Home » Why on earth would we want to emulate Europe on foreign policy?

Comments

Why on earth would we want to emulate Europe on foreign policy? — 33 Comments

  1. Because refusing to emulate Western Europe’s appeasement based foreign policy exposes their moral cowardice. There is no greater humiliation for the coward than public exposure.

    “War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling, which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse.

    The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety… is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.” John Stuart Mill

    Excepting America under Trump and a few Eastern European nations, the West is intent upon demonstrating just how true was Mill’s observation.

  2. I’d argue the period preceding the end of the Great Turkish War(s), when they were battling the Ottoman Empire.

    …and while they were still primarily and arguably Christian nations.

  3. I don’t understand the arguments which presuppose Europe’s superiority in any area.

  4. Sometimes, Europeans who criticize the US are trying to hide something. Consider Herta Dé¤ubler-Gmelin, who in her capacity as Germany’s Minister of Justice in 2002 compared George W. Bush to Hitler and characterized the US justice system as “lousy.” It turns out that she apparently had ulterior motives for putting down Dubya and the USA’s legal system, when we consider the 3 years that the Allies imprisoned her jurist father for his role in WW2 in facilitating the transport of ~70,000 Slovakian Jews to the death camps.
    Do You Remember Herta Dé¤ubler-Gmelin?

    In the meanwhile, information has emerged about Dé¤ubler-Gmelin’s family history that casts her 2002 remarks in a revealing new light. The fact that she was born in 1943 in what her official Bundestag biography calls “PreéŸburg” could already have given one cause to pause. “PreéŸburg” is the traditional German name for the Slovakian capital of Bratislava. In 1943, Slovakia was a satellite state of Nazi Germany. In 1939, it had been accorded formal independence, while the remainder of Czechoslovakia was occupied by German troops and transformed into a protectorate. The Czech “Sudetenland” had been directly annexed to the German Reich months before.

    The real power in Slovakia was vested in the German envoy Hanns Ludin. After the War, Ludin would be found guilty of war crimes and executed. Ludin’s principal deputy was one Hans Gmelin. A Nazi party member and squadron-leader or “Standartenfé¼hrer” in the paramilitary SA, Gmelin was a jurist by training. He was one of the many jurists that the Nazis dispatched to the occupied territories and German satellite states in order to implement their “new European order.” He was also the father of the future German minister of justice, Herta Dé¤ubler-Gmelin.

    Documentary evidence discussed in an April 25, 2005 article in the Schwé¤bische Tagblatt indicates that Hans Gmelin was directly involved in the deportation of Slovakian Jews to the Nazi death camps. As author Hans-Joachim Lang notes:

    Whether Eichmann was announcing his arrival [in Bratislava] or railway officials came by to discuss “questions relating to the shipment of Jews” or the Reich Central Security Office was welcoming the Slovak government’s “making available of railway equipment,” initials on the documents always confirmed who had been informed: for example, “Gm” for Gmelin.

    An estimated 70,000 Slovakian Jews, representing over three-fourths of the pre-War Jewish population, died in the Nazi camps.

    After the war, the Allies imprisoned Hans Gmelin for 3 years.
    I suspect that Herta Dé¤ubler-Gmelin’s condemnation of George W. Bush, and her “lousy” characterization of American justice, were attempts to show that her Daddy and Germany weren’t the only guilty parties. Herta Dé¤ubler-Gmelin is not responsible for her father’s actions during World War II, but from her criticisms of the US, it appears that she feels some responsibility for her father’s actions during WW2, or that she resents the punishment meted out to her father. As such, we should dismiss her criticisms of the US.

  5. Consider the Eurosneers’ putting down the US for its murder rate compared to Europe.

    Center for Disease Control: QuickStats: Age-Adjusted Rates for Homicides,* by Race/Ethnicity†– United States, 1999—2015.

