NYT: Many in Europe See U.S. Vote as a Lose-Lose Affair

[kskiska]

BERLIN, Oct. 28 - No matter who wins the presidential election next week, the consequences for American-European relations will be bad, according to a deeply pessimistic view taking hold here.

If President Bush wins, the reasoning goes, pro-Kerry Europe will be astonished at what it will see as the bad judgment of the American electorate. Europeans will be confirmed in their sense that they are from Earth and Americans from some other planet.

But if Senator John Kerry wins, the result may well be an almost immediate trans-Atlantic crisis. Mr. Kerry, having presented himself in the campaign as the man who can restore a functioning alliance, will ask Germany and France to come to the aid of the United States in Iraq. Germany and France will refuse, and Americans will feel angry and betrayed.

"If they were to say no to Kerry, the risk of a backlash against Europe in America would be large," said William Drozdiak, the director of the German Marshall Fund's Transatlantic Center. "Americans would say, 'We can't depend on Europe, even though we protected Europe for 50 years.' It will cause lasting damage to the relationship, a great sense of disillusionment."

more…
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/29/international/europe/29berlin.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1099022726-P4KYcuGBBDpqq5OIBposPA

[Pirate Smile]

1. They better be ready to give something - $ or training troops, etc.

or learn to be happy having US Presidents that treat them like Bush does.

[krkaufman]

11. That's the bottom line.

The world better work it's collective ass off to help make Kerry successful -- unless they want another Bush-like incompetent in 4 years.

Assuming...

[Voltaire99]

23. LOL! You're in complete dreamland.

And sound little different from a neo-con.

[UKCynic]

27. In your dreams, Pirate Smile

"They better be ready to give something - $ or training troops, etc.
or learn to be happy having US Presidents that treat them like Bush does."

The United States of Europe will be bigger, richer and better educated than the USA, our former revolted colony. Don't talk that way or we will burn you White House down again.

Seriously though, the Germans will co-operate, the French never co-operate, and Poland is already signed up. Provided that Kerry doesn't think like Pirate Smile all will be well, but first you Americans have to get rid of Bush. Then we can talk.

Good luck to you all, I wish I could be with you.

[jdj]

50. LOL

that was funny.

[jobycom]

56. That's the key that Americans, especially Bush supporters, overlook

Americans are so full of themselves. We've heard Reagan and now Bush preach that we can do no wrong, that we are the standard by which right and wrong, good and evil are judged. If we do it, it is right, no matter the actions or consequences, and the rest of the world is just wrong. There is nothing the rest of the world can do except bow to us, for we are mightier than they.

We are mightier than any other nationn on the planet. We fail to understad that we are not mightier than all other nations. For centuries in Europe diplomacy meant that the second and third strongest nations teamed up to oppose the strongest, to keep a balance.

America in the 20th century never had to use that strategy. We simply set our enemies to bickering, stayed out until the last possible moment, then chose the side that would make us strongest. Divide and conquer, like the Romans did it. Europe's diplomatic strategy helped us, as Europe would divide along the lines above as their natural strategy. Thus, we ruled.

There was also the willing victim syndrom. Despite our heavy handed methods, Europe and most of the rest of the world believed in us, even when they believed we wee wrong. America was the champion of democracy, of the little guy, and even our misguided military actions were altruistic in theory, if not in principle. We wanted to help, and so the rest of the world forgave our mistakes and trusted, to some degree, our intentions.

Bush destroyed this. Bush led America in a pure and simple land grab, a colonial effort the world understands better than us. So now, we aren't the good guys, we aren't the world's police officers. We are simply another power-mad nation bent on world domination. PNAC and Bush prove it. We are no longer of use to the world, and they will no longer support us, no longer take our intentions for granted. Now, we are the enemy.

Europe will not divide and conquer for us anymore. They will unite against us, the stronger enemy. Much of the rest of the world will join them. We can't beat everyone at once, and Bush has revealed with Iraq, we can't even win small wars when people don't roll over for us. Our mystique is gone.

This will effect our economy as well, as other nations gang up to prevent us from remaining so powerful. The world is interdependent, America is not an island.

It's a different world. Bush killed the old one, just al-Qaeda hoped he would do when they plotted 9-11.

[MisterP]

73. good lord, you've done a great exposition on the ugliness

at the heart of modern neoconservatism.

[loudsue]

2. I hope Europe will be patient. Kerry won't be as bad as they think re:

trying to get France & Germany to send troops to Iraq. Kerry knows what a mess bush has made of things in Iraq, AND with our allies -- the SANE people of the world. Just be patient, Europe. If Kerry is elected, we will finally have a man in office who THINKS!!!

:kick::kick::kick:

[PATRICK]

3. Impossible to explain to

the simple-minded that Kerry can work with the Europeans and Bush won't, can't, never will.

The Europeans, unlike Bush, may not be the most noble or intelligent leaders but they are not stupid. They are not Bush. Things will be quickly worked out. Our sourpusses here can steam about the details since it means "with" "give and take" "compromise" and mutual self-interest and peace and prosperity and unfun things like that.

Jerks. The alternative is world war and depression.

