British Foreign Policy

[Aileron]

Its well regarded as a fact in Europe that if they be nice enough to Islamic nations that Islamic terrorists will leave them alone, provable by the fact that anyone who thinks otherwise must be a racist.

 

I mean, with the recent resignation of Tony Blair prove of that !@#$%^&*uption is clearly true. The Islamic terrorists clearly have no complaints against the UK now. The last thing the terrorists want to do is, say, fill a car up with nails and makeshift explosives and attempt a carbombing. There certainly isn't any evidence of that sort of behavior in London. Why would it? The UK is disengaging the terrorists so the terrorists should disengage in reply, right?

 

Now I for one think that Islamic terrorists are radicals who want every nation on Earth to impose Islam and won't stop until that goal is accomplished. I for one think that efforts to disengage will only convince them that the nation is "more ready" to accept their position and that they would want to go on the offensive. Clearly I'm wrong because Islamic terrorists are certainly not filling cars up with nail and makeshift explosives and parking them in London in an effort to go on the offensive.

[Dav]

Just because Blair has gone doesn't mean there will still be some vengeance against Britain, as far as some are concerned the middle east problems are the fault of all British people and thus all must die.

 

Whilst not-interfering probably wont stop terrorism it removes one reason, just because a nation doesn't want to interfere doesn't mean it isn't going to fight extremism on its own soil either. You have to remember that all evidence has shown the Iraq war to have begun based on false information.

 

The UK foreign policy does need to change though, acting independability of the USA and a closer !@#$%^&*ociation with Europe should be the way forward IMO.

 

A lot of the UK terror problems come from segregation of communities aiding the radicalisation of young muslims to carry out attacks like this.

 

As a side note this is quite scary news, I was on that road at 2am one week before this happened with friends when we were on a night out in London.

[SeVeR]

It really doesn't matter in the slightest who is in charge of the country. All that matters is where our troops are.

 

Spain pulled out Iraq and weren't bombed again. Britain didn't pull out and are under continual threat (the potential car-bombers).

 

It's clear that we can't win a war against an enemy that doesn't fight conventionally.

 

We must stop giving them reasons to join these terrorist groups. Basically we need to stop bombing their bloody countries.

[Aileron]

Well, one question is that are they not attacking Spain because they want to make peace with Spain, or is it that they would still attack Spain were it not for the fact that they have bigger problems?

 

Actually, there are lots of instances in history were countries used unconventional tactics against another countries' civilians. There's little mention of them though because the tactic does not work. At most, they just anger the conventionally strong party, which will then deal with them brutally.

 

And the UK should not try to get along more with the rest of Europe. Europe's track record is worse than ours is.

[AstroProdigy]

And the UK should not try to get along more with the rest of Europe. Europe's track record is worse than ours is.

Not as a single cohesive unit. That's a new one in Europe.

[Dav]

Possibly in history through the two world wars but Europe today has many benefits.

 

Being the UKs closest geographical ally and membership in the EU means that a closer !@#$%^&*ociation would aid trade and exchange of various other !@#$%^&*ets, for example labor which is good for the economy.

 

Secondly a more united europe would act as a larger world power and rival the US giving Europeans a say in world affairs thus improving the position of the UK in the world political stage.

 

You claim that the EU history is worse then the US, Are you referring to world wars, division over Iraq or other history?

 

As far as spain goes i am not sure why, Iraq is often quoted as a reason for terror attacks but as I have stated before, there is a battle against extremism within a nations own society which must also be fought, perhaps more so then those in the middle east given most attacks in the UK come from those born there.

[Aileron]

I am referring to the time before the world wars when they attached a morality to conquering other people's and would do so for absolutely no reason. The British conquest of India was one thing; It was done for economic reasons and as such India benefited from it in some ways. Not many, but some. I'm talking about how France conquered the Sahara desert just for the sake of doing it.

 

I am also talking about the World Wars as well the wars leading up to it, where they would ally themselves in such a way as to form two equally sized factions, and wouldn't care what despicable s!@#$%^&* they would ally with in order to achieve this end. World War I, a war that involved world powers such as England, France, Germany, Austria, the United States, etc. was started by a fool from one pissant speck of land known to be called a country !@#$%^&*!@#$%^&*inating another fool from another pissant speck of land known to be called a country. The powerfull nations with so much to lose should never have !@#$%^&*ociated with the fools.