    During 1999—2014, a general decline in homicide trends for non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, and Hispanic populations occurred, followed by a significant increase in the rates for all three groups between 2014 and 2015. In 2015, homicide rates were 5.7 deaths per 100,000 for the total population, 20.9 for non-Hispanic blacks, 4.9 for Hispanics, and 2.6 for non-Hispanic whites. During 1999—2015, rates of deaths from homicide were highest for non-Hispanic blacks and lowest for non-Hispanic whites and declined the most for Hispanics.

    According to the UNDOC, the homicide rate for Europe is 3.0/100,000.

    Homicide rate for Americans of European descent: 2.6/100,000.
    Homicide rate for Europeans: 3.0/100,000.

    As Europe is a continent of some 3.9 million square miles, and the United States is a continent-spanning country of some 3.8 million square miles, the comparison of US to the European continent, not some cherry-picked countries, is more apt.

    I would add that many of us know some of the stories of why our ancestors got out of Europe. If Europe were such a great place, they wouldn’t have left. Religious freedom was why some of my ancestors left Germany (some Germans with a stopover in Holland- like the English Pilgrims!) or the British Isles for America. Ironically, some Massachusetts ancestors who converted to Quakerism left Massachusetts for Pennsylvania for religious freedom. 🙂 My father thought that some ancestors may have left Germany to avoid getting drafted into the local prince’s army.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

  6. “Because refusing to emulate Western Europe’s appeasement based foreign policy exposes their moral cowardice. There is no greater humiliation for the coward than public exposure.”

    GB wins…he got it in one go.

  7. One more reason for disrespecting Europe. There is the argument that “the cream left” for America. I have heard this said about Ireland and Scotland. I compare the mess that is Greece today to the people of Greek ancestry that I knew growing up. The Greeks I knew were either entrepreneurs- restaurants- lot of Greek-owned pizza places- or liquor stores- or professionals. Governor Dukakis of Massachusetts fits the mold.

    In the case of Greece, the argument might be made that a dysfunctional government also made a difference.

  8. Why on earth would we want to emulate Europe on foreign policy?
    When have they ever been right?
    Seriously, when?

    Consider Winston Churchill in the 1930s, 🙂
    But his opinion at the time was far from mainstream.

  9. The Europeans offered a lot of earnest advice to Reagan about how to deal with the USSR. After thinking about it for just a moment, he rejected their counsel entirely.

    Had he listened to it, we’d still have the USSR and the Berlin Wall.

  10. It’s true about the moral cowardice, but what makes this really infuriating is that they try to turn it into moral superiority.

    Gringo,

    Churchill was half American.

  11. “When have they ever been right?”

    When they turned to us, the United States, to right their wrongs, and got out the way as we did so.

  12. expat,

    They seek to hide from their cowardice, which requires that they betray the brave, through false accusations. There’s a reason why prior generations held cowardice in such contempt.

    “The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish spurting out ink.” George Orwell

  13. Most countries shouldn’t emulate each other’s foreign policies because a country’s foreign policy should serve that country’s specific needs at that specific time. But, just off the top of my head, here are a few things that various European countries got right in their foreign policies, many of which aligned with US policies and furthered US goals cooperatively:

    – NATO, and keeping the Soviets at bay, and everything NATO has done since the end of the Soviet Union, including current participation in operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

    – Participation in C-ISIS ops in Iraq and Syria, flying and fighting alongside American and local forces up to right now.

    – The European Union, which for all its faults has also brought an end to centuries of constant warfare in Western Europe, as well as facilitate the emergence of of formerly enslaved Eastern Bloc states into democracy and free markets.

    – Did I mention NATO? That’s kind of a big deal.

    – Germany’s decades-long policy of economic and military support to Israel.

    – Germany’s decades-long policies towards the Soviets that facilitated the peaceful incorporation of the DDR into Germany and NATO.

    – Gulf War 1. Even the SOVIETS signed off on that one.

    – Crippling sanctions on Iran that brought Iran to the negotiating table, whatever your feelings about JCPOA.