Well, we just had a taste of what it is really like to boss the world around. It tastes like dead bodies and poverty, fear and slavery.

[PROGRESSIVE1]

4. Europe has to trust Kerry.

[Maple]

5. Many things will change when Kerry wins

but they can't very well say that out loud right now.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

6. The problem with Iraq...

This is the BIG problem that many here on DU and (obviously elsewhere in the US) ignored in the primary - no major European nation (aside from the UK obviously) is going to send troops to Iraq, PERIOD.

It is INSANE to think that just because a Dem is President, that nations that had NOTHING to do with the clusterfuck in Iraq should take ANY of the load for fixing it. It just will not happen.

So what happens when Kerry asks for troops and is denied?

And more importantly, who is to blame for leading the American people to believe that they would help?

That is why Iraq is one of Kerry's weakest points - not because Bush is better, but because Kerry has set himself an impossible goal.

The Dem platform from DAY ONE should have been IMMEDIATE WITHDRAWL of US troops. Sure that would likely result in civil war in Iraq, but that would be THEIR choice.

By promising to STAY in Iraq AND fix the problem, Kerry has promised the impossible, with the consequnces of failure extending far beyond his term.

[primavera]

79. A valid point

Given that the catastrophe of Iraq is entirely of our own making, perpetrated in violation of international law, against the express wishes of the internetaion community, virtually every member of which we bullied and insulted in the process, it's going to take a lot of balls to now stand up and say: "Umm, gee, guess we blew it and you guys were right all along, sorry about those 100,000 innocent Iraqis we murdered, but hey, surely you want to come forward now and clean up our mess for us, right?" What human being on the planet is going to have any sympathy at all for our predicament?

[punpirate]

7. Watch German and French leaders...

... change their tune if there's a clear timetable and commitments to open up the reconstruction process to European companies.

That's what it will take, along with a new appeal to the UN to provide a large multinational peacekeeping force until genuinely fair elections take place.

The insurgency won't subside until the American presence is drastically reduced. Ordinary Iraqis won't care if Kerry's in office if there's no corresponding change in their circumstances. For practical purposes, the Iraqis now live in the midst of occupational martial law and civil war, and they attribute those conditions directly to the presence of American troops.

Kerry can ease Europe into helping in the Middle East by doing two things--encouraging Europe to quickly alleviate the two most pressing civil problems in Iraq--lousy water and a health care system which has collapsed from lack of funding, and then, convincing all of Europe that it will address the Israel/Palestine problem, once and for all.

Europe simply doesn't share the US's automatic defense of Israel in all things, and it generally, and correctly, acknowledges that solving that problem equitably will go a long way to minimizing Arab hatred of the West. Bush's actions in this latter regard have served only to jab a sharp stick into a sore spot, and if Kerry expresses to Europe a marked change from current Bush policy, he will get some help from them.

[Downtown Hound]

8. I think the Europeans will be pleasantly surprised

by Kerry.

[shance]

9. Americans will understand. Perhaps he means our government* will be mad.

This irritates me more when government officials try to use *the American people* badge to indirectly imply something without our permission, threaten and/or coerce others in some way, or use us when they are the ones that really want or expect something, like to keep business humming as usual.

I would not imagine France and Germany to bail us out on something that this Administration created.

WE DIDNT create it, THEY did. And that includes our Congress.

[melody]

36. bigots are everywhere

There will be many in Europe who hate us for things about which we can do nothing.

We have to focus on the people who are open-minded and decent, not those who hate. We have our own crop in the States as well.

[jdj]

51. you are not the only one who hates that phrase

makes my skin crawl.

[Brundle_Fly]

10. I think Kerry

might ask France and Germany to just guard the borders, that would stop the influx, and allow the Brits and yanks to try to finish up the debauchery bush left.

and it wouldn't be as dangerous for the Germans and French while making a world of difference.

[NEOBuckeye]

12. I thought Germany was already offering support to Kerry if he wins?

There was an article out there somewhere.

[ahem]

24. You're right...

10/13/04
*The Financial Times reports that Defense Minister Peter Struck is open to the idea of German troops in Iraq if Kerry is elected. He refers to Kerry's plans for Iraq as "very sensible."*

[mare]

32. yes, but the next day he had to take it back

and Chancellor Schröder said there will be no German troops in Iraq, at least not under US control. What might happen if a possible President Kerry gives control to the UN is something different.

[ahem]

33. aha, thanks

I wasn't aware of that.

[Kellanved]

34. not quite

They dropped some hints, some of which were later denied.

The most recent hint was made by the Speaker of the Federal Government, Bela Ander. He said that a tenfold increase of troops deployed against international terrorism might be possible. (that hasn't been denied)

Also, it is an open secret that the government believes that a Kerry Presidency would be lot more expensive, as there would be no honorable way to say "no".

[krkaufman]

13. Much hinges on what Kerry does relative to CONTROL

The biggest hang-up to UN involvement to date has been the B* Admin's unwillingness to surrender total control of the destabilization effort. And Kerry won't be able to do much better unless he's willing to give the UN some real power in Iraq.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SoCalDem]

14. Look to the french word "nuance"... Kerry knows how to use it

I would expect Kerry to call a "world summit" on terrorism.. He will "apologize" (in a nuanced way) for his predecessor, and offer suggestions for how the middle east mess can be settled down..