 

And finally, the worst thing I despise about Europe is how they helped to create the United Nations and then p!@#$%^&* off responsibility for it to the US. Who created Israel? The United Nations did. If you asked your common Islamic who created Israel, he'd say the US did. Who was involved the the first Gulf War? The United Nations. If you asked your average Iraqi who was involved in the first Gulf War, he'd answer that the US was. Who was involved in the Korean War? The United Nations. If you asked the average North Korean who was, he'd say the US was.

 

That what "it" is though. Admittingly the US' influence on the UN is large. However, what despises me about this whole situation is that Europe has generated a self-righteous at!@#$%^&*ude about it. They act like Israel is our fault that we uphold the mandates which they voted in. They left the US to isolate Hussein's Iraq and when we found out that that particular long term policy would fail, act like we are the agressors. They left us in Korea and now expect us to fix the problems with North Korea new nukes, though certainly don't want us to try any direct approach to removing them.

 

What disgusts me about modern Europe is that with they US they will agree to solve a problem, and then about half-way through it they pull out, leave us to deal with the hard part of it ourselves, and then turn around a criticise the methods we use to finish things.

 

They are like a group of friends going out on the restaurant who will eat the food but dissappear when it comes time to pay the bill, and not only that will have the nerve to criticise the person who did pay the bill for not leaving the waiter a generous enough tip. As proof of their self-righteousness, they cite that the waiter is not mad at them, but at the person who left behind to pay the bill.

[SeVeR]

Yea, so after WW2 the US was the only power left on Earth, and the very survival of Europe depended on billion dollar loans.... so when US President Truman comes out saying the Jews need a homeland, what the !@#$%^&* do you think Europe is going to do? It's really no coincidence that the vote took place right after WW2.

 

The US is blamed for the Korean War based on their fight to stop the expansion of communism.

THe US is blamed for the Gulf War because they owned the oil fields in Kuwait, they called for the war, and they sent in the most troops.

 

I don't understand your beef with past Euro foreign policy. Americans are direct descendents of those bloody Europeans! When they left Europe and became Americans they busied themselves with killing the Native Americans.

 

The US is always the first up to the podium to call for war.

 

And what the !@#$%^&* are you talking about with the World Wars. If America had been next to Germany you'd have had the same problems. You can't blame the whole of Europe for Germany's aggression.

 

How the heck has Europe developed a self-righteous at!@#$%^&*ude in comparison to America? We're not the ones calling for democracy in the Middle East.

[Dav]

America has a less then perfect past itself, servers examples, the near annihilation of an entire culture (the native Americans), the deliberate destruction of a species for sport (i cant remember which for this but i remember it coming up on the amazing program that is QI).

 

The past of a nation is no reason to determine its future. You know as well as everyone on here that things change over time. Remember there was a time not so long ago when Europe was very divided.

 

Also your history is our history as server pointed out. The current american population are almost all of European decent.

[Greased_Lightning]

I think you refer to the North American Bison, or buffalo. The meat isn't too bad, a little too lean so you got to chew it more. Plus, bison are ornery SOBs.

[Dav]

I think you refer to the North American Bison, or buffalo. The meat isn't too bad, a little too lean so you got to chew it more. Plus, bison are ornery SOBs.

It was a bird species, they shot the last flock of a few million in one day knowing it would be the end of them.

[AstroProdigy]

America has a less then perfect past itself, servers examples, the near annihilation of an entire culture (the native Americans), the deliberate destruction of a species for sport (i cant remember which for this but i remember it coming up on the amazing program that is QI).

 

The past of a nation is no reason to determine its future. You know as well as everyone on here that things change over time. Remember there was a time not so long ago when Europe was very divided.

 

Also your history is our history as server pointed out. The current american population are almost all of European decent.

 

The United States isn't quite the same. I'd say the most part of the countries in the Americas have many experiences that are uniquely new world. The fact that the political system is overwhelmingly presidential in the Americas whereas it's overwhelmingly parliamentary or semi-presidential in Europe is a testament to this. There is also the melting pot mentality and the do it yourself dream that is much more common here than in Europe. We also have rather large African populations and a Native American influence that still exists today. For these reasons I'd say while most of our origins come from Europe, we have changed a lot from the mother countries.