    – Ongoing global counter-piracy missions.

    – Diego Garcia. JAC Molesworth. Stuttgart, Ramstein, and Aviano. Did I mention NATO?

    Besides, foreign policy is only “right” or “wrong” if you imagine policy is made in a cartoonist fashion by Clear Headed Men of Wisdom and Righteousness or Sniveling Cowards and Petty Tyrants, that there’s always a right answer, and that either answer is both universal and sustains in perpetuity. In reality, foreign policy never has a right answer, only an array of bad options that may or may not work (we’re talking about affecting the behavior of millions of people in other countries with some dollars spent or words spoken or bombs dropped, a nearly impossible proposition), all of which bear substantial costs.

    But yeah, some people in Europe once appeased Hitler so they’re all dumb and weak forever! Except for NATO.

  14. top historical acts of cowardice…

    10. Assault at ST. Nedelya Church
    the Bulgarian Communist Party (BCP) decided to blow up St. Nedelya Church dome located in Sofia during a funeral service of General Konstantin Georgiev . They used their military organization who mounted explosives at the top of the dome killing 150 people and wounding over 500. Prior to bombing the church which supposedly had housed military and government officials, the BCP had killed the General Konstantin Georgiev as a way to eliminate pressure from the present government

    9. Wall Street Bombing
    16th September 1920, New York’s financial district of Wall Street experienced a blast which killed 38 people on the spot and injured about 143. It is among the cowardly acts in history that will always be spoken about. It was carried out by a group of Italian anarchists known as the Galleanists who were also responsible for carrying out a series of attacks the previous year.

    8. Beslan Massacre
    September 2004, 1100 hostages including 777 children were reported to be in the hands of armed Chechen and Ingush insurgents in Beslan, Russia. These terrorists demanded that the Russian government put an end to the on the military disputes between Russia and Chechnya which had been going for some time. After three days, the Russian officials reacted in kind using heavy weapons, tanks and military force. 334 hostages (186 were children) died during the heavy battle. Russia changed a number of polices following this unfortunate incident.

    7. Cinema Rex Arson
    The arson, which took place in one of the Abadan cinemas on August 19, 1978, killed 470 individuals. Most of the victims were burnt beyond recognition owing to the extent of the fire. Although the Iranian government reported that this one of a kind attack was performed by a group of radical Islamists, proper investigations revealed the anti-Shah militants were behind the attacks.

    6. The Seizure at the Grand Mosque
    Mohammed Abdullah al-Qahtani, the then leader of the responsible insurgents wanted to be the redeemer or “Mahdi” of Muslims. The attack happened when pilgrims had congregated for their annual “hajj”. Hostages were taken in when an attempt to rescue them led to the death of 255 militants and pilgrims with 500 seriously wounded. These cowardly acts changed the history of the Islam religion.

    5. Menasha Synagogue attack
    the Menasha attack which happened on the fifth day of August, 1949. The attackers planted grenades in the synagogue located in Damascus killing 12 people (eight of the twelve were children) and injuring 30. This is one among the cowardly acts that were staged to protest against the signing of peace agreements.

    4. Beirut Barracks Bombing
    on 23rd October, 1989. Two truck bombs which targeted the buildings that housed French and US military forces detonated killing 299 multinational force members. The number of military men who lost their lives in a single day during Beirut Bombing came second after the highest record of the World War II’s Iwo Jima Battle.

    3. Mumbai attacks
    on 26 November, 2008 and led to the longest, 64 hour, battle between the Indian police/Military and the terror groups. Ten attacks took place in the same day with more than 100 innocent lives being lost. These cowardly acts changed the history of India and may people consider that day as one of the worst ever.

    2. Oklahoma bombing
    On 19 April, 1995, terrorists launched bombs in the Alfred.P. Murrah building located in Oklahoma City. 170 people lost their lives while 680 sustained injuries.

