Perspective from the UK

What is more sad is how so many liberals' arguments have not progressed beyond this same level of superficial analysis which a 12-year old boy generated. This sounds strinkingly familiar to the catch phrases and demagoguery served up in a Democratic primary debate.

 

It does reflect the views of a lot of people in Europe, probably the vast majority, though.

Whether one agrees with that view or not is another question, but the fact that the majority shares this view should be alarming to the US administration and public, in my opinion.

Also, I would think that a 12-year old boy's writing on a matter like this is very likely strongly influenced by what his parents tell him or what they express in front of him - therefore, in spite of the increased effect a letter like this will have when it says "Age 12", one probably does not need to give it more weight because of that.

 

well, it goes down to what people think a common good is. in europe, where there is more value placed on social and economic equality, people tend to be critical of those who dont place that high on the list. The US, as of recent, has put security as its most important value as we are paranoid that people will try to knock us off from the top. Its not that either point is right or wrong per se, but different cultures have different priorities in creating 'social goods'.

 

Wonder if I can adopt the little guy? He sounds like a GreenVegan76Junior to me!

 

What kind of little bugger writes a letter to a Head of State and opens with an expression of personal hate for the man. Take him out to the woodshed/coal bin...

If my child wrote that, I'd be embarassed.

 

Ah, the good old day before Bush was elected. Remember how there was no poverty in the Middle East? No? Oh wait, that never happened. This kid is just a jackass.

 

Hell, Giddy, if your child wrote that, you would have called John Ashcroft and your son would be on his way to Gitmo by now!

 

Uh-huh... now slowly put the bottle down and lay your head on this pillow. There now go to sleep and you'll feel better when you wake up.

 

Speech Fails to Bridge Policy Divide
By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, November 20, 2003; Page A37

LONDON, Nov. 19 -- President Bush made a play for a more charitable view of U.S. foreign policy Wednesday, but the silence that greeted one of his most forceful lines said much about the limits of the support he can expect from Europeans already worried about his approach to the world.

Near the end of his address at the government's Banqueting House, Bush said Europeans "should withdraw all favor and support from any Palestinian ruler who fails his people and betrays his cause."

The allusion to Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat was unmistakable, and the direct declaration that other leaders should take certain actions was vintage Bush, reminiscent of his last two speeches to the U.N. General Assembly.

Isolating Arafat is a central component of Bush's strategy for achieving peace in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Yet to many Europeans -- including Bush's staunchest ally, British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- the U.S. refusal to deal with the elected president of the Palestinian Authority undercuts prospects for progress and belies the democratic ideals Bush advocates for the Middle East.

"This is a big source of tension between Britain and the United States," said Charles Grant, director of the Center for European Reform. "The British view is that Arafat, for all his faults, is a man who has power. And if you want peace in Palestine, you need to negotiate with the people in power, even if they do have blood on their hands."

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell ran into similar trouble a day earlier in Brussels when he failed to persuade European foreign ministers to lean harder on Iran, found by the U.N.'s International Atomic Energy Agency to have pursued secret nuclear research for 18 years.

Powell argued the view, most prominent in the White House and Defense Department, that Iran's recent promises to open its nuclear program to tougher inspections should be viewed with suspicion. He said Tehran was far more likely to respond to meaningful deadlines than to the promises of trade and diplomatic cooperation favored by European leaders.

The silver lining to the dispute may be that the elements of a good cop-bad cop strategy are taking shape. But Bush's swagger on issues that Europeans feel they understand fuels their perception that the White House considers them largely expendable.

Though Wednesday's speech was advertised by aides as a defense of the U.S. commitment to international institutions, Bush's principal reference to the United Nations was to say that Britain and the United States had done all they could to prevent the world body "from solemnly choosing its own irrelevance."

Multilateralism, he said, is not to be measured by "the tidiness of the process, but by the results we achieve to make our nations secure."

What Bush was offering his listeners, in the end, was an unapologetic defense of his foreign policy priorities and methods. Returning to his philosophical roots, he linked idealism and toughness in an address that spoke of "moral conviction" and "moral courage" and "moral duties." The appeal to people's "higher angels," a senior adviser told reporters on Air Force One the day before, is what American presidents do.

This president, who prescribes "freedom" as an antidote to virtually all international ills, placed himself in the tradition of Woodrow Wilson, derided in his time but seen more kindly by history.

Noting that Americans are sometimes faulted for a "naive faith that liberty can change the world," Bush recalled Wilson traveling to Europe after World War I with his Fourteen Points for peace. "With typical American understatement," Bush said wryly, "he vowed that right and justice would become the predominant and controlling force in the world."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A63529-2003Nov19.html