Bush and Europe: moving apart?

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Thu May 30, 2002 8:12 pm

@Quark:
You're right; but knights weren't the only ones going to war for the Church. There were footmen, archers, engineers and all sorts of other common folks who went. Were they gong for money? Sure. Many were mercenaries. Many were vassals and conscripts of the knights who were there either to find their fortunes or who had trade reasons to be fighting.

But how do you convince the rabble to fight for the wealth of their lords? I'm sure some were driven by fear; after all, peasants listened to nobles. I'm sure many were also offered rewards. But it was also the promise of salvation, that they were footsoldiers for God, freeing the Holy Land from the Muslim invaders, that was the ultimate excuse, the final rationale that enabled the Church to conscript forces to go fight and die in a far off land.

My argument isn't that economic concerns should not be considered, only that economics are not a monolithic cause of everything.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu May 30, 2002 8:37 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans
@Quark: Being 2rd or 3rd son in a noble family still meant a safe, secure, lifelong income and heritage - in feudal Europe the children of noble families had a clear position is society and nobody needed to "make money on their own" - it's is not correct that they wouldn't get any from their families. Whereas I do think economic factors are extremely important, I do not agree that money is the major driving force in all situations. That would somewhat imply rational driving forces and rational (if immoral) acts, and looking back in history I can't see this as generalised as you suggest.

I would agree with this. Historically, we know that the nobles who fought the Crusades were (in general) far from poor. The cost and upkeep alone on a suit of armor, a fine weapon and a battle horse meant that the owner was wealthy. Typically, each nobleman also paid for the transportation and upkeep of a troop of foot soldiers: freeman who owed him this service. Second and third sons were (usually) given high positions in the Church hierarchy. Priests might rise within the ranks, but it was infinitely easier to get a head start by being wealthy, noble, urbane and literate. The resulting priors, bishops, archbishops, etc, commanded enormous influence and directed both sacred and secular communities--since individual monasteries could and did maintain slaves, and often owned deeds of property to neighboring cities. Many bishops came to regard these cities as their own fiefdoms, and their are records of wars fought over anything from major towns to tiny hamlets, both in the fields and in the courts of the Vatican, over rights.

Returning to the present, it surprises me that Bush chose to anger so much of the rest of the world in his first few years as president. I had always considered him the ultimate pragmatist, willing to change his stripe to suit whatever was convenient at the moment. (Does anyone recall how he claimed he was more conservative than his competition during the primaries, but a true moderate during the election campaign?) Yet once in office, he's antagonized the traditional pragmatic roots of the Republican party, and courted the far Right fringe, political and religious, that doesn't own the votes.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Thu May 30, 2002 9:10 pm

Originally posted by C Elegans
However, I'm still, as always, amazed how conservative christians have become such a strong political force in the US.

Here's one reason:

"You can't endorse me, but I endorse you!"

- Ronald Reagan

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu May 30, 2002 9:58 pm

@Eminem! I'm somewhat less interested in your Ronald Reagan quotes, which are off-topic here

, than I am in your opinion of the current contretemps between the Bush administration and many governments in Europe. Why does it exist, and what's the remedy?

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri May 31, 2002 6:19 am

The USA for the International Criminal Court, a political activist group, announced that the US has withdrawn from an international treaty creating and funding an international criminal court which would be set up under the auspices of the UN. President Clinton put his signature on the treaty, although the website claims that he never really supported it. Dubya announced on 6 May 2002 that the US was under no obligation to honour the treaty and essentially "unsigned" the treaty, and he's technically right; treaty ratification is a constitutional power granted to the Senate.

It seems that the US, and probably not just Dubya and his cronies in this instance, don't feel bad about calling for Slobodon Milosivec to be brought before international war crimes trials but are feeling queasy about the idea of Americans being prosecuted for the same actions. Still, it seems that this court is intended to prosecute serious crimes (genocide, etc.) and that there are safeguards to ensure that only criminals are prosectued, not individuals for the sake of making a statement against their home country.

Some Europeans are claiming that this is an instance of the US having a "do as I say, not as I do" attitude. Can any of our friends across the pond share some insights on this?

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Fri May 31, 2002 12:33 pm

Originally posted by fable
@Eminem! I'm somewhat less interested in your Ronald Reagan quotes, which are off-topic here , than I am in your opinion of the current contretemps between the Bush administration and many governments in Europe. Why does it exist, and what's the remedy?