    1. 9/11 attack
    11th September, 2001 is the worst day in American history. 2,993 people lost their lives with 8,900 injured when the Washington Pentagon was hit by terrorists. These cowardly acts that changed the history of America were planned by Osama Bin Laden and directed to the World Trade Center in the United States.

    have fun making your own list
    use construction paper, and glue on stars for impact
    dont forget to clean up after yourself

  15. Joe Shmoe

    But, just off the top of my head, here are a few things that various European countries got right in their foreign policies, many of which aligned with US policies and furthered US goals cooperatively..

    Please list a European foreign policy proposal which was both successful and which disagreed with US policy.

  16. Gringo,

    Well, there was the Falklands War. The US remained officially neutral throughout. And honestly, sitting out Iraq War 2 was a pretty good idea for the states that did that. For a war that I argued strenuously for and helped prosecute, in hindsight, that was one of the worst cost/benefit ratios the US has ever gone through, so anyone who avoided that made the right decision. Thousands dead, billions spent, national strength attrited, all to put Shia militants in charge of the country?

    Artfldgr,

    Literally not one thing you listed was an example of foreign policy.

  17. Well, there was the Falklands War. The US remained officially neutral throughout.
    You chose a rather poor example.
    Reagan On The Falkland/Malvinas:Give[] Maggie enough to carry on…”Haig to Thatcher: “We are not impartial.”

    Washington, D.C., April 1, 2012 — The United States secretly supported the United Kingdom during the early days of the Falklands/Malvinas Island war of 1982, while publicly adopting a neutral stance and acting as a disinterested mediator in the conflict, according to recently declassified U.S. documents posted today by the National Security Archive.

    On the 30th anniversary of the war, the Archive published a series of memoranda of conversation, intelligence reports, and cables revealing the secret communications between the United States and Britain, and the United States and Argentina during the conflict.

    At a meeting in London on April 8, 1982, shortly after the war began, Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher expressed concern to U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig about President Ronald Reagan’s recent public statements of impartiality. In response, according to a previously secret memorandum of the conversation, “The Secretary said that he was certain the Prime Minister knew where the President stood. We are not impartial.”

    On April 2, 1982, Argentine forces under de facto President Leopoldo Galtieri seized the Falkland/Malvinas Islands militarily from the U.K. The U.S. launched a major shuttle diplomacy mission, sending Secretary Haig numerous times to London and Buenos Aires to de-escalate the conflict. Though the U.S. did not formally announce support for the U.K. until April 30, newly released documents show that Washington sided with the British from the beginning, providing substantial logistical and intelligence support. In a conversation with British officials at the end of March, Haig declared that the U.S. diplomatic effort “will of course, have a greater chance of influencing Argentine behavior if we appear to them not to favor one side or the other.”

    At the same time, the White House recognized that British intransigence would create problems for the U.S. in its dealings with Latin America. President Reagan, reacting to Haig’s secret reports on the British position, wrote to the secretary: “[Your report] makes clear how difficult it will be to foster a compromise that gives Maggie enough to carry on and at the same time meets the test of ‘equity’ with our Latin neighbors.”

    Under Thatcher’s leadership, the U.K. launched a large-scale military expedition that proved a logistical, communications, and intelligence challenge for the British Air Force and Navy. It would take the task force almost a month to traverse the 8,000 miles between England and the Falklands and prepare for combat around the South Atlantic islands. For the British, the expedition would not be justified without retaking the Falkland Islands and returning to the status quo ante. An analysis from the Department of State’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research predicted on April 6 that “the effectiveness of the fleet, far from its maintenance bases, will rapidly deteriorate after its arrival on station. [Thatcher’s] damaged leadership could not survive a futile ‘voyage to nowhere.'”

    “The Prime Minister has the bit in her teeth,” Haig reported to President Reagan on April 9, after the Argentine attack on the islands. “She is clearly prepared to use force. Though she admits her preference for a diplomatic solution, she is rigid in her insistence on a return to the status quo ante, and indeed seemingly determined that any solution involve some retribution.”