With many participants, there will be a general consensus that lets a lot of "face-saving" happen..

Patience...

[George_S]

16. Kerry also said we could send the Iraqi army elsewhere for training

Why not there? They should be able to do that. They don't HAVE to put in troops to help out.

[Rochambeau]

83. France proposed to train the Iraqi army but OUTSIDE Iraq.

And we are good at peacekeeping/anti-insurgency/violent situation in urban civilian theater and we have a good credibilty (why deny a true fact) vis a vis the iraqi military. We could clearly do a good job.

Please don't ask me if I think that the "outside" thing is hypocrisy, I would answer yes.:thumbsdown:

[The_Casual_Observer]

17. Who are the many in Europe?

This writer and his wife? Many say this many say that, they say this they say that, it has been said.....

[Celebrandil]

19. As a european...

I cant be as pessimistic as NYT. Yes, we Europeans have a number of reasons for being pissed off, not just what occured during the beginning of the Iraq war. After the cold war we hoped finally to get a functional UN, without the constant stalemates between two super powers. Instead we got an American president, who couldnt care less. He gave up the ABM treaty and the Kyoto accords, tried to block the creation of the International Criminal Court and refused to ban anti-personal mines. It is not easy to restore the respect America lost by acting like a bully, who considers everyone who has opposing opinions as irrelevant.

[melody]

35. Sad, sad, sad

So even if we do vote Kerry in, they still hate us?

I think that's key...for the blind masses (as with the blind masses in the US in their feelings toward the French, et al) the European hatred for Americans is bigotry and nothing else. It has nothing to do with reality.

How depressing. :(

[Celebrandil]

41. No, we don't hate Americans...

but we hate the america-is-the-center-of-the-universe mentality that you see not just in politics, but even in entertainment. A Swedish politician would hardly call our country "the greatest democracy on earth", but in America a politician seems to be expected to say that to make the crowds happy. The greatest democracy on earth? Doesn't America have the lowest turnout in the western world? Sorry for sounding a little to anti. I love America myself and have rarely met any unfriendly Americans. On the other hand, I'm quite sure that out of those I've met 80% were democrats.

When it comes to reconciliation, the future of UN is key. The reason why most europeans got upset due to the Iraq war was not that is started, but the way it started. Bush simply ignored the world community and made preventive strikes legal. Doing so he created an example that can be used by other "strong" leaders to crack down on people they don't like. Not surprisingly, the Israelis started to refer to their opponents as terrorists, as did Putin in Chechnya. What has to be restored is the rules of conduct. Right now it's up in the air. Does the for example the Geneva Convention still apply? Well... Bush changed the definitions and now nothing can be taken for granted.

[ze_dscherman]

20. Yes, we do feel mixed about Kerry

After Bush, the majority in Europe thinks that Kerry will be much better. But many fear that he might only be "a better, gentler Bush".

Much of Europe doesn't agree with the general course of U.S. foreign policies - our interests ARE different. This rift emerged after the end of Cold War, and it has become only much more evident with Bush. Does Kerry want to change U.S. politics, or is he able to change directions? Of course, politics is about compromise, nuances, diplomacy.

From my European view, it is mostly about the U.S. stepping back from trying to be a superpower. We all gladly accept its leadership in many fields, but definitely not an American Empire. To much of this world, "The American Dream" has been a paradigm. But is it a positive role model anymore? Will the world get back the confidence that the U.S. is a partner, not an opressor?

I do hope that Kerry gets a fair chance to really make a difference, and I hope that he will. But the damage done by Bush is immense, the obstacles are enormous. I don't envy Kerry for the job he (hopefully) has to take.

[melody]

40. Why is it that I can distinguish between EU folk and their government, but

...y'all seem unable to do that with us?

I have to say this whole thread has been a tremendous comedown for me. I've been depressed enough dealing with this, but as a European by ancestry (English and Scots-Irish), it's greatly disturbing to see international political issues impinging on citizen relations.

What's the use?

[ze_dscherman]

64. Where in my post do I not distinguish?

Sorry, but please show me where. Being German, I am a bit touchy if someone equals a person with his people or the government in general. I don't like to be looked upon as "Kraut" or whatever. If I were feeling towards U.S. citizens the way I feel about their current government, I'd surely not spend that much time in D.U.

Speaking about generalization, "y'all seem unable to do that with us" is a classical example for one.

What you write later in the thread about what happened to your cousin is, IMO, a very bad, but still anecdotal story. But he well could have been beaten up if he had identified himself as Arab, or if he were African, or Turkish. There are a++++++s everywhere.

Nevertheless, it is true that anti-American sentiment in general has been growing - but not to a point where a U.S. citizen should have any special security problem travelling through Europe.

[MADem]

85. Especially if the American wears a tee shirt that says

"Don't blame me, I didn't vote for the moron."

