The European Union - Discussion.

Michael Riddell wrote:Which is an unfortunate consequence of the general insularity and partiality of the US media. Americans just aren't well enough informed, on average, on what happens outwith the USA. When they do get something, it's usually filtered to make it more palatable to the US mindset. There are exceptions of course, but the general lack of US participation in this thread is telling in it's own way.
<<SNIP>>

One thing I have noticed with the European news shows I watch is that they spend more time in one half hour show talking about the US than our news shows talk about Europe in a week. Unless there is a meeting involving the Pres., of course. Then we get some coverage of what he's doing but not much in the way of background info. And what we do get for background doesn't make much sense because there is not enough of it. The news shows I watch when I can (BBC, the German news and the Japanese news) all are aired after 10PM and I leave for work at 5AM. So not much chance to get a good picture about any topic.

What news we do get is about strikes, riots and terrorists. There has been very little coverage that I have seen of Britain's weather problems. In fact, I would not have known about it if someone from the UK had not mentioned it in this forum.

Since I don't like looking like a total idiot, knowing I don't know enough for even an uneducated guess, I have refrained from commenting earlier in this thread. The only observation I will make is that in my lifetime, I have seen the US go from being a respected and welcome ally to a barely tolerated country. Much of the change is due to the political leadership of this country not paying attention to the needs and desires of our allies. It has been our own arrogance that caused at least part of the change.

I haven't been commenting because I look forward to seeing what people who actually live there think. I know short visits tell me virtually nothing. BTDT. Anybody who thinks they are learning something from a weeks visit is smoking things they shouldn't.

Anybody who thinks the news actually represents the basic view of a country, ditto. The reason its news is because it is odd and interesting. Pesky advertisers want to get products in front of people. Just like we buy books about people we could never be.

I have learned a great deal from many people on the forum that I wouldn't have otherwise. Who would have thought I could talk to someone from Poland and carried on some far ranging discussions.

Part of the deal is that Europe really does not affect the average American at all. Its like why Americans don't learn a foreign language. What is the benefit? Learning that means there is something else I don't learn. Knick and I live ~2,700 miles apart. We speak the same language. Most places in Europe there would be around 5 different languages between the 2 of us.

Americans are not all that alone in not understanding Europe. I remember on the Baen's Bar somebody from England, I think, not being sure what the impact of a new development in earthquake protection buildings(or some such). He thought it was of interest to people in FL(its not hurricanes are much more important and having a roof that stays on in 130 mph winds is much more important). Generally speaking we here are a self selected group that is much more aware of what is going on the wider world than most. Which when I see a lot of the old preconceptions I held, even though I had visited something over 30 countries was eye opening. Especially as I used to bicycle around to get away from port areas.

Enjoy,
T2M

PS Off topic but I have definitely been having some fun wandering around in other countries unemployment data. Pretty amazing. Did you know that Australia's underemployment rate is higher than the US's(despite the employment rate nearly 1% higher though the trend since 2010 is not so good). Of course the participation rate percentage is higher and part time workers are around half again as high as the US. Gets kind of interesting to contemplate. Just like they only have 2 categories more or less men and women. But they do break down that part time worker thing. Lots of weird stuff in there to consider need to spend some time looking at some of the countries in Europe but takes me a while just not that smart. It will give more things to think about during my yearly tour of different places in the US.

I listened to the BBC while traveling in aeurope and Israel back in 1984.

Reagan was having a diplomatic clash with the Sandanistas of Nicaraugua. The BBC reporters were giving dramatic live reports of American SR-71s making bombing runs on Managua. The Swedes at the Kibbutz that I was staying at believed this. They also believed the claims of the only other American guest worker there that the US used nuclear weapons during the invasion of Panama.

European news might cover the US more, but that does not ensure that Europeans are nformed.