    Haig’s report continued: “It is clear that they had not thought much about diplomatic possibilities. They will now, but whether they become more imaginative or instead recoil will depend on the political situation and what I hear in Argentina.”

    The documents reveal that initial covert U.S. support for Britain was discussed quite openly between the two nations. During the first meeting with Haig on April 8, “[Thatcher] expressed appreciation for U.S. cooperation in intelligence matters and in the use of [the U.S. military base at] Ascension Island.” A series of CIA aerial photography analyses showed the level of detail of U.S. surveillance of Argentine forces on the ground: “Vessels present include the 25 de Mayo aircraft carrier with no aircraft on the flight-deck,” reads one; “at the airfield [redacted] were parked in the maintenance area [….] 707 is on a parking apron with its side cargo door open,” reads another.

    More at the link.

  18. So a European state set a foreign policy goal, the US supported, and it worked out? Huh.

    Somewhat surprisingly, no one here has offered any examples of a European country’s bad foreign policy, except maybe some references to appeasement, a policy adopted by one country for a brief period of time before the country adapted and adopted a much more effective policy, at a time when US policy of neutrality wasn’t all that different in effect. But the Belts adopted appeasement because they were sniveling effete cowards and the US adopted neutrality because…They were brave men of action who unreservedly fought evil in all cases?

    I get the feeling that most people here don’t really know what foreign policy is, much less what the foreign policies of Europe’s many countries are or have been, or how foreign policy is made. And I can’t blame anyone; I’m hardly an expert in Danish or Irish foreign policy. But you’d think there would be an element of humility when you’re talking about foreign policy and then someone brings up European murder rates as an example and no one says anything…

  19. Gringo

    Please list a European foreign policy proposal which was both successful and which disagreed with US policy.

    Joe Shmoe

    Well, there was the Falklands War. The US remained officially neutral throughout.

    Gringo

    You chose a rather poor example.

    Joe Shmoe

    So a European state set a foreign policy goal, the US supported, and it worked out? Huh

    Like I previously stated, you chose a poor example for “both successful and which disagreed with US policy. “

  20. Somewhat surprisingly, no one here has offered any examples of a European country’s bad foreign policy..

    France’s wanting sanctions lifted against Saddam.

  21. Joe Schmoe:

    See this as well as this and this.

    And of course, WWII is not irrelevant. It is a black stain upon Europe, not just in terms of appeasement, but in terms of collaboration of various governments of occupied countries and many of the citizens in those countries.

  22. Joe Shmoe:
    But you’d think there would be an element of humility when you’re talking about foreign policy and then someone brings up European murder rates as an example and no one says anything…

    Granted, this was not strictly on topic. However, those Euros who criticize US foreign policy generally criticize other aspects of the US. “Cowboy” US versus “nuanced” Euros, for example- which sounds a lot like John Kerry. “Compassionate” Europe versus “heartless” US. So on and so forth. Which also points out that a lot of Ami progs use Europe as a club against their domestic political opponents. “See how much better they do it in Europe.”

    To which my reply generally is, “Balderdash.”

    Which would also be the reply of my brother-in-law, who emigrated from Germany when he was 12 years old.

  23. Gringo Says:
    May 18th, 2018 at 12:44 pm
    Somewhat surprisingly, no one here has offered any examples of a European country’s bad foreign policy..

    Apparently you failed to read what I wrote about Herta Daubler-Gmelin.

    You asked for it , you got it.European Union’s Effort To Shame America Over Jerusalem Embassy Move Falls Flat.Three countries blocked a resolution that would have left the U.S. isolated and alone.

    I believe this was what prompted Neo’s posting.
    * * *
    Thanks – I was looking for some link in her post — finally just decided it was a reaction to the whole zeitgeist of Islamic immigration & cover-ups of criminal behavior, capitulation to Iran & opposition to reinstating sanctions, and generally incessant persecution of Israel.