Kerry and Chirac are very, very good friends. Most people don't realize that. They won't have to go through the "getting to know you" bullshit--they already know each other. I expect France to help out in a number of ways, with training, with herding cats at the UN, with intel....I am hopeful!

[primavera]

82. Why should they?

Ultimately, we are all accountable for the actions of our government; we are Americans and Americans have allowed, and in many cases encouraged, this government in its fascist policies. And before you try to let Dems off the hook, recall that, after 9/11, the shrub's approval ratings soared well beyond simply the number of Repukes in this country - many Dems came forward to express their support for his shoot first, shoot later brand of dealing with the rest of the world. The measure approving the preemptive use of force against Iraq based upon a complete and totoal lack of credible evidence was passed with the help of all but a miniscule number of heroic Dems in Congress. Make no mistake, all of our hands bear the blood of 100,000 innocent Iraqis and we all bear the shame.

[Easy]

42. Maybe it's pessimistic, but

that's how I feel about it, too.

I'm sure that electing Kerry (or "Anyone but Bush") will warrant a big change in American domestic politics. In international politics, however, it's just the necessary first step. Having another president only makes a difference if he also changes the US foreign policy. And by that I don't only mean an exit plan for Iraq, but also

• acknowledge that the "War On Terror" is bullshit and cannot be won with military force
  
• cease the developement of new nuclear weapons (like "Mini-Nukes")
  
• abolish the preemptive-war doctrine
  

In other words, undo the damage Bush has done, and then some. Of course, that's just my opinion.

I hope that Kerry lives up to the expectations, but I am afraid that he won't change American foreign politics much. I fear that he'll be more "likable" than Bush, and much more diplomatic and respectful towards the international community, but that the underlying principles of nation building and pre-emptive war will stay the same, and that lobbyists and right-wing extremists retain key positions and continue to influence foreign politics.

In spite of all that, I really do hope Kerry wins. At least, it can't get much worse ;)

[melody]

47. Well, there goes my trip to Europe this December

I haven't gone to Europe in a year and a half due to the huge tide of anti-Americanism (I had a friend beaten half to death in Dublin after identifying himself as an American...he was asked, he said he was, and that's all he remembers). I guess I'll be putting off my trip indefinitely if things are as bad as you state.

[Easy]

54. How does that relate to what I have posted?

I wrote what I think is expected (and what I personally expect) from the next US government in the field of foreign politics, and most european posters on this thread did exactly the same. Nothing about anti-americanism, nothing about public opinion toward US citizens.

You, on the other hand, seem to try to spark anti-european sentiments throughout the whole thread, and your answers seldom relate in any way to the messages you are answering to. What are you trying to archieve?

[pauliedangerously]

86. Agreed

Let's hope Kerry "flip-flops" on his terrorist rhetoric. I was a Dean supporter in the primaries. I was going to vote for Nader in protest up until three months ago, but decided that Bush must go.

Cheers to all of Europe! Sorry for the disrespect that has come from here.

[DuaneBidoux]

81. Kerry May Have to Get U.S. Out of this Shitpile Alone

That is the simple reality.

[depakid]

22. I'm sorry, but absent some MAJOR showing of good faith

on America's part- Europe should let the US stew in its own juices. America IS NO FRIEND to Europe or any of the rest of the world (except perhaps Saudi Arabia). Even with a Kerry victory, the far-right still holds sway on too much of the US government and will screw the world community- break international law, abrogtae treaties (if we ratify them at all) and engage in trade policies designed to further the interests of US and multi-national corporations.

Nope. It's not in Europe's best interest to come to Kerry's aid unless there's a quid pro quo paid in advance- something that the Republicans will probably NEVER allow to happen.

[Celebrandil]

30. I think you are wrong.

I think we all have lots to gain from cooperation. With a more efficient UN, international crisis could be more swiftly resolved, preventing disasters like Ruanda and the early stages of Yugoslavia. With a respected International Criminal Court, future Saddams would be less tempted to attack their smaller neighbors. Only with a global effort climate change can ever be battled. Unfortunately, with Bush as president America has chosen to ignore the rest of the world, simply because it is the only super power and has the liberty to do so. I don't think Bush ever considers that cooperation can in fact be in America's own interest. It's part of his ideology to believe that UN is bad and the every form of cooperation is a sign of weakness.

[melody]

39. America hasn't done this...Bush has

He stole the last election. This election he may well steal if we're not vigilant. It would be nice to be able to do that with support from afar, but if that's not to be...it's not to be.

I'd have thought our cousins abroad would be celebrating with us...now they're saying that it doesn't matter one way or the other.

How extremely depressing.

[DemExpat]

68. My take:

A huge majority of Europeans would prefer a Kerry win!
And all of the European friends I have certainly distinguish between the different factions of American ideology and society.

This thread is talking about how it will remain difficult at first for Europe to completely go along with a Kerry request for arms/money to clean up the mess.

But I think that Kerry (and Clark (?) etc.) :-) will walk gingerly at first and do LOTS of talking and negotiating before such a request. To restore some sense of confidence.
Perhaps under UN direction?.....

