US still main threat to stability in European eyes

blah blah blah

70% of Europeans thought the US was the greatest threat to stability in the 70s and 80s when the only thing between the USSR and them was us, the US.

 

psh, opinions of europeans. most of them hate us anyway...we're damned if we do and damned if we don't.

 

How trite, thanks Toby.

 

Mind your language

Jun 15th 2006
From The Economist print edition
A little politeness goes a long way

IT SEEMS unfair to single out the hapless Colleen Graffy. America's deputy assistant secretary for public diplomacy is far from being the only official in George Bush's administration who has a tin ear when it comes to—well, to public diplomacy. When three of the Muslim inmates held for years without trial at Guantánamo in Cuba hanged themselves last weekend, she called this “a good PR move”. But she was hardly alone in sounding callous. The commander of Guantánamo, a sensitive soul, grumbled that by hanging themselves his three charges had committed an act of “asymmetrical warfare” against the United States. Plenty more tin ears and sharp tongues belong to bigger heads higher up in the administration.

Inside the clever head of Donald (“stuff happens”) Rumsfeld, America's defence secretary, for example, wags a tongue that may on its own be responsible for having needlessly alienated more former friends of the United States than any other instrument since the invention of the B-52 bomber. As for John Bolton, America's ambassador to the United Nations, he appears to take particular pride in ignoring the advice of the Founding Fathers for America to pay a decent respect to the opinions of mankind. Mr Bolton is trying to force various management reforms through the UN's glass palace in New York. Reform is sorely needed. But instead of using persuasion, Mr Bolton too often plays the bully. His tone is that America is numero uno, the UN's chief paymaster, and so must be obeyed. Some potential allies are put off.

To his credit, Mr Bush himself has been learning. Under the civilising influence of Condoleezza Rice, a secretary of state who took up her job intent on putting the diplomacy back into American foreign relations, Mr Bush has lately been politer about other countries, and readier to admit some of his own mistakes. He now says he wants Guantánamo closed—just as soon as America figures out what to do with all the people it has scooped up and dumped in legal limbo there.

But in some ways the president still doesn't get it. Take something that went down well in America—Mr Bush's surprise call this week on the new prime minister of Iraq. Nuri al-Maliki had been building up the elected government's credibility by putting a careful distance between himself and the Americans. The last thing he needs is to look like the superpower's stooge. But he seems to have been given no advance notice of the visit. After Mr Bush was choppered into Baghdad, a bemused Mr Maliki was obliged to stand squirming alongside his beaming visitor, as pictures of president and stooge were flashed unhelpfully to Muslims in Iraq and around the world. It is sometimes bad manners to drop in uninvited.
Manners maketh multilateralism

Manners and tone of voice matter in international relations. Go back to those suicides. Though Ms Graffy ought not to have called them a good PR stunt, she may have been right to imply that they were a political act, rather than individual expressions of despair (see obituary). The point, though, is that if much of the war against terrorism is a contest between values—in short, a PR war—America should be winning hands down. A brand that stands for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness is an easier sell than a brand that stands for beheading unbelievers and reviving the Middle Ages.

And yet America is not doing half as well as it should be. The annual Pew survey of global attitudes this week reports yet another fall in its standing almost everywhere. Why? In part, because actions speak louder than words, and America sometimes betrays its own values. The Guantánamo inmates should be tried or released. In part because some American actions are right but unpopular. America should, for example, stay in Iraq until the new government can stand alone. But also because of those tin ears and sharp tongues. That problem cannot be fixed by hiring “public diplomacy” experts. Mr Bush needs to remind his top people that, especially in a superpower, a little politeness goes a long way.

 

Yet another reason to hate Europeans. Our ancestors should have stayed out of their two world wars..

And for those Euros who want us to close Gitmo, why don't we send the little darlings to your house. Yeah, and maybe they can babysit your children/grandchildren.

 

So you would have blown Hirohito a kiss after Pearl Harbor?

I never knew you were such a peacenik!

 

Nope. I would have fought the country that attacked us at Pearl Harbor, not the one that attacked the Soviet Union.

 

A lot of the detainees need a bullet in the head...preferably a fragmenting type round such as a 5.56mm round (more humane)...I would like for Europeans to speak with the utmost of allure for us, but if they don't...#1 It is nothing new, sans new "reasons"...#2 We are who we are, and basing decisions on what others think is stupid.

 

That would have been more than a little difficult at the time, but I understand what you are trying to say.

Now I have a question:

When did Iraq attack the United States? Was I asleep when it happened?

 

Why was the US so ticked off about France and Germany not supporting the Iraq invasion? I mean, basing decisions on what others think is stupid.

 

USS Stark, assassination attempt on George Bush.

What's "trite" about my response? Unlike your quip I gave a warrant for my claim.

In what sense? 30% named Iran and 15% China - what is there to disagree about? Do you mean do I think Iran and China should be higher?

 

No, but you certainly avoided asking why that may be.

lol. Why the edit?

 

wait. you don't think it was in the US's best interests to do all we could to keep Europe from being under the control of Adolf Hitler? you think our entire effort there was altruistic?

 

Again, what is trite about my reponse.

That the US has been seen in this light for more than 30 years means that the 'why that may be' is a continuous phenomenon having less to do with current circumstances than with cultural and political ego-ism in Europe.

Because your original post didn't really deserve an answer.

 

We should remember that Germany actually declared war on us, not the other way around.

Max,

I think that one can always say that any altruistic action is also in someone's best interest. It's kind of an infinitely regressive argument.

 

The word "trite" is usually associated with unintelligent repetition, or hackneyed rejoinders. Simply saying that Europe has "been that way for years blah blah blah" is hardly thought provoking nor groundbreaking - thus, it is trite.

Making the claim that this is the result of cultrual and political ego-ism is much better, albeit oversimplified and mildly hypocritical.

Lol - neither did yours. Infinite regression you say?

 

Actually, I do agree that it was in our best interests to do so. I was really just blowing off steam. However, when I see today's Europe, I have to wonder if it was worth it.

 

Yes, I understand what trite means but I'm glad you looked it up before you responded again, lol. However your claim that anything that is not 'groundbreaking' is 'trite' is a misapplication of the word. It's a lame attempt to be witty that ends up making you look silly. I gave a warrant for my position (see my first post) making it far from 'unintelligent repetition.' Calling it such just shows you don't understand the implication of my post.

I guess you got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning or something. Don't waste our time (your time included) with silly 'nuh uh, you are' responses.