dimanche, février 20, 2005
blah blah world events...
I'm watching "Meet the Press" on NBC. Sometimes the Americans can give the appearance of being pretty short-sighted and ignorant. I cringe at comments like this from John McCain:
"I can't understand why the Europeans are not being more forthcoming."
They are now bemoaning the fact that they don't have a real "coalition" of international involvement in Iraq. I'm wondering if they've forgotten comments made before the invasion about the "irrelevance" of the U.N., the reference to "old Europe" by John Ashcroft, the downright dismissal of the need for diplomacy and for a multilateral approach rather than their impatience to start dropping bombs.
With my new education in the history of Europe, I also now understand a certain reluctance on the part of the Europeans to be involved in any military action. After the failure to maintain peace after World War I, they swore "never again" to the kind of destruction that a military confrontation involves. They made a commitment to re-build and respect the sovereignty of one another. I'm sure that some of them think the Americans should experience the devastation of such an event on their own soil before they even begin to understand what is truly being undertaken.
Now Time Russert is having a round-table discussion with a group of really well-spoken women, where I'm hearing a lot more that makes sense. These women are pointing out precisely why most European countries are so hesitant to jump on George's bandwagon. Like the comment by Katty Kay from the BBC, referring to Bush's inaugural speech where he condemns the countries of the world who do not practice democracy. Everybody knows that many of the U.S.'s "friends" have precisely such regimes in place, and yet there are no implied threats for China, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan to clean up their political situations. She used the word "hypocrisy" - nice. | ¶ 9:28 a.m.
"I can't understand why the Europeans are not being more forthcoming."
They are now bemoaning the fact that they don't have a real "coalition" of international involvement in Iraq. I'm wondering if they've forgotten comments made before the invasion about the "irrelevance" of the U.N., the reference to "old Europe" by John Ashcroft, the downright dismissal of the need for diplomacy and for a multilateral approach rather than their impatience to start dropping bombs.
With my new education in the history of Europe, I also now understand a certain reluctance on the part of the Europeans to be involved in any military action. After the failure to maintain peace after World War I, they swore "never again" to the kind of destruction that a military confrontation involves. They made a commitment to re-build and respect the sovereignty of one another. I'm sure that some of them think the Americans should experience the devastation of such an event on their own soil before they even begin to understand what is truly being undertaken.
Now Time Russert is having a round-table discussion with a group of really well-spoken women, where I'm hearing a lot more that makes sense. These women are pointing out precisely why most European countries are so hesitant to jump on George's bandwagon. Like the comment by Katty Kay from the BBC, referring to Bush's inaugural speech where he condemns the countries of the world who do not practice democracy. Everybody knows that many of the U.S.'s "friends" have precisely such regimes in place, and yet there are no implied threats for China, Saudi Arabia or Pakistan to clean up their political situations. She used the word "hypocrisy" - nice. | ¶ 9:28 a.m.
