as popular rhetoric. If you go to Green Park in London (Picadilly side) you see a permanent sales display of "Bush is a murderer", "The US has bloody hands" cartoons and T-shirts. I don't see anything remotely equivalent to that in the US on the subjects of Chirac, Putin, Schroeder. A protester can get big mileage in France for "I hate McDo", but you can't do the same in the US with "I hate Brie".

Originally Posted by keith

I have also though US foriegn policy swung from studied indifference to 'save the day' - which is perhaps more a reflection of the publics that the European and American politicians serve. To get the america news media to notice something you need specifics Israel/Iran/nuclear weapons works - others don't. Of course this tends to mean that interventionist is about all you've got left .

I think that equally a stereotype. A big mistake to equate "US foreign policy" with what shows up in mass media, especially electronic media. Or would you equate UK foreign policy with what shows up in the Star? Most media outlets in most countires are narrow-focused on local issues.

Originally Posted by keith

European politicians are much better about 'being concerned' since their electorates demand it - but they also demand jobs, which the British labour party discovered when it attempted to apply its 'ethical foreign policy' to the arms trade

Are they indeed? They're certainly far less concerned about about respecting the democratically expressed will of the people, as demonstrated by the "let's carry on to Euro unification" despite the defeats in the public polls. Public demand for jobs? Well, clearly the Euro system does a far worse job of that than the US, as a quick look at unemployment rates shows. (Interesting, but I'm not sure how it applies)

Originally Posted by keith

.. ahh thread drift.

Exactly what I was trying to prevent! Boy, that's a fruitless endeavor...

Originally Posted by keith

... but as you point out, relative contributions are debatable. After all what america got was somewhere to face the soviet threat at an arms length - quite a good deal I would have thought. I seem to remember a certain US president was willing to walk right up to the line when Miami was going to be at the same range as Munich......

Debatable they may be, but the facts would make it clear that the preponderance of the effort and cost was sustained by the US. Surely not the impovershed UK, the ambivalent France (who sometimes favored Moscow over Washington anyway) or the initially prostrate and subsequently pacifist Germany and Japan. It was the US that held the burden.

Considering that most ICBMs in the USSR were targeted at the US, I'm not sure what consolation that's supposed to provide. If the Big One ever happened, the missiles were going to sail over Europe (well, over the North Pole, more likely) and land here. That's not much of an "arms length" in a nuclear exchange. The radioactive ashes were more likely to be in Duluth than Dresden.

Originally Posted by keith

Which is the perfect example western (and eastern) europe was were NATO and the Warsaw pact pushed up at each other - the idea that the way things turned out was somehow an inevitable consequence of brilliant strategic thinking has always struck me as quite scary.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that by putting up weapons to match Soviet ones, the US was the aggressor, or that placement of Soviet weapons pointed at Western Europe did not increase the risk to Europe, yet US weapons pointed at the Warsaw Block as deterrence against those weapons and the Sword of Damocles they could have become was a threat to the West? That's reversed.

Yes, it was quite scary, and could quite possibly have gone the other way. I sure remember (stupid) atomic attack drills in grade school.

Originally Posted by keith

Better Dead than Red.... or was that Better Red than Dead?

Ah, well that was always a question of who you were asking. Gee, I wonder where Charred Phoenix is these days?

[keith]

Originally Posted by jeff

Those are the relevant stereotypes, but there is much more energy spent on vituperation on the European side.

True and unfortunately a function of being the worlds sole power - which isn't an excuse for the mindless critique, did you read Garrison Keiler's review of the new Levy book in todays NYT?

On the other hand when the issue comes up in the US it does demonstrate that people are the same everywhere - freedom fries may have been a joke but plenty of people ran with it.

Originally Posted by jeff

We don't have street protests against Europe in the US, or widespread "we hate-<insert name of leader here>" as popular rhetoric. If you go to Green Park in London (Picadilly side) you see a permanent sales display of "Bush is a murderer", "The US has bloody hands" cartoons and T-shirts.

Which is a function of percieved power - after all the general perception is that if america wants it enough it can get it. Why waste your time marching against France, when you can vote for Bush instead?

Originally Posted by jeff

I don't see anything remotely equivalent to that in the US on the subjects of Chirac, Putin, Schroeder. A protester can get big mileage in France for "I hate McDo", but you can't do the same in the US with "I hate Brie".

Of course since america could actually level Iran if it wanted to the issue of 'concern' over US foreign policy is global. The rest of the world gets no vote in US elections but has to live with US foreign policy. Post cold war this is true of no other country. This one is like it or lump it - but you can't say its unfair.

Originally Posted by jeff

I think that equally a stereotype. A big mistake to equate "US foreign policy" with what shows up in mass media, especially electronic media. Or would you equate UK foreign policy with what shows up in the Star? Most media outlets in most countires are narrow-focused on local issues.

Well the BBC may be good for getting a view of the world but it is true t