  24. Recognizing Jerusalem as the capital has been US policy for a few months. It wasn’t policy for decades, under Republicans and Democrats. If Jerusalem recognition is a piece of evidence that US policy is superior to European policy, then you have to address the fact that US and European policies were identical for 99% of the time this has been available as a policy issue. Which is what I’m trying to get at: saying US foreign policy is better than “European” policies (because there is no one European policy) is silly. Policies don’t compare like that. States do what they can to suit their immediate interests and they change when they have to. Sometimes the policy has the desired effect for a time, but none of them last forever and all of them bear costs and generate second and third order effects, many of which create their own problems. But it make a about as much sense to say that one countries’ policies are better than another as to say my haircut is better than yours…They don’t compare. It’s about what suits my needs and your needs in the moment. You imagine some abstract universal standard, but most European policies are identical to US policies because those interests align.

    Appeasement was a bad but reasonable choice. WWI wiped out a generation of men and the Powers got nothing in return. Avoiding a repeat was a perfectly reasonable policy choice. You have perfect information of Hitler’s intent in hindsight and like to imagine everyone else did then too, but that’s not how the world works. So if trading the Sudetenland–which had already been arbitrarily assigned to Czechoslovakia–arbitrarily to Germany could avoid another war that would kill millions for no gain, then making that trade was a bad (in hindsight) but reasonable choice. Oh, but Mein Kampf! Yes, anyone reading it could have seen Hitler’s plan…or maybe it was a bluff…or maybe it was pablum for domestic fanatics’ consumption. You can say “gamble the lives of millions on a bet that it’s genuine” because you have perfect information and you bear no costs for saying that. It’s not like George Bush read “bin Laden determined to strike in America” and invaded Afghanistan the next day. He thought “this is a manageable problem.” He was wrong, but he was reasonably wrong. Policy makers with finite resources and the lives of others in the balance should be a little risk averse. You can afford not to be because you aren’t making policy, you’re critics.

  25. For further example of poor European foreign policy perspectives, consider these pro-Chavista tweets from Spain’s former President, José Luis Rodré­guez Zapatero.

    Zapatero en el CNE: No tengo duda de que los venezolanos van a votar libremente.
    “I have no doubt that the Venezuelans are going to freely vote.”

    Yup, they will freely vote in rigged elections. ‘

    Rodré­guez Zapatero: Los venezolanos tienen derecho a un paé­s viable, a un horizonte econé³mico distinto, a no tener sanciones que perjudiquen a la economé­a
    “Venezuelans have the right to a viable country, a diifferent economic horizon, and to not have sanctions that harm the economy.”

    The US Treasury just added Diosdado Cabello (Godgiven Hair- really) to its sanctions list. The sanctions list freezes bank accounts in the US and forbids entry to the US. As the sanctions target bigwig Chavistas, it is not accurate to claim they harm the Venezuelan economy. No accident that Zapatero piped up today about “sanctions,” parroting the Chavista narrative.

    The only question for Zapatero is, how much is he getting paid for those statements?

    https://twitter.com/Unionradionet/status/997597707555561472
    https://twitter.com/VTVcanal8/status/997536086648901633

  26. Man, it’s sure great that no American president ever publicly praised Kim Jong Un for his treatment of prisoners or congratulated Vladimir Putin for winning his sham elections or praised Bashar al-Asad for his effective counterterrorism efforts!

    It’s fine to ascribe moral values to foreign policy decisions but it’s silly to measure them by double standards. If Zapatero is morally corrupt because of his tweets, then is Trump? How much is Trump getting for those tweets?

    Now, if Trump gets denuclearization because he buttered up Pyonyang, then he’s getting quite a bit. But so is maybe Zapatero. (I don’t know anything about Spanish politics. Maybe he’s just an ass.) My point is, leaders make all sorts of moral compromises in foreign policy because states are looking out for their parochial interests. States also make mistakes (appeasement, neutrality) and sometimes correct those mistakes (kicking Nazi ass).