KNick wrote:

Michael Riddell wrote:Which is an unfortunate consequence of the general insularity and partiality of the US media. Americans just aren't well enough informed, on average, on what happens outwith the USA. When they do get something, it's usually filtered to make it more palatable to the US mindset. There are exceptions of course, but the general lack of US participation in this thread is telling in it's own way.
<<SNIP>>

One thing I have noticed with the European news shows I watch is that they spend more time in one half hour show talking about the US than our news shows talk about Europe in a week. Unless there is a meeting involving the Pres., of course. Then we get some coverage of what he's doing but not much in the way of background info. And what we do get for background doesn't make much sense because there is not enough of it. The news shows I watch when I can (BBC, the German news and the Japanese news) all are aired after 10PM and I leave for work at 5AM. So not much chance to get a good picture about any topic.

What news we do get is about strikes, riots and terrorists. There has been very little coverage that I have seen of Britain's weather problems. In fact, I would not have known about it if someone from the UK had not mentioned it in this forum.

Since I don't like looking like a total idiot, knowing I don't know enough for even an uneducated guess, I have refrained from commenting earlier in this thread. The only observation I will make is that in my lifetime, I have seen the US go from being a respected and welcome ally to a barely tolerated country. Much of the change is due to the political leadership of this country not paying attention to the needs and desires of our allies. It has been our own arrogance that caused at least part of the change.

Michael Riddell wrote:The 2008 economic crash has further accentuated this trend. Hence SecDef Gate's frustration over the lack of European commitment to Afghanistan. Of course, European lack of enthusiasm for the adventure doesn't help either. Even in the UK, although there is widespread support for the Armed Forces themselves, there is no support whatsoever for their presence in Afghanistan.

Well, the basic question to ask is really, why should Europe assist with USAs adventures on demand, when the opposite most definitely isn´t even remotely true?

Had USA gone to Afghanistan and properly dealt with that situation, while dealing decently and fairly with those that might be interested in assisting, there would have been far more help. But GWB screwed up from start to finish, completely alienating the world in just 2 years after support for USA was at an alltime high.

And then Iraq... Around the world a common comment was something like "well if they can invade Iraq willy-nilly, then why should we do the job for them in Afghanistan?"...

That Sweden sent troops to Afghanistan was far from certain before decided, parliament was wary to say it nicely and IIRC out of 8 parties, only FP was fully in favour(and they´re the only party here in favour of joining NATO, not to mention getting election result at 5-10%).

Michael Riddell wrote:In addition, with no external military threat after the conclusion of the Cold War, defence budgets have been slashed.

Far too much.

Michael Riddell wrote:Going back to the main discussion, one unfortunate consequence of the US's efforts to stabilise Europe is that the most EU countries are generally "Fat, Dumb and Happy". By eliminating internal strife and channeling it through peaceful means, Europe's largely lost the "Killer Instinct". Decolonisation and Germany's demilitarisation further aggravates it, leading to Euro-Isolationism.

Can´t agree. Isolationism isn´t even on the horizon, the problem is that with all things appearing as a result of extending the EU, well simply put it´s distracting a lot of people.

At the same time, European nations have more interaction outside of Europe than possibly ever before(colonialist dealings excluded as it warps any attempt at comparison).

Also, militaries are being changed more or less towards foreign intervention, hard to call that isolationist.

Finland are one of few that retains a military heavily focused on defense of home territory.

And really, eliminating internal strife? When did that happen? More arguing then ever i would say.

Really can´t agree.

Reckon you folks may find this interesting


http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/american ... gn-affairs

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/state-wo ... s-strategy

http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/state-wo ... s-strategy

Let me know if it asks for a login, and I'll post a copy on here instead

KNick wrote:One thing I have noticed with the European news shows I watch is that they spend more time in one half hour show talking about the US than our news shows talk about Europe in a week. Unless there is a meeting involving the Pres., of course. Then we get some coverage of what he's doing but not much in the way of background info. And what we do get for background doesn't make much sense because there is not enough of it. The news shows I watch when I can (BBC, the German news and the Japanese news) all are aired after 10PM and I leave for work at 5AM. So not much chance to get a good picture about any topic.