I certainly do not feel any anti-Americansim here. Most Dutch I know are very anti-Bush and would not vote Repub, but not anti-American.

:hi:

DemEx

[melody]

37. excuse me?

>America IS NO FRIEND to Europe or any of the rest of the world (except >perhaps Saudi Arabia)

I'm amazed by such a remark. My people have been in the US since before its inception. I'm as American as anybody and I'm an avowed liberal. So you're saying I am damned by the actions of our minority of right-wing nutjobs?

This sounds to me like bigotry, not perception.

America (the REAL America) should be seen as Europe's best friend. Most of us are European. If we're not, then you're as wrong as the people in the US who change "french fries" to "freedom fries".

Sigh...this is so depressing...

[depakid]

44. I wish it were still so

but the evidence over the past 10 years is convincingly otherwise. Interestingly enough, it started to get really bad when the Republicans took over Congress. Hmmm. Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my recollection, America hasn't ratified a single major treaty other than trade agreements in that time.

Worse, we've outright abrogated or tried to back out of a bunch of them- like the ANM, Nuclear Non-proliferationAct and the Montreal Protocols on ozone destroying chemicals.

[melody]

49. That's *not* Americans

That's the right-wing of our government.

Most Americans (according to polls) are in favor of ANM, the MP, the KYA and etc.

Why should we all be judged by 40% of our populations' mindset? I certainly don't hold all Europeans responsible for the bigotry of the few.

[Almost_there]

57. Are you serious? Think on what you just said a bit..

I think people are way to fast to jump to all sorts of conclusions that Europe hates us, beats Americans in the streets, wants to ignore us, not buy our products or sell their products to us. That is simply ignorant, and from what I've seen traveling and in business, couldn't be much further from the truth.

Yes, many Europeans (you're kidding yourself if you think its all of them) hate Bush, but, do you think hating the American President is something new? Come on. THey hate his imprerial policies, they hate his attacking Iraq, but, do you think they don't agree with the war on terror? People in Spain suddenly don't have much of an issue with it. Many people in France know that the war itself is not a bad thing, simply the way it is being carried out. Europe is NOT isolationist, they have inseperable ties with us, in trade, tourism, and even defense. Even though they rightly sat out Iraq, that doesn't mean that they wouldn't come to our aid or us to them if the crap hit the wall.

Quite simply, Europe relies on the US, as we rely on them. The "quid pro quo" of what you speak is simply in military terms. Please explain how anything other than military affairs have been anything other than status quo ante? The repubs had their little freedom fry fun, and stopped buying French wines.. how do you think Mercedes would do if we actually stopped buying their cars, forcing Chrysler totally down the tubes, if we stopped buying French cheese (we are France's #1 cheese buyer), stopped buying Spanish Olive oil, stopped selling all of Europe our wheat, soybeans, corn & corn products? So really, things haven't changed at all, and if Europe actually went to shut the door on the US, total economic havoc would ensue. It really isn't as simple as you make it out to be.

~Almost

[bullimiami]

25. bullcrap article

its the difference between bush telling them what they better do or else and kerry having give and take discussions between allies.

it is not going to be easy to repair the mess that bush made but you start by telling what you want from them and ASKING WHAT THEY NEED FROM YOU.

stupid asshole at nyt doesnt seem to understand that the world does not respond well to threats.

[depakid]

28. The trick is that Kerry has to be able to deliver

he can't make empty promises that Congress will thwart or sign treaties that the far right won't allow to be ratified.

Nations that deal with the US have to understand that the American media and the xemophobic right- probably a good 40%+ of the population neither know anything about nor care about their concerns. Most of them couldn't even point the countries out on a map.

The best case scenario, of course- is as you point out- listen to what they need from us and say up front- here's what we can put on the table- and I'd go further- here's what we're going to do unilaterally.

[melody]

38. Could Europeans point out places in Mexico on the map?

I promise you my son can find every part of Great Britain on the map, as well as most of Europe. Since Mexico is relative to us as Europe is to GB, can you pick out states in Mexico?

It's not 40% by a long-shot - more like 25% with a 10% ignorant minority following suit.

You're saying there aren't countless American-haters in Europe?

[depakid]

43. I guarantee that most Europeans can pick out Mexico

Having travelled abroad and having many friends in other countries, I can tell you that you'd be amazed at the overwhelming ignorance Americans have about other nations compared to people in other nations knowledge about us and each other.

People from Eurpoe and Australia come here and they can't believe that we hardly get ANY international news. It freaks them out every time.

In fact, our education system is the butt of jokes overseas and even in Canada. And, yes, I think I can name most if not all of Los Estados Unidos Mexicanos on a map- although I'd have to hazard a guess that a much greater percentage of educated Mexicans can name US states than educated Americans can Mexican states- or maybe even American ones!

[melody]

46. I have travelled abroad extensively

And I *don't* think so.

I'm sorry, I don't have as low an opinion of Americans as you seem to.

