Karol at Alarming News is worried about what she sees as a growing schism between America and Europe:
I hate terrorists for killing innocent people and I hate them for forcing us to live a life where you can’t take pictures where you please, you can’t carry certain things onto airplanes, etc. But I really hate them for the divide they’ve caused in the western world. I hate hating France and being suspicious of Europe. I don’t see them as the enemy, but I do see them as turning a blind eye to this growing, immediate problem. And I know they see us in the same way–as this bumbling superpower who just can’t get things right. We yell at them for not doing enough, they yell at us for doing too much. It’s every Islamofascists dream. We are completely divided to where I expect a certain amount of hostility from Europeans, not even for being rightwingish, but just for being American. And I assume they’ll all be leftists, more concerned with pc-ness and intellectualism than doing what they must to survive. Even the ones I like and respect.
I don’t know how to get around this, exactly. But if we don’t thaw relations, and soon, then the cliche is true, the terrorists will have won.
Interesting thoughts. But if we all thought the same way, I’d be a lot more concerned.
No Tags
It’s not that I want people to think like me (though, obviously they should), it’s that there’s this huge gulf between what we believe these days. Like I said in my comment section, it would be one thing if it was just small policy matters (you like nationalized medicine, we don’t, etc) but each thinks the other will bring about the end of our civilization. That’s more than a little troublesome.
Perhaps, but that idea is based on the assumption that each does think so ill of the other. I’m not so sure you are right.
The schism is just as much within Europe and America as it is between Europe and America.
And I’m not convinved the difference of opinion is more polarized today than it was 20, 40, 60 or 100 years ago.
If anything, I would have thought that the arguments over Communism and Capitalism were much more divisive in their day.
I agree with pdberger here. The division has been stark for a long time, with Europe’s deep ambivalence about America going back to the 19th century. More recently, think back to the demonstrations against the Vietnam War 40 years ago, or to the anti-cruise-missile demonstrations over 20 years ago. Compared to those, this is a piece of cake.
Karol: Maybe you need to turn the clock back to the Clinton’s administration, Bill – can talk the talk, and thinks the way an European thinks he was intellectual, fair minded and full of charisma. In my view he represented the true Americans, it wasn’t about left or right it was about fairness.
Karol: Maybe you need to think the world is not only about you it is about everyone, where did we get with Bush’s Iraq policy; nowhere there are over 2000 American casualties, over a hundred British casualties, not to forget 100, 000 Iraq who died.
No one doubts the ruthless and heartless manner Al-Qaeda murders and brings cause to this world, but once you think deep down and do your research on who created Al-Qaeda. You need to look on what the US administration does to manifest these evil deeds.
Karol: I have worked with Americans in the UK and have conversed with them; it’s not about bashing France, once they co habit with Europeans their eye opens their mind functions well. Europeans don’t heat America, but they loathe the Bush administration for disturbing world peace.
Ermiyas
Are you suggesting America helped create Al Qaeda?
As far as I know, Osama Bin Laden was wealthy enough to fund his own little army in Afghanistan and had nothing to do with the CIA.
Also, if I remember rightly, we loathed Clinton just as much as Bush, just in a different way.
At least Bush has an excuse—his simplicity.
Ermiyas, I lived in Britain during the Clinton administration, you can’t tell me the Brits loved Americans (or our politics) then. Again, yes there were always differences of opinion and sometimes they were quite tense differences but they were never like this. Blaming the Bush administration makes zero sense. We have a democracy here, we elected Bush. How can anyone blame him but not us?
Paul, this was during the cold war, the CIA helped Al Qaeda and the Afghani Mujahedeen in terms of expertise, I know Bin Laden had his money from being part of the Saudi royal family. And as for Clinton you can see by the welcome he gets when he visited UK and as for Bush he only wishes he can get the same affection as Clinton. The only thing that might have brought disliking of Clinton was his affair with that woman who used to work for him. And I don’t know of any Brit that loath Bill, I for one respect the guy. [At least Bush has an excuse—his simplicity.] His simplicity is what is causing all this problems, Bush can’t even have the ability to analyse a question without all those aides.
Karol: Yes I know President Bush was elected in the right manner and I applaud him for winning it. But he won the first term by cheating Al Gore (Florida) and the second term by War mongering and scaring the daylight of the innocent Americans. And I don’t think the Brits hate America you may have met those that may hate American slightly because of the arrogance or its global dominance. But as for me the American people and its mentality of entrepreneurial is what I admire and thank them for giving us the likes of Bill Gates, Dell, Oprah and so forth.
Peace
Ermiyas, have you ever heard of CNN correspondent Peter Bergen? According to Bergen, the CIA had absolutelky nothing to do with bin Laden in Afghanistan:
I know one man’s opinion doesn not make it the truth but it is an interesting counterpoint to those who say the CIA did fund or train bin Laden but who never seem to provide any evidence.
Yes, the CIA backed and trained the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. But if my memory serves me correctly, according to Bergen’s book Holy War Inc. bin Laden kept himself separate from the American-backed fighters.
As for Clinton, he may be welcomed now but back then I don’t remember him getting that much affection.
Paul,
I think you’re stertching it a bit to suggest that there was as much hate in Britain for Clinton as there is for Bush. There’s always a smug anti-American undercurrent in British life, but Clinton was never the lightning rod for Brits, er, hate-lightning, that Bush is. I think Ermiyas is right when he talks about Clinton’s perceived intellectual credentials being respected in the UK, whereas Bush’s supposed stupidity represents the supposed stupidity of Americans.
You’re right about the stupidity angle.
But I thought Clinton was perceived as a philandering, lying, vacillating pretty boy who despite his supposed intelligence fired missiles at a medicine factory in Sudan.
If he had been in power in 2001, he would probably have invaded Afghanistan too.
The only action of any relevance to the UK that separates the two is that Clinton would probably not have invaded Iraq.
Granted, that is a large difference. But I’m not so sure the UK had much, if any, respect for Clinton, while he was in office.
Paul, I have heard of CNN correspondent Peter Bergen, I saw the special documentary on CNN last week. I saw him meet Bin Laden and I though he had gained expansive knowledge about Al Qauda and its leader. And his explanations have been enlightening and purposeful.
My facts about the CIA-Al Qauda is from what I heard and read, and I put my hand up and say I don’t know the real fact, but in saying that CIA is not IBM it is a secret agent, hence the truth will be hidden from the public.
No one doubts about his affair (once) with that woman and as for medicine factory in Sudan-they asked for it by harbouring Bin Laden in their country and it was as a result of US Embassies bombings in Kenya and Tanzania. I think if anyone would have gone to war had they been attacked just like 9/11 that was just like saying causes for causes.
And you are definitely right about Iraq that was uncalled-for; Clinton was doing well by preventing them from coming towards south and going north of Iraq.
Further on Bill Clinton you could do a survey in your website on what the British public perceive of Bill Clinton, I guarantee you at least 75 to 80 Percent of British public love Bill Clinton.
President Bush have done good for the world even though it is limited, like offering funds towards the eradication of the aids in Africa and as a Christian I think he believes in doing good for the world, but when you have the likes of Dick and Donald on your side it must be a nightmare.
Ermiyas
Ermiyas,
You know British people - don’t you think ‘love’ is a bit of a strong word to describe anything the British feel about other than the Queen Mum and beating Australia in any sport.
May be I am pushing it when I said love.
Here is a link of photo Essay on Bin Laden and 9/11 at Washington Post.