Yeah, and while it´s easy for me here to get news channels from USA, i currently have 3 or 4 IIRC, you can´t really do the same thing.

I recall my cousin swearing loudly(she never swears normally) about how ridiculously expensive it would be for them to get access to even limited Swedish TV while they lived in USA.

KNick wrote:What news we do get is about strikes, riots and terrorists.

Lol... So, less than 1% of the news total then.

KNick wrote:Since I don't like looking like a total idiot, knowing I don't know enough for even an uneducated guess, I have refrained from commenting earlier in this thread. The only observation I will make is that in my lifetime, I have seen the US go from being a respected and welcome ally to a barely tolerated country. Much of the change is due to the political leadership of this country not paying attention to the needs and desires of our allies. It has been our own arrogance that caused at least part of the change.

President shrubbery pretty much took all the worst parts of that, and forcefed it to much of the world, while there has always been ups and downs before, he almost alone made certain that things went down, down and doooown.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Anybody who thinks the news actually represents the basic view of a country, ditto. The reason its news is because it is odd and interesting. Pesky advertisers want to get products in front of people. Just like we buy books about people we could never be.

Well, at that point it´s very nice to remember that the public channels doesn´t have advertising, and some of them are quite serious about trying to be objective with reporting news.

They´re not perfect, and often fail in being objective, but rarely from not trying.
And one effect from this is that the commercial channels that runs news at all, they simply can´t be too "unserious" about it.
Me, i´ve pretty much quit watching channel 4s news exactly because they are now more about ads than about news. And even they´re still nothing like the stuff i´ve seen from US newscasts(some of those feels like they should be taken from parody comedy shows, just strange that they´re allowed to get away with it).

thinkstoomuch wrote:I have learned a great deal from many people on the forum that I wouldn't have otherwise. Who would have thought I could talk to someone from Poland and carried on some far ranging discussions.

People are still people.

thinkstoomuch wrote:Part of the deal is that Europe really does not affect the average American at all. Its like why Americans don't learn a foreign language. What is the benefit? Learning that means there is something else I don't learn. Knick and I live ~2,700 miles apart. We speak the same language. Most places in Europe there would be around 5 different languages between the 2 of us.

English is just ONE of the "big languages", so why shouldn´t you learn a 2nd language?

Here we start learning English around age 10, yet we generally have shorter primary education and still come out with similar things learned overall.

No need for it to be to the exclusion of something else.

In 5th grade i also started learning German as an elective class(French and German as electives are normal, but you can find anything from Chinese to Finnish or Danish among those electives today).

namelessfly wrote:I listened to the BBC while traveling in aeurope and Israel back in 1984.

Reagan was having a diplomatic clash with the Sandanistas of Nicaraugua. The BBC reporters were giving dramatic live reports of American SR-71s making bombing runs on Managua. The Swedes at the Kibbutz that I was staying at believed this. They also believed the claims of the only other American guest worker there that the US used nuclear weapons during the invasion of Panama.

European news might cover the US more, but that does not ensure that Europeans are nformed.

Idiots can be found anywhere. They´re usually not representative.

The European news sources I read most often are British and most of the European people I know personally are British as well, so my views are a bit biased by that source. The news that I have seen regarding the US is not particularly accurate, especially regarding the coverage of "fly over country". (Worse than the US based media if that is possible). It also tends to be somewhat paternalistic. That's probably inevitable since the US was originally a British colony. It reminds me a bit of how parents would discuss their young adult child. Alternating between exasperated "what is that crazy kid up to now" and acting the proud father. I tend to see the same tone regarding the other colonies as well.