I think the vast majority of Europeans are honest, well-adjusted, hard-working, decent people. I think the growing antagonism between Bush and "the Europeans" doesn't refer to these people, but rather to the continental horde of irreligious left-wing bureaucrats, journalists, literati, and activists who can't accept the fact that the leader of the free world, and Commander-in-Chief of the only superpower on the planet, is - "gasp" - a full-blooded Bible-believing Christian fundamentalist who proudly and unambiguously allows his faith to influence his politics.

Vivien · Post by **Vivien** » Fri May 31, 2002 1:14 pm

Originally posted by EMINEM

I think the vast majority of Europeans are honest, well-adjusted, hard-working, decent people. I think the growing antagonism between Bush and "the Europeans" doesn't refer to these people, but rather to the continental horde of irreligious left-wing bureaucrats, journalists, literati, and activists who can't accept the fact that the leader of the free world, and Commander-in-Chief of the only superpower on the planet, is - "gasp" - a full-blooded Bible-believing Christian fundamentalist who proudly and unambiguously allows his faith to influence his politics.

I don't agree with this at all.

I don't think his 'Christianity' (in quotes because I have serious doubts as to his true beliefs) has ANYTHING to do with this so called 'irreligious left wing' dislike for him.

But...If I start to argue this, the discussion will inevitably become emotionally charged and rather negative...I'll leave it therefore to those who are able to argue without getting emotionally invested in the topic...

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Fri May 31, 2002 1:17 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave
It seems that the US, and probably not just Dubya and his cronies in this instance, don't feel bad about calling for Slobodon Milosivec to be brought before international war crimes trials but are feeling queasy about the idea of Americans being prosecuted for the same actions. Still, it seems that this court is intended to prosecute serious crimes (genocide, etc.) and that there are safeguards to ensure that only criminals are prosectued, not individuals for the sake of making a statement against their home country.

My thoughts.........

The United Nation (Part 2) no matter how noble the goal someone will use it to their advantage.

As for Slobodon Milosivec, I view this as a no win situation. The US doesn't do nothing, people die and who gets blamed? The US for not doing nothing. The US gets involved and what happens? The US waited till one group was almost wiped out before they did anything. The US and "collateral damage" wiped out so and so many people. The US = Imperialism.

fable · Post by **fable** » Sun Jun 02, 2002 8:12 am

I don't think his 'Christianity' (in quotes because I have serious doubts as to his true beliefs) has ANYTHING to do with this so called 'irreligious left wing' dislike for him.

This is so demonstrably obvious that I'm not sure where Eminem's original statement came from. @Eminem, care to elaborate? In all the anti-Dubyah remarks and commentaries I've seen, there hasn't been a single one that mentioned his supposedly fundamentalist views--I suspect, because most people don't know if Dubyah is a fundamentalist Christian, or not. I certainly don't. And frankly, I'm far too concerned about the fallout from his radical economic ideas and Star Wars defense shield to worry about where he attends church.

Besides, he's a politician. Would a true Christian be able to rise to the top of the dungheap of electoral politics in any nation? Turn the other cheek, do unto others, judge not lest ye be judged, cast not the first stone, toss the hawkers from within the temple...? As a friend of mine, a learned deacon in the Eastern Orthodox Church, puts it, "If you're going to talk the talk, you had better walk the walk." If following Christ's admonitions are anything to go by, Dubyah's a follower of Wotan the wily, vengeful shape-changer. And in this, he doesn't differ from his colleagues of any stripe, anywhere.

EMINEM · Post by **EMINEM** » Sun Jun 02, 2002 10:07 am

Originally posted by fable

Would a true Christian be able to rise to the top of the dungheap of electoral politics in any nation? Turn the other cheek, do unto others, judge not lest ye be judged, cast not the first stone, toss the hawkers from within the temple...? As a friend of mine, a learned deacon in the Eastern Orthodox Church, puts it, "If you're going to talk the talk, you had better walk the walk." If following Christ's admonitions are anything to go by, Dubyah's a follower of Wotan the wily, vengeful shape-changer. And in this, he doesn't differ from his colleagues of any stripe, anywhere.

Would a true Christian be able to rise to the top of the dungheap of electoral politics in any nation? You tell me; would a true Buddhist rise to the top of electoral politics without losing his faith? Could an Orthodox Jew become Prime Minister without getting booted out of the synogogue? Could a Muslim become head of state and still call himself a Muslim at his inauguration? Can a Hindu become President of the United States without losing his religion in the process? Absolutely, in every case. Being Christian, or Jewish, or Muslim, has everything to do with the condition of the heart, and very little to do with outward actions and appearances.