Edited July 4, 2007 by AstroProdigy

[Dav]

Doesn't change the past of the peoples origins which ail seems to put a lot of weight on.

 

We also have to remember that Europe today is very united and no longer bent on world conquest.

[AstroProdigy]

The United States actually fits the profile of a country bent on world conquest much more than Europe. If anything our role as an example for the world has been replaced by Europe. Any times Europe pulls out from helping us (like Iraq) is when it was always controversial to help us and the way we've tried to solve these problems lately has pushed them away. Europe has stepped up to help us many times lately which Aileron seems to forget. Look at the role they've taken in Kosovo and Bosnia. They still help us in Afghanistan too.

[Greased_Lightning]

It was a bird species, they shot the last flock of a few million in one day knowing it would be the end of them.

 

Hmm, only bird species I can think of that had that many numbers to be hunted so badly was the Dodo, which is now extinct but I don't think they were a flocking bird... any other bird species I know of with numbers that low now aren't of the flocking type (i.e. whooping crane or condor)

 

If you find out what species it was please post it as you've piqued my interest.

[Dav]

The US government is actually based on the roman republic (another link to EU history). I think we all know how well that worked.

 

I will look it up and post the link to the species later.

[Aileron]

SeVeR, while you are citing the reasons why the US voted "Yes" for those actions, it does not change the fact that Europe also approved of those actions.

 

Astro, I was making a point, not fairly taking in both sides. Europe isn't *always* like that. All I'm saying is that they engage in that type of behavior a lot.

 

 

But the other comment from SeVeR is what takes the cake. Yes, most Americans are decendents form Europe. So apparently what causes European behavior is being caucasian, and since Americans are also caucasian, Americans must also be wrong. That is a racist at!@#$%^&*ude.

 

It can be cultural however, but the defining cultural quality that you can ascribe to all Americans is that an American is by definition someone who is or has desceded from people who have left an old country in order to pursue a new life in another country, and in most of our history we were actually less wealthy than Europe. As such, Americans have a culture of not tolerating systems that continually serve the aristocracy, an at!@#$%^&*ude that is still present today because we look for those systems all the time. I'd hope to think they are torn down faster than they can be set up, though with the all-negative news today its impossible to be sure.

 

Europeans don't like such systems either. But the degree is different. Americans were willing to leave their family and property behind in order to leave such systems, where to a European having a nice quite life is more important, hence why they stayed in Europe. Thus, they can never understand why we hate repressive regimes like the Baathists as much as we do.

[SeVeR]

But the other comment from SeVeR is what takes the cake. Yes, most Americans are decendents form Europe. So apparently what causes European behavior is being caucasian, and since Americans are also caucasian, Americans must also be wrong. That is a racist at!@#$%^&*ude.

Nothing about the colour of our skin determines the level of destruction we wreak upon the world. Our limits are determined only by how advanced and efficient we have become at it. In other words, Africans and Asians are historically no different than Europeans or Americans in their will to destroy, but they don't have the means to equal our destructive power.

 

I'm a little surprised you pulled out an accusation of racism this time.

 

SeVeR, while you are citing the reasons why the US voted "Yes" for those actions, it does not change the fact that Europe also approved of those actions.

Actually i'm trying to answer the question of "would Israel exist today without America?", and given the influence America had over the world in 1947, and the outspoken support for a Jewish state in the Middle East from President Truman, i'm willing to guess the answer is "No". This is why America is blamed for Israel's creation. Edited July 6, 2007 by SeVeR

[AstroProdigy]

We don't hate repressive regimes more than Europe. We gladly deal with repressive regimes all the time and only tell them to allow more freedoms when they criticize us. Otherwise we have no problems. Europe, on the other hand, while also dealing with repressive regimes, is more willing to criticize them universally. The US fell behind on the protection of freedoms during the Cold War and has only fallen further behind with Bush. Edited July 6, 2007 by AstroProdigy

[Aileron]

But you didn't say "Americans are descended from Africans and Asians" SeVeR. You cited the fact that Americans descended from Europeans as somehow relevent.

