Is European anti-Americanism due to lack of repricussions?

[dilute micro]

They were scare shitless of Korea when they started testing and we don't even need to test.

Why are we rebuilding our trident fleet? Its not because the UK needs deterants anymore but to keep the US from losing the healthy respect for us that we might not have if we were no longer a nuclear power

Why after so long a period then? Maybe your old fleet is too old. Btw, China is busy building a big navy, something hey haven't had. Maybe that could be a reason. Maybe it is a deterrent.

North Korea, even if they did get a bomb or 5, wouldn't quite have the capacity to trade punches with the US...neither does the UK. They'd be scared shitless to take the first swing.

 

[Gromit]

Why after so long a period then? Maybe your old fleet is too old. Btw, China is busy building a big navy, something hey haven't had. Maybe that could be a reason. Maybe it is a deterrent.

North Korea, even if they did get a bomb or 5, wouldn't quite have the capacity to trade punches with the US...neither does the UK. They'd be scared shitless to take the first swing.

And the US is scared to take the first swing at any other country with nukes. It only take 1 nuke to destroy a few million american lives. How many live in New York these days?

 

[nino_savatte]

Europe STARTED two devastating wars in the last century. It deserved them both.

Actually and technically, the Japanese did fight on US soil in Alaska's islands.

Hein? As I recall, Hawaii was not part of the union in 1941 nor is it on the Continental US (or CONUS). Secondly, the CONUS was not bombed by the Luftwaffe day in and day out; nor did large scale (or any sort of) battles take place on CONUS that killed large numbers of civilians and devasted towns and cities and which ravaged the countryside. There were no refugees on the CONUS in either war.

Europe was deeply affected/scarred by its two wars, therefore it understands its effects greater than the US, which has never suffered the same kind of destruction in its collective living memory.

 

[dilute micro]

Hein? As I recall, Hawaii was not part of the union in 1941 nor is it on the Continental US (or CONUS). Secondly, the CONUS was not bombed by the Luftwaffe day in and day out; nor did large scale (or any sort of) battles take place on CONUS that killed large numbers of civilians and devasted towns and cities and which ravaged the countryside. There were no refugees on the CONUS in either war.

Europe was deeply affected/scarred by its two wars, therefore it understands its effects greater than the US, which has never suffered the same kind of destruction in its collective living memory.

Hawaii?

 

[dilute micro]

And the US is scared to take the first swing at any other country with nukes. It only take 1 nuke to destroy a few million american lives. How many live in New York these days?

Not really. If it came to it, Pakistan, UK or whoever would get it. And anyone who nuked the US first say, to take out NY, would be done, floating ions five miles high.

 

[Aldebaran]

In other words, the Europeans can say whatever negative shit they want to about the US and talk smack and nothing will happen to them. No invasions, no bombings, nothing....

So my European half can criticize the arrogant, patronising delusional bloodthirsty US lunatics and not even be labelled "terrorist", "US hater", "hates US freedom", "jealous of US'ers", "retarded" etc.. etc...?
My Arab half is so relieved that it becomes speachless.

Do you think this is true or not?

I think the US public is arrogant enough to think it is true. Shock and awe works! That is why the US is so immensely popular in my (Arab) region and so immensely criticized by my European family, friends and in all I know in the EU.

Maybe you could send this to that TV station and have them read it for the camera?

(and add: "Hail Bush. Hail Bombs. Hail Slaughter. Bring it on." with my sincere regards.)

salaam.

 

[muckypup]

This cartoon is not anti American, it is being used as an educational aid on this thread.

 

[tangentlama]

Publicised in the last few days on "Neocons United - Conservative Patriots fighting for freedom" -

The America-bashing in the European media is getting worse. Some say it's even turning our allies against us.

Apparently, the reason Europe is 'Anti-American' is because Europe and it's journalists are "Liberal, and on a mission".

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Do you think, somewhere along the line, that they got international relations mixed up with professional wrestling?

 

[tangentlama]

Do you think, somewhere along the line, that they got international relations mixed up with professional wrestling?

Anything is possible where die Yammies are concerned, Ja?

 

[Dhimmi]

why didn't the US drop the two atom bombs on Germany instead of Japan? The european front in WWII consumed 80% of the US's resources while the Pacific war took up 20%.

The war in Europe had ended by the the time the US had a functioning and deliverable atom bomb.

In answer to your original point, Europe's free to, and does, criticise a lot of other nations. Doesn't make them anti, just means they disagree.

If you take the huge amount of European folk who regularly enjoy US culture it vastly outnumbers the critics. Not sure why the US feels it need to be so sensitive, it's just opinions and very rarely of the "Kill all imperialist yankees" type.

 

[TAE]

The America-bashing in the European media is getting worse. Some say it's even turning our allies against us.

That is a joke, right?

 

[tangentlama]

That is a joke, right?

I find it funny, but I think the neocon patriots are deadly serious.
Maybe they'll suggest bringing back the AMZON and post-WWII Yammie censorship of German press ?