When I do see from the rest of Europe is that they are drifting toward anti-US hostility especially toward military policy. Frankly it is costing us a fortune to protect Europe and they don't want us there anyway. We need to revisit NATO and reduce US involvement. This isn't post WWII Europe in which NATO was founded. The countries are no longer destroyed wrecks, they can now resume protecting themselves. We should still have some treaty arrangements but they need to be re-written, but that's another thread. France is especially anti-US but that seems to be driven by domestic politics. I.e. they need someone to play the role of "enemy" to distract the populace from the disaster they have made of their own internal economy.

From the outside the EU looks more and more dysfunctional. The US experience in confederacy was a disaster, it looks to me as if Europe is following a similar trend. Our biggest problem was fiscal and it seems as if that Europe's problem as well. We solved ours by forming a stronger central authority, the structure of which seems to have functioned well over the centuries. Note that the government that we have now is NOT the same government that we had in 1789. It has changed and evolved for better or for worse to accommodate the desires of the populace. One of the strengths of the government that we have is that it is flexible enough to change over time without armed conflict (for the most part, that slavery disaster was a major flaw in the constitution and resulted in a war that everyone could see was coming for decades in advance).

I don't know how the Europeans will solve their problems, I suspect that they are too different culturally and linguistically to form a single country. But the EU needs fundamental reform. Either a stronger central authority with each country giving up fiscal independence (not likely) or a weaker central authority primarily consisting of free trade agreements etc and each country going back to it's own currency and its own fiscal policy.

As far as the conspiracy theories re the US wants a stronger EU or the US wants a weaker EU etc etc. Frankly the majority of the people in the US don't care if the EU is strong or weak as long as it is stable enough not to cause the US problems. We have our own problems and US domestic issues dominate policy discussions in the US. So it's really up to the member of the EU to decide what they want for themselves. However, the fiscal disasters caused by Greece and Co. did negatively effect the US economy. Too many more economic disasters that negatively impact the US and the sleeping silent majority in US populace may start to care and may start to demand that the US government do something to "fix" Europe. (To the Europeans: Please!! Please!! Fix it so that, that doesn't happen. I can't imagine what kind of disaster would result if an outside entity attempted to impose a solution of Europe.)

Tenshinai wrote:Well, the basic question to ask is really, why should Europe assist with USAs adventures on demand, when the opposite most definitely isn´t even remotely true?

Well, they assisted in Libya, but it was rather unenthusiastically. IIRC, what that conflict highlighted was poor Command and Control between the NATO allies if the US wasn't involved.

Had USA gone to Afghanistan and properly dealt with that situation,...

Impossible. Afghanistan is best avoided by anyone except Afghans. The British Empire tried three times and didn't get anywhere!

Can´t agree. Isolationism isn´t even on the horizon, the problem is that with all things appearing as a result of extending the EU, well simply put it´s distracting a lot of people.

I'll give you that, I was using some out of date information. However, I think heavy, and blunt, US prodding is having an effect on European thinking on defence:

http://www.dw.de/coaxing-europe-from-its-comfort-blanket/a-17407530

"But what do those words amount to when Europe is has so many economic problems that "turning inward" seems like a natural problem? The UK-based International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) on Wednesday released its "Military Balance" - the think tank's much-anticipated annual assessment of the world's military capabilities and defense economics, whose introduction summed up the double bind that Europe finds itself in: "Defense spending is shrinking in European countries at a time when the reorientation of US defense policy towards the Asia-Pacific places a greater share of the burden for international security on them, particularly in Europe's fragile vicinity to the south and the east."

However, Europe is spending less on defence, but it is trying to do more with less, here's the IISS assesment:

http://www.iiss.org/en/publications/military%20balance/issues/the-military-balance-2014-7e2c/mb2014-04-europe-1-86ad

As for Britain? Weeellll..... We've been told bluntly that we've cut too far for the US's liking :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25754870

And really, eliminating internal strife? When did that happen? More arguing then ever i would say.

I was meaning armed conflict specifically.

Mike.