[Almost_there]

59. American Ignorance

Maybe I'm being cynical here, but, let's just assume that the United States is as dumb as you make us out to be. I think that you are correct in some unsaid assumptions in your statements. First, that many of America's youth are geographically challenged is correct. It has been that way for the past 30 years, as far back as I can see. The simple reason for that is arrogance. Why don't Americans (let's just use that term instead of citizens of the United States of America) speak more French, or German, or Japanese? Why do we make them speak our language? Why is the international language of air traffic control English? Arrogance, yes. But, if it was ONLY arrogance, well, then the French would refuse to LEARN English, let alone speak it, Japan wouldn't be multilingual with Japanese and English, and most school children in the world wouldn't have English as a second language.

The reason is pretty simple. We are arrogant about these things without meaning to be, but, simply because we can be. We are the richest, most powerful, the most benevolent (generally speaking, we don't conquer & absorb lands until Bushy came along) nation pretty much ever. So yes, our educational system focuses WAY too much on the US and not enough on the World, but, mainly because it can. Which is simple arrogance.

~Almost

[fujiyama]

29. Lose-Lose my ass

I don't expect them to send troops, but I do expect Kerry to be able to work better with them than Bush.

So Kerry has pledged to work with them on treaties, etc which Bush has ignored and the situatrion will hardly change? The NY Times have great headlines...It's mostly media whoring.

They may have endorsed Kerry, but they still whore for Bush non stop.

[Stockholm]

31. Don´t believe the hype - EU polls are unanimous!

Kerry for President!

[BayCityProgressive]

45. I dont blame Europe

Why should they get involved with the US imperial conquest game..when they told the US not to do it? It seems liek it would just invite MORE US hegemony. Also, we have to give in order to get. If Kerry doesnt join the ICC or Kyoto treaty..we can kiss any alliance goodbye.

[Celebrandil]

48. ICC would be a problem for Kerry...

I've noticed during the campain that Kerry hasn't bothered challenging Bush's claim that ICC would lead to American soldiers being prosecuted abroad, if they commit a war crime. Doing so it will be impossible for him to explain to the American population why ICC suddenly isn't such a big deal.

What Bush fails to point out is that ICC is intended for criminals from countries without working legal systems and USA is obviously no such country. Furthermore, the UN security council have the full control of whom to bring to justice. As I have understood, USA have no intention to leave the security council.

No, Bush is just bashing ICC, because it makes him look strong. And he succeeds... unchallenged!

[moondust]

52. I wouldn't worry about it.

JK (and multilingual wife Teresa) is better prepared to deal with the Europeans and others than probably any previous U.S. President. The simpleton days of "you're with us or you're against us" are just about over (we hope).

[jobycom]

53. Kerry is nowhere near that simple or stupid

Kerry is the son of a diplomat and has spent his life dealing with complex diplomatic and foreign affairs issues. He is completely aware of what Europe's reaction to such a crass request for help would be, especially following on the unilateral tantrums of W. Trust him, he has a better plan than that.

Kerry expects to have to win back trust and to make great concessions before France and Germany would join his alliance, and that he has to yield enough to convince France and Germany that he is following a different policy, one leading to a peaceful resolution, and not simply trying to continure W's efforts. This is the man who fought in Viet Nam and then led the efforts to normalize relationships with Viet Nam decades later. He gets it. Don't assume that because 99% of Americans are clueless when it comes to foreign relations that Kerry is, too.

Europe will be pleasantly surprised, as long as opur voters don't let us down on Tuesday.

[Matilda]

55. I think the world will breathe a collective sigh of relief

if Kerry is elected, but nobody really knows him yet.

What he's been saying on the campaign trail is for home consumption;
he's addressing the issues that are of concern to Americans and in
terms they will relate to, and of necessity the message has been
kept simple. Nobody will really know what Kerry's real grasp of
foreign affairs is like until he takes over. And he may not realise
himself all the complexities involved until he's been properly
briefed.

Bush has done enormous damage to America's standing in the world and
some of the things Kerry has been saying don't really go a long way
to addressing the issues - such as solving the Iraq insurgency by
throwing more money and more troops at it, and by giving Sharon the
thumbs up. But these things may be what he feels it's necessary to
say in order not to alienate sections of the community whose vote
he needs, and once in power and hopefully getting the right advice
and listening to it, we may find that his view is not quite as
black and white as it seems.

But if the rest of the world just waits and watches for a while, I
think that's something most reasonable Americans can understand.
Won't you be doing exactly the same?

[GOPBasher]

58. Germany and France should help us.

I'm sorry, but regardless of the disagreements over going to war -- about half of us in this country didn't want to anyway -- we all have an interest in seeing a stable Iraq. They should help us, at least with money.

[Celebrandil]

60. Not without UN...

That will never happen. USA sidestepped UN, which is the reason why few other western countries wanted to help. That has not changed. UN is still sidestepped with Kerry as President.

[mike_c]

61. it's an illegal war of aggression-- WHY should anyone "help us?"

That's the essential arrogance that I just don't get. Most Americans-- even liberals on DU-- seem to think that ultimately there is some good reason to continue the occupation, so they believe that in the end other good people will help us. The beginning premise is wrong-- the war in Iraq is an illegal war of aggression. Expecting someone to help is like a bank robber expecting someone to step forward to help shoot a few tellers when things go unexpectedly wrong.

