I rather liked this article. Particularly the end paragraphs, which go some way, I think, towards characterising the national differences between UK and USA.

Wow, I thought the cockiness of American officials was exaggerated. Were these people legitimate?

EDIT: That "the US would be a better place" guy didn't sound like he was helping much in that regard, to be fair.

I thought this was about cowboys and horse ranches at first.

Is this news? It seems rather content-free and sensationalistic in tone (Which is disappointing as I'm used to thinking of the BBC as somewhat above such tripe). And it's got nothing to do with differences between the US and the UK; more with differences between the American government and pretty much everyone with a conscience.

It's not news, no. It's a magasiney/opiniony article. They do a fair few of em here and there.



I disagree. Part of the reason why I enjoyed it and much of the reason why I posted it was because of the analogies I saw with a select few among the american playerbase (in the context of political discussions with them).

While differences between the US and Europe may be widening, the similarities between them are still strong enough that you can talk about 'the West' culturally if not militarily / politically.

Cultural differences are dilluting. There are less differences between any given two points of the planet than ever before, specially in Europe, the Americas, Australia, South Korea and Japan. Cultural distinctions are turning into cosmetic things rather than radically different ways of thinking.

I think the concept of the west is non existent these days. Or if it isn't, than it is just the wrong word.

South America, I don't think is the same as the west, for example. And I think Australia, which is definitely not "west" has more in common with the U.S and Europe, than it does with Japan or India.

Huntington's theory is really silly and flawed. He tries to pigeonhole nations according to his own preconceptions of what a civilization is, and fails horribly.

I'm not saying I agree with the theory, but it's relevant reading for this thread.

Interesting, but I don't think the conference was all about that one man's book.

We hardly know anything about the conference from that article though, it centered on a few quotes from some arrogant american speakers and the writers own angry opinions to those set few. I have to agree with verithrax on this.

Hmm, good point. I couldn't find any other mention of a confrence like that, that didn't site that exact bbc article.


Upon reading the article again, I get this strong "hissy fit" feeling, about America willing to find non European allies. Sort of reminds me about the comments people made about France before the Iraq war.

Yeah, reading that article, I don't know what you people are all in arms about.

Yeah, America's going to get allies other than European nations. Mainland Europe (excluding Brits here--I tease Britain more for playful reasons) is increasingly racist and extremist. Muslims are a lower class in France, and the government is quite content with it. German courts recently made a ruling that a Muslim woman didn't have the same civil rights as a native woman, because her native culture says it's ok for her to be beaten. Most Europeans support Palestine over Israel, primarily because Israel has scarier guns and they feel bad for the underdog, completely ignoring how many concessions they've asked for, gotten, and abused. European economies are too socialist to be strongly competitive. European armies are soft, underequipped, and rarely deployed. In fact, the relationship anymore is largely negative. UN needs money, milk the US. UN needs troops, milk the US. Red Cross needs medical supplies, doctors, money, milk the US. The EU, for all its newfound prosperity, has been loathe to actually hold up their end of the bargain. Something goes wrong in the world, it's the US's fault. A "thank you" every once in a while, that'd be cool, not, "Those rich Americans throw us their scraps, we're still destitute!" Asinine beggars have all the tools they need to build their own economy if they'd just stop squandering it...but that's our fault too, because there isn't enough US oversight in third world governments. So...since the ideological, economic, military, and humanitarian perks aren't there...why would we go to substantial lengths to keep Europeans as our closest allies? No one wants a falling out with Europe. We like Europe. We like its people, we like its cities, we like its history, we like the way they live, but yeesh, its governments are no better than the Bush administration, which we're not all that keen on either.

Not sure if this applies to Europe, they're doing pretty well economically. Of course, being strong economically and mediocre militarily is a recipe for disaster. Especially when your superpower ally starts having second thoughts about the whole alliance thing.

Hmm.

I understood it as a junior judge making a bad decision on the basis of dodgy law which was or is being over turned by a higher court.

Something that happens every five minutes in the US. Seriously, why all the hate on the EU? They seem to be doing better on a lot of accounts, they just have a growing "muslim problem" (I find it fascinating that people have been using these words in the media. I wonder if they still have a jew problem.)

I have seen quite a few articles from France and Italy where the author had "Jew problems."

But the hate in the EU is the way they conduct themselves, and then blame all their problems on the U.S. while also asking the U.S. to solve all the international disputes.

Darfur is still going on, despite the world united opinion that it should stop, and the A.U. is getting mad at the U.S. for not using enough force there.

But the biggest problem with the E.U. is that they are not as good as an ally as either Japan, South Korea, or Australia.