 

[Gromit]

Not really. If it came to it, Pakistan, UK or whoever would get it. And anyone who nuked the US first say, to take out NY, would be done, floating ions five miles high.

You are missing the point. Yes the target country would be destroyed but at what price when the return revenge fire is so devasting? The price is too high hence the fact nuclear weapons are considered deterrants no matter how many of them you or they have.

 

[tangentlama]

It probably has something to do with this, TAE:

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, whose country currently chairs the European Union and the Group of Eight, urged the United States not to push the system through without considering all aspects.

"I understand the wish of the U.S.A.. to protect itself against an attack with long-range weapons but I also say that neither friendship nor peace can be forced with military superiority alone," he said Wednesday.

"I ask the U.S.A. to consider very carefully the price of a stationing decision carried through in disharmony."

He noted Iran does not yet have the feared long-range missiles "and the danger of a split in Europe and NATO and a Russia that falls back into old reflexes - that would, at least from my point of view, be a very, very high price."

But he also appealed to Russia to be open to dialogue.

"A new Cold War between the U.S.A. and Russia, even if only conducted in words, damages the security interests of our country," Steinmeier said.

"So I also appeal to Russia to accept the offers of talks from Europe and the U.S.A. and to show real interest in dialogue, on this question as well."

Steinmeier said "one possible answer" would be to think about whether a joint missile-defence system with Russia is possible or desirable.

In the meantime, Sikorski said lost trust over the Iraq war and Russian hostility to U.S. bases in the region could make it a hard sell to Poland.

The U.S. proposal "may generate a new security partnership with the countries of the region," he wrote.

"Or it could provoke a spiral of misunderstanding, weaken NATO, deepen Russian paranoia and cost the United States some of its last friends on the continent."

http://cndyorks.gn.apc.org/yspace/articles/bmd/md_warning.htm

 

[FridgeMagnet]

Do you think, somewhere along the line, that they got international relations mixed up with professional wrestling?

No, there's no mix-up - sports and politics are the same thing for a lot of people. You sit there on your sofa drinking beer and shout yay for your team, and boo for the other team, whatever either of them do.

It's the lack of repercussions I think. Or repricussions. Although lots of people who shout yay for BushCo have found themselves fucked because of BushCo... I suspect they just don't connect the two, or perhaps they know that whether Repubs or Dems win in the US they'll still fuck the poor so why not get some entertainment out of it?

 

[tangentlama]

In fact, I think it DEFINITELY is to do with the United States wanting to place it's missiles in Europe as a 'Missile Defence Shield' - Russia objects strongly, Germany is not happy, Poland is not happy, and UK has objections too:

Russia test launched a new ICBM last month
Russia's President Vladimir Putin has objected to a proposed US missile defence system in Europe.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6720153.stm.

US ratings in Europe have been down for some time - the objections have nothing to do with being Anti-American people, but everything to do with Anti-American military and administration.

In Germany, the public sees the United States as a greater threat to world peace than Iran, much to the dismay of conservative politicians and even some Social Democrats, who have followed almost four years of tortuous and so far unsuccessful negotiations between the EU and Iran over Tehran's nuclear program.

A poll published last month in the news magazine Stern, for example, found 48 percent of Germans believed the United States was more dangerous to world peace than Iran, while 31 percent said Iran was the bigger threat. The poll, conducted March 22-23 by Forsa, interviewed 1,003 Germans and had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points.

http://www. iht.com/articles/2007/04/10/asia/germany.php

3rd hit on google http://www.google.com/search?client...+a+greater+threat+than+Iran&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 is the 'mediankritik' website, mentioned in that neocon/youtube 'programme'

The Harris Poll #68, August 30, 2006

Plurality of Public in Five Major European Countries Continues to See the U.S., Over Five Other Countries, as the Greatest Threat to Global Stability

Only in Italy are people more likely to see Iran as a bigger threat than U.S.

A new Harris Poll of almost 10,000 people in France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy and Spain finds that a plurality continues to believe that the United States is more of a threat to global stability than Iran, North Korea, Iraq, China or Russia.

The online survey was conducted among adults aged 16 and over in France (2,050), Germany (2,019), Great Britain (1,936), Italy (2,011) and Spain (1,946) between August 2 and 11, 2006 by Harris Interactive®.

An average of 30 percent of adults in these five countries see the United States as the biggest threat of six countries listed, followed by Iran (23%), China (15%), Iraq (14%), North Korea (8%) and Russia (2%). The 30 percent who believe that the United States is the biggest threat to global stability compares with 36 percent who held this opinion in June and 30 percent in July of this year.

In this new survey, 36 percent of the British see the United States as the greatest threat, followed by Iran at 19 percent. In France, the numbers are 28 percent for the United States, and 24 percent for Iran. In Spain, a full 44 percent see the United States as the greatest threat, with only 15 percent seeing Iran as the greatest threat. In Germany, 24 percent see both the United States and Iran as the greatest threat. Only in Italy do more people see Iran (31%) as the greatest threat to global stability, followed by the United States (21%).