The only way out of this mess is the direct way-- with mea culpas and open wallets certainly, but out nonetheless. This is one of the things that has utterly disgusted me about this election-- in order to win it, Kerry had to pledge to continue committing one of the worst crimes that we want to throw Bush out for. If he does, he'll reap the same international condemnation as Bushco, and deservedly.

[Celebrandil]

63. However...

It would not surprise me if the europeans in a sign of good will try to initiate some solution that could save everyones faces. After all, the europeans also like to see an end to the war and a democratic Iraq. If they start talking to Bush it will be interpreted as if Bush was right from the very beginning and they know Bush won't move an inch. With Kerry the situation is different. But everything depends on whether the integrity of UN can be restored. The best thing would be if UN heads the civilian part and let NATO be responsible for the security. This is not what Bush wanted. He hasn't suggested UN doing anything but humanitarian matters. Others are supposed to join in behind the back of UN.

[Matilda]

62. In return for what?

n/t

[Skittles]

65. we have protected you - now help us rob this liquor store

I agree they had the absolute right to refuse to go along with this insane war but you are correct - we could use their help now, and what's to say they won't if our unelected warmongering piece of shit "president" is shown the door?

[Matilda]

66. There would have to be a change of policy in Iraq.

Bush's idea - "you send your soldiers to die so Halliburton can
make a profit" - is something Europe wouldn't buy from Bush, and
they won't buy it from Kerry either.

As long as the US is running the show, all foreigners are going to
be in danger. Like it or not, Kerry's going to have to talk to the
Iraqi leaders (and I don't mean Allawi and Co.)and find out on what
terms they will tell people to cease their resistance. And one of
those terms will be genuinely free elections, with leaders of their
choice.

And that may well mean an Islamic theocracy - thanks to G.W. Bush.
But it's something the world may just have to live with.

[obreaslan]

67. What about NATO????

I thought Kerry talked about involving NATO troops for training and security, and not specifically troops from any one country. This would take the pressure off of the American and UK forces, while allowing countries like France and Germany to assume more of an administrative part in a coalition, without committing their specific military forces, thus appeasing the anti-war majorities in their countries while still helping to achieve the peace in Iraq.

Plus, if Kerry were to pick Wes Clark as perhaps Sec. of State, as former NATO Commander, I think he might be able to smooth the whole situation over with Europe.

Just my opinion. :shrug:

[DemExpat]

69. Totally agree! Wes Clark

could have an enormously positive role here.

DemEx

[Celebrandil]

71. No no...

The reason why France and Germany is not part of the coalition is not because they don't like to get their hands dirty. The problem is that we (europeans) have got used to the idea that what is agreed within UN is what matters, which includes the Geneva Convention. In essence, the way states are support to behave in cases of conflict. By suddenly accepting the current US position, you at the same time say that what used to be UN is no more. This won't happen. There is only one way the rest of Europe will participate, that is by first restoring the integrity of UN.

[obreaslan]

74. I do agree...

I think the US is going to have to do some major apologizing for it's actions, and try to reassure the EU that this whole situation is the fault of this corrupt administration, and in no way is this what America is all about. If this can be done, hopefully, the EU will come to realize that America does support the UN, and that we have recovered from the coup that was thrust upon us.

Besides, you can't blame us, we didn't elect the guy. :shrug:

[Strawman]

70. How can tensions not decrease with the "Fuck France" crowd out of power?

I think Kerry has a good chance to win over many of these European leaders' constituents based on the simple fact that 1)he is not Bush whom they hate, 2)he will actively work to restore cooperation not just on Iraq but across the board. There will be goodwill toward Kerry and I think he has the skill and good sense to capitalize on it. If Kerry can become peoular with Europeans, European leaders will follow suit. The polls of Europeans show an enormous preference for John Kerry over George Bush. He will enter the office with alot of goodwill from Eurpoeans based on the simple feeling among Europeans that he is not a total dick like Bush.

The bottom line is that a Bush victory means more of the same with regard to our souring relations with Europe. A Kerry victory means more cooperation across the board, and more goodwill in general. So there's at least a possibility that some of that will spill over into Iraq. Whereas with Bush not only is there no chance of help in Iraq, but there is less cooperation on the larger war on terror, the environment, everything. I don't see Kerry going in there and telling the Europeans "OK, I won. Now you HAVE to help." That might create tension, but that's not what he's going to do. It doesn't work that way. And implying that since Europe is unlikely to instantly bail us out in Iraq when Kerry gets elected, electing someone who is going to work to restore that alliance is not important is really nearsighted.

If anything, what might create tension during a Kerry presidency is a Republican opposition that puts its own partisan political interest above our national interest and tries to undermine his efforts at restoring the relationship by saying things within weeks of his inauguration like "where are John Kerry's buddies from France and Germany who were supposed to help us out in Iraq." But that's manageable and I'll take that kind of tension over having a president who basically gives our allies the finger and actively tries to breed resentment toward our allies for his own personal political gain. There's no comaprison, virtually anything is more positive and constructive than leaving our foreign policy in the hands of the "Fuck France" crowd.