    There’s a name for this cognitive bias: the fundamental attribution error. Every person assumes that they behave as they do because of circumstance but other people behave as they do because of fundamental attributes. That guy cut me off in traffic because he is fundamentally an asshole, but I cut that guy off because I really needed to change lanes to make my exit and there were no breaks in traffic. Trump praises Kim to get concessions from him but Zapatero praises Maduro because he’s an evil socialist. Bush didn’t act on the bin Laden intelligence because it was vague and not actionable but Chamberlain appeased Hitler because all Europeans are effete cowards. See the pattern?

  27. If Zapatero is morally corrupt because of his tweets, then is Trump? How much is Trump getting for those tweets?

    The topic is not Tweets of Trump,but inept Euro foreign policy proposals that clash with US foreign policy. Your “How much is Trump getting” reply is comical. Why would Zapatero defend the criminal, dictatorial Maduro regime is apparently something you do not want to consider, if you respond with a wisecrack about Trump’s tweets.

    For another example of Euro disagreement with US foreign policy, consider the Euro response to Trump’s pulling out of the Iran deal.

    While there was Euro agreement with US foreign policy during the Cold War, the Cold War was over nearly 3 decades ago.

    Ciao.
    https://www.politico.eu/article/europe-iran-deal-salvation-donald-trump-united-states-tears-up-pact/

  28. I’m not sure you actually read my comment above, because I literally discussed the possibility that Zapatero is just an asshole who syympathizes with thuggish dictators. But I also considered the possibility that Zapatero was being savvy because he hoped to get something out of flattering a thuggish dictator–just like Trump, as I literally said, probably hopes to get something for America by repeatedly flattering Kim Jong Un, probably the worst dictator alive. You’re ascribing opposite motivations for literally the same exact behavior, which is understandable because all people do this but that doesn’t make it any less dumb.

    European foreign policies mostly align with US policies. The Iran deal was US policy until this year. It’s not a surprise they might disagree with a change to a policy that the US convinced them to follow and that was actually doing what it was supposed to do. European pilots are still flying with US pilots over Syria and Iraq. European soldiers are fighting alongside US soldiers in Afganistan as you read this. I think you have no idea what you’re talking about.

  29. But I also considered the possibility that Zapatero was being savvy because he hoped to get something out of flattering a thuggish dictator
    As Zapatero has been out of power for 6 years, the only reply is what I previously stated: money. Most likely, the money has already been delivered. There is plenty of cocaine transported from Venezuela to Spain, so paying him off isn’t difficult.

    Granted, this is speculation. Zapatero may be enough of a fool to be paid off with only a plane ticket to Venezuela, a hotel room, and flattery. (He was in Venezuela for the elections. There is some video of him getting booed.) Though his support of Maduro predated the election, as he supported the phony negotiations between Maduro and the oppo, so he was bought off before his recent plane ticket to Venezuela.

    For the last 6 years, Zapatero has had no state interests whatsoever to consider. Does former President ring a bell? Thus his flattery of Maduro has nothing whatsoever to do with advancing any interests of Spain. As such, your riff on Kim and Trump is less than useless, though you are correct that politicians may flatter those whom they despise.

    I don’t know anything about Spanish politics.
    And you knew less about Venezuelan politics.

    I literally discussed the possibility that Zapatero is just an asshole who syympathizes with thuggish dictator.
    Such as Gerhard Schré¶der, who won some medal from Assad Jr., and who also denounced Dubya’s Iraq policy. Which also supports my point about Euro disagreements with US policy.
    Out of office, Schré¶der also made a lot of money working for Gazprom’s pipeline. Like Zapatero? 🙂

    Your point about Euros previously supporting Obama’s Iran policy is well taken. Perhaps they should have realized that a policy decision that lacked sufficient support to be ratified in a treaty was a policy decision that was not likely to be sustained.

    http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/05/european-arrogance-on-display.php

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>