Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: menanna who wrote (30582)	2/20/2004 12:41:36 PM
From: michael97123	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793896

"Let me give you an example: If I hear or read one more time that the President of the USA is the leader of the Free World, excuse me, but I’ll up throw up. " The president of the USA is the leader of the Free World. And this is the truth only because the Europeans have not stepped up to the plate not only militarily which this term implies but spiritually in terms of a progressive internationalist agenda. You folks think in such small terms and get pissed off about nothing. Come to me with a vision about how to make a better world, not how to make deals with tyrants. Iran is the next example of european lack of back bone in this world. No, I do not want to go to war against iran--not my point at all. But if you want to prevent war be tough and be prepared to fight one if necessary. Mike PS Please dont barf. I meant no disrespect but i will barf if one more european lectures the US on taking the leadership role which you folks ceded to us because you are not willing to take on the responsibility of doing it.

To: menanna who wrote (30582)	2/20/2004 1:23:01 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Respond to of 793896

Hi Annamaria, Americans think that a fairer global civil society is a lovely dream, but still a dream, one that the Europeans can only afford to dream of because of American policing, because American power kept them out of the Soviet Union. You notice that those countries which actually were under Russian control are less swayed by this dream. Thus, America get annoyed when Europe (esp. France) tries to preach to them or control them. "Leader of the Free World", is a holdover term from the Cold War and doesn't really register with Americans as meaning more than "the most powerful free country", which we are. I realize that it irritates Europeans. I would like to draw your attention to this great interview with Michael Ignatieff from L'Express. Money quote: Ce qui a mis l'opinion américaine en colère, c'est de voir la France refuser de dépêcher un seul gendarme dans la région pour faire pression sur l'Irak et, en même temps, se poser en donneuse de leçons. Il faut joindre le geste à la parole. This is what made Americans angry, to see France refuse to dispatch a single policeman to the region to put pressure on Iraq and, at the same time, pose as a schoolmarm. It is necessary to link words and deeds «L'Irak, c'est l'échec stratégique de l'Europe» "Iraq is the strategic failure of Europe" Message 19820232 France, btw, was doing far more than just refusing to send police to Iraq; it was actively working to lift the sanctions on the Saddam regime and to protect him, and had been doing so for years. The reason was money: direct bribes from Saddam (we now have the documents, cf. memri.org ) and sweetheart deals promised to TotalFinaElf when the sanctions came off. p.s. Welcome to the fray!

To: menanna who wrote (30582)	2/20/2004 2:52:41 PM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Respond to of 793896

In a very large part, the United States is the nation most responsible for the fact that there is a "free world" for anyone to be considered the leader of. The second half of the past century certainly could have been much different without our input.

To: menanna who wrote (30582)	2/21/2004 8:15:34 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793896

Annamaria, I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts on what posture the US should adopt, in general, given its/our position in the world. It seems to me that we are finding ourselves in a situation where we are, by far, the most powerful nation on the planet. We have the strongest economic engine, although others can and do compete. We also have overwhelming military power. In the latter arena, there is no competition at all--the gap is monumental. The US is going through an evolution and trying to discover how to comport itself given its post-cold-war circumstances. I have no fondness for the tone we are taking right now, but I'm not at all sure what would be better. I have advocated magnanimity and graciousness over the current swagger and unilateralism. But there is an element of condescension in magnanimity and graciousness, as well, which may be just as offputting. It is inevitable that no one likes the richest kid on the block nor the biggest kid on the block and that is even more so when the biggest and richest kid comes off as a bully. But I don't know that any posture would be palatable so maybe it doesn't really matter if we swagger. I would be interested in hearing how you think the US should comport itself given the realities of power. Or perhaps you dispute our assumptions about having unique power. I welcome your thoughts.