[Laelth]

72. An earlier poster ...

remarked that many European nations might be willing to aid in the reconstruction of Iraq if they were given some say and some economic incentive. I fully agree. All Kerry's got to do is put the reconstruction under the control of the U.N. and allow the U.N. to bid out reconstruction contracts to countries that commit troops to the region. Economic incentive can move mountains.

What might be a stickler, though, are the 14 permanent military bases that the U.S. is currently building in Iraq. We might have to give them up. On the other hand, the U.N. might want the U.S. to have a permanent military presence in the Middle East. Fact is, Europe and Japan are both vastly more dependent on oil from the Middle East than the U.S. is. Perhaps it's in the developed world's best interest to allow the superpower to have a military presence in this strategically and economically crucial region.

As for the Anti-American sentiment in Europe, I don't blame 'em. American arrogance is an ugly thing to behold, but we (the left and Kerry as well) are going to have to take responsibility for that (if we win), apologize, and move on. Europe needs us, and we need them. We can work this out. I see no permanent or lasting damage to American/European relations yet. But it all depends on our electing Kerry ...

GOTV

-Laelth

[Celebrandil]

76. Obviously there are some differences in thinking...

I've never heard a european politician talking about Iraq in terms of possible future investments. If the americans give the europeans a bit of the cookie everyone will be happy? No... I don't think it works like that. Maybe there are some politicians out there who think that way, but the must be in minority. Creating military bases to secure the flow of oil sounds every more alien. I'm sorry... we don't think like a super power, because we don't represent one. Exploiting the world? Interesting concept...

[Laelth]

78. I didn't say it was ethical.

Nor did I say that "all Europeans" think that way. But something's got to be done in Iraq. If the U.S. just pulls out, will Europe just sit by and watch Iraq fall into civil war? Or would the prudent thing to do be to send in U.N. peacekeepers to restore order.

And surely you must know that Europe and Japan are dependent on oil from the Middle East. Western Civilization, at this time, is deeply invested in insuring peace in the Middle East because the entire, integrated, Western economy depends on that oil. For better or for worse.

Politics is a practical profession. I share your ideals. I detest the Bush administration's arrogance. But we've got to be practical. We (Europe, Japan, and the U.S.) can not allow the Middle East to erupt into chaos.

And your politicians may not "say" things like this, because they're afraid of offending the ethical sensibilities of their constituents, but I bet they think these things.

-Laelth

[TrogL]

75. Canada has already said it's not going to Iraq

we're stretched too thin.

Pity, really. I'm going to try to get Martin to change his mind and send a token force to train some police or something.

[devilgrrl]

77. This article is a bunch of bullshit!!!!

I'm not buying it. :puke:

[DuaneBidoux]

80. This is a truly legitimate concern

And the reality is that Kerry's best move to restore relations with the rest of the world might be to suck it up and realize that Bush got us into this mess alone, and he may have to get us out alone.

I think he needs to move faster to restore relations with the Arab world and ask them first...if he can get the Arab world more involved Europe is much more likely to come along.

[IrateCitizen]

84. Europe doesn't need the US as much as it used to...

The Cold War was an excellent vehicle toward fostering a very real alliance between the US and Western Europe. What I think a lot of us fail to realize is that this alliance has been deteriorating not just over the past 4 years, but since the end of the Cold War.

That's not to say that things were antagonistic at all before this, because they were not. But since the end of the Cold War and with the ongoing EU integration -- coupled with the US refusal to abandon a Cold War military posture -- Europe has increasingly discovered that it can (and should) go its own way in the world. Obviously, Europe would very much like that way to be essentially the same way that the US goes, given the long-standing alliances. However, with the newfound economic strength of the EU, Europe is no longer dependent on the United States to secure its position in the world.

Simply put, Europe (along with the countries of the Pacific Rim) understand that the key to world power is no longer about military projection -- rather, it is about economic standing. The US has not yet gotten this memo. I believe that Clinton and Kerry do somewhat understand it in their gut, but Clinton I believe missed a narrow window to dismantle a good part of the military-industrial complex, and Kerry is pretty much powerless against it at this point.

I'd like to share the last paragraph from a book I read recently, After the Empire by Emmanuel Todd. I think it speaks pretty plainly to what the world is facing vis a vis US-European relations.

In the twentieth century no country succeeded in increasing its power through military buildups or war. France, Germany, Japan and Russia all suffered heavy losses in that game. Americans came out of the twentieth century winners because for a long time they knew how to refuse getting too involved in military conflicts in the Old World. Let us follow the example of that early successful America. Let us dare to become strong by refusing militarism and concentrating instead on the economic and social problems within our societies. let the present America expend what remains of its energy, if that's what it wants to do, on "war on terrorism" -- a substitute battle for the perpetuation of a hegemony that it has already lost. If it stubbornly decides to continue showing off its supreme power, it will only end up exposing to the world its powerlessness.

FWIW, this guy (who is a Frenchman) also predicted the imminent downfall of the USSR in the 1970's, when it was not the popular line among establishment thinkers.