 

Your point about Israel is exactly what I am talking about. When Israel was created, a LOT of countries voted, but other than the US all of the other nations who voted for it didn't back up their UN vote with action. Thus, the US has been handling the Israel situation almost unilaterally. Now, those who voted but took no action don't like how we handled Israel and criticise everything that's done. I say if they wanted a voice in the matter they should have taken action themselves.

 

 

Astro, other than Saudi Arabia I can't think of any examples. Maybe Iraq in the Iraq/Iran war but at the time that was choosing the lesser of two evils. Maybe a couple of Latin American regimes as well, but those nations have a tendency to replace their repressive regimes with different regimes which are equally repressive.

 

But how could we "forget" it during the Cold War? The USSR was very repressive. China was and continues to be repressive. By objective we were trying to take down two very large repressive regimes during the Cold War, and in an inperfect world that does mean sometimes helping out the little repressors. That's not being "forgetfull". That's being tactical.

 

Bush happens to be a good example of what I'm talking about though. When he was justifying action in Iraq to the United States, all he needed to do was to mention that Hussein was running a brutal dictatorship that was killing its own people. That was all it took for him to get a 70% approval rating from the American people. He tried the same arguement with Europe and it didn't work, so he had to cite WMDs.

 

Don't get me wrong. With good people Liberty and Peace are the top 2 priorities, so no matter who you are you probably want both. I'm just saying Americans culturally favor Liberty over Peace while Old World countries favor Peace over Liberty.

[AstroProdigy]

But you didn't say "Americans are descended from Africans and Asians" SeVeR. You cited the fact that Americans descended from Europeans as somehow relevent.

 

Your point about Israel is exactly what I am talking about. When Israel was created, a LOT of countries voted, but other than the US all of the other nations who voted for it didn't back up their UN vote with action. Thus, the US has been handling the Israel situation almost unilaterally. Now, those who voted but took no action don't like how we handled Israel and criticise everything that's done. I say if they wanted a voice in the matter they should have taken action themselves.

 

 

Astro, other than Saudi Arabia I can't think of any examples. Maybe Iraq in the Iraq/Iran war but at the time that was choosing the lesser of two evils. Maybe a couple of Latin American regimes as well, but those nations have a tendency to replace their repressive regimes with different regimes which are equally repressive.

 

But how could we "forget" it during the Cold War? The USSR was very repressive. China was and continues to be repressive. By objective we were trying to take down two very large repressive regimes during the Cold War, and in an inperfect world that does mean sometimes helping out the little repressors. That's not being "forgetfull". That's being tactical.

 

Bush happens to be a good example of what I'm talking about though. When he was justifying action in Iraq to the United States, all he needed to do was to mention that Hussein was running a brutal dictatorship that was killing its own people. That was all it took for him to get a 70% approval rating from the American people. He tried the same arguement with Europe and it didn't work, so he had to cite WMDs.

 

Don't get me wrong. With good people Liberty and Peace are the top 2 priorities, so no matter who you are you probably want both. I'm just saying Americans culturally favor Liberty over Peace while Old World countries favor Peace over Liberty.

 

We supported repressive regimes all throughout the Cold War and said it was to fight communism. I really don't think I need to provide proof of the US supporting repressive regimes all you have to do is look at the history of each country and a lot of them will include a repressive regime supported by the US. Actually I don't know about you, but what I was seeing on the news was Bush saying Saddam Hussein had weapons of m!@#$%^&* destruction and links to Al Qaeda. It was even supported by the media and I heard it over and over again by the "liberal" media. I didn't start hearing things about Saddam Hussein oppressing his people except for occasional mention in the media and by the Bush administration until later on. I disagree that Americans favor liberty and peace more than western Europe. A large group of Americans are ecstatic about giving up key liberties when the president tells them to, while Europeans would fight it. France has so many strikes and riots because the French people practice their liberty. People in the United States are much less like that. Not only that, but Americans support peace more than Europe? If anything you'd say Europeans aren't willing to attack repressive regimes BECAUSE they want PEACE instead. The United States is quick to go to WAR because they don't care as much about peace. It's an oxymoron to say going to war is a value of peace whereas not going to war is not a value of peace.