Perceptions of North Korea as the greatest threat to stability have moved up and down rather sharply over the last three months. In June only four percent on average across the five countries saw it as the greatest threat. In July, North Korea jumped to 20 percent, in second place above Iran. This month it has dropped back to only eight percent. These changes probably reflect media coverage of these countries and their nuclear programs.
http://www. harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=695

 

[lights.out.london]

I think you've more or less hit the nail on the head. The people of the middle-east are sooo pro-American now, since you bombed some sense into them.

Lmao. **hi-5 Hi-ASL**

 

[lights.out.london]

Europe STARTED two devastating wars in the last century. It deserved them both.

"It" "Deserved" them both?

Sure. Tell that to the 25 million Soviet citizens who died, the 7 or 8 million Jews who died, tell that to the Poles who suffered a total population depletion of almost 20% (the highest death rate of any country involved in WWII) and so on. Tell that to my Uncle Norman who, at the age of 19, died serving as a British Commando on the Dieppe Raid in August 1942.

Yeah. Europe deserved the war.

Moron.

 

[dilute micro]

"It" "Deserved" them both?

Sure. Tell that to the 25 million Soviet citizens who died, the 7 or 8 million Jews who died, tell that to the Poles who suffered a total population depletion of almost 20% (the highest death rate of any country involved in WWII) and so on. Tell that to my Uncle Norman who, at the age of 19, died serving as a British Commando on the Dieppe Raid in August 1942.

Yeah. Europe deserved the war.

Moron.

Why don't you tell them?

 

[dilute micro]

You are missing the point. Yes the target country would be destroyed but at what price when the return revenge fire is so devasting? The price is too high hence the fact nuclear weapons are considered deterrants no matter how many of them you or they have.

Actually taking out Las Vegas or LA would be doing the US a favor. On the other hand removing a country from the map would be worse.

 

[Yossarian]

I watched this interesting show on american public TV (PBS) last week about European sentiments regarding the US and they said that some of the anti-americanism in Europe is due to the fact that the US will never do anything to European nations.

American bombers flew thousand of missions over a European country, Serbia, less than eight years ago so I think your PBS commentator must have taken a few hammer blows to the head to have forgotten history that recent.

I doubt very much that the US would do anything against European nations who think that the current US president is a murderous, brain-dead fool with a colossally misguided foreign policy, mainly because if the US government wanted to start taking out people who thought like that, they'd need to start bombing their own East and West coasts first.

 

[nino_savatte]

Hawaii?

Pearl Harbour is in Hawaii, anyone knows that. Hawaii did not become a state until the 1950's. The Japanese bombed Pearl Harbour, not LA or Seattle on the CONUS but a naval base on an offshore territory.

 

[Dillinger4]

I think Dilute Micro is talking about the Aleutian islands Nino.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Aleutian_Islands

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_Islands

 

[nino_savatte]

I think Dilute Micro is talking about the Aleutian islands Nino.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Aleutian_Islands

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleutian_Islands

Most Americans will claim that Pearl Harbour was the first ever attack on US soil by a foreign power. As for the Aleutians, there were no huge numbers of refugees nor were there thousands of civilian casualties. In fact, iirc, the islands were uninhabited. Alaska wasn't admitted to the union until 1958.

 

[Gromit]

Actually taking out Las Vegas or LA would be doing the US a favor. On the other hand removing a country from the map would be worse.

Really? How much foreign income do those two bring into the US?

LA - sales of Hollywood films across the globe.
LV - Foreign Tourism

They both generate mega millions for the US economy.

 

[lights.out.london]

Why don't you tell them?

Why don't you tell them?

What a total tosser you truly, truly are.

Just like the Evil Empire deserved 9/11. Just like collapsing bridges and Mississippi floodlands were deserved.

Nasty wee snide.

 

[paimei01]

I am not against Americans. I am against some of their leaders, in fact I don't really care.
What do you want to say "lack of repercussions" ?
Would you want a world that speaks only good things about America because they are afraid ?

Fear is a thing which we must get rid off. I am trying to do so, right now I can say I fear nothing - but I will never know for real if that is true until something fearful happens. Because I cannot train myself against fear by facing real dangers , I remain at mental training

Question : If one man crosses the Niagara on a rope, am I smart not to try myself or I am a coward because I do not try myself ? I don't know the answer

 

[dilute micro]

What a total tosser you truly, truly are.

Just like the Evil Empire deserved 9/11. Just like collapsing bridges and Mississippi floodlands were deserved.

Nasty wee snide.

I'm sure you believed that anyway all on your own. So much finger pointing at the Americans... Let's be willing to accept.

 

[dilute micro]

Most Americans will claim that Pearl Harbour was the first ever attack on US soil by a foreign power. As for the Aleutians, there were no huge numbers of refugees nor were there thousands of civilian casualties. In fact, iirc, the islands were uninhabited. Alaska wasn't admitted to the union until 1958.

No most will say Great Britain in the War of 1812 was the first ever attack on US soil by a foreign power.

And as for the Aleutians and Alaska, you said all that about civilians and such.