Robnark · Post by **Robnark** » Sun Jun 02, 2002 10:16 am

very little to do with outward actions and appearances.

to believe/claim to be a member of a religion while not acting along the very principles espoused by the religion is frankly manipulative vote-gathering.
more importantly, a disagreement over steel import tarifs has little to do with bush's religion, and the objections raised by europe have little todo with religion either. as such, i don't think religious discussions are entirely relevant to a bush-europe discussion

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Sun Jun 02, 2002 10:29 am

Yes, Bush is alienating Europeans with his actions (trade, nuclear arms "reductions," the war on terrorism, Kyoto, etc.) I think this is pretty obvious. I think the more worthwhile discussion would be: is the fact that Bush is alienating Europeans necessarily a bad thing? Really, the way I view it is: if Bush is doing things that are right for the US, then the fallout with respect to European opinion may not be so very important. I think HighLordDave said something similar: Bush exists to maintain the interests of the United States - and NO other nation. WE are his responsibility, not the Europeans - nor the European's opinion of us or him.

Robnark · Post by **Robnark** » Sun Jun 02, 2002 10:49 am

alienating europeans specifically - not a particularly bad thing, but the tearing up of the kyoto treaty harms the entire globe, as th US uses the most energy per person of any country on the globe. it is also one of the richest countries in the world, but is imposing tarifs on imports from all countries, european or third world. it has the largest and best equipped army on the globe, but has been reluctant to get involved in peace-keeping initiatives around the world (unless of course it involves blowing stuff up).
as the US president - and maybe especially in today's US political climate - his actions can be justified, but as one of the most powerful countries on the globe i believe there should be global responsibility.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Sun Jun 02, 2002 10:57 am

@Robnark: that is a pretty hard take on current US policies. I think arguing the particulars is outside the scope of this thread, so I will not wade into them now. I see however, that you have agreed to my point: European opinion of Bush is not his primary concern, nor should it be.

Robnark · Post by **Robnark** » Sun Jun 02, 2002 11:02 am

i do agree, but only so far as his concern is getting re-elected. but then i don't expect politicians to be any more noble than that these days.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Sun Jun 02, 2002 11:12 am

Then we agree on TWO points.

CM · Post by CM » Sun Jun 02, 2002 11:28 am

But laz the US can't work in a vaccum. If it does, it will be making more enemies than it already has. I think that is the point most Europeans want to make. If you don't agree with what we want or stand for, don't expect us to compromise. The US has under Bush, moved away from treaties, protocols whatever you call them that are important to the govts and people of europe. You can't just expect them to take it lying down.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Sun Jun 02, 2002 12:15 pm

@CM: I do not expect anyone to take anything lying down. I DO expect Europeans (and others) to understand that the unique position that the United States holds in the world today requires two sometimes conflicting roles: 1) that we empathize and respect other nations; and, 2) that we do not let other nations stand in the way of our best interest.

I do not deny that actions taken by the US in the current administration have alienated certain peoples around the world. (Please also note that I am NOT supporting NOR condemning the current administration.) What Bush as president (and we as citizens) have to decide is whether these paper bullets (i.e. the vocal condemnation of our acts) are something we should take into consideration.

Your statement that our actions may make more enemies for us is, then, well-taken: we want a friendly Europe. That IS in the best interest of the US. But how far are we willing to let European opinion dictate our policies? In my opinion, Bush is pushing it. One of these days he may just find he has to fly his bombers in very, very round-a-bout patterns to avoid all the air spaces that refuse to support his war on terrorism. But, again, I do not believe that the unilateral nature of his stances is, in and of itself, a negative aspect of his administration.

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Sun Jun 02, 2002 12:23 pm

It seems that our friend Lazarus and I are on the same page today (surprise, surprise, surprise!).

I think that Europeans got used to Clinton's diplomatic style; he's a consensus builder. On the one hand, it means that his policies may change from week to week depending on what the polls said. However, on the other hand, it also meant that he brought people to the table, even if he didn't really listen to what they had to say or let them change his mind. The perception was that he included everyone.

Dubya's style is to do whatever the hell he wants and he doesn't wait for anyone else to agree with him. Whether or not Clinton would have a different policy in the "war" on terrorism is an academic question, but the record shows that Clinton's diplomatic relationships with our European allies was far more cooperative, even if the actual policies weren't much different.

I think that Dubya is convinced that the United States can make a policy and that the rest of the world will blindly follow behind us. And for the most part, he's been right (so far). At some point, though, western European nations are not going to fall into line on some issue and he don't know what to do.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Sun Jun 02, 2002 12:30 pm

Originally posted by HighLordDave
It seems that our friend Lazarus and I are on the same page today (surprise, surprise, surprise!)...

Hmmm ... should one of us be re-thinking our stance?