[lit-ideas] Re: Londonistan
- From: "Simon Ward" <sedward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 20:15:30 -0000
Nice links Eric, should have thought to look on the Beeb.
Referring back to Berlinski, who quotes, of all people, a Brazilian Poet
(clearly an expert witness on all things Muslim and European), who asks "How
can it (Europe) cope with 10 percent of Muslims who do not even want to
assimilate anymore?"
10 per cent? Leaving aside the Balkan states, which have an historical
association with Muslims, of all the European states France has the highest
number of Muslims at 8-9 per cent. The rest are between 1 and 6 per cent. Or
perhaps he means ten per cent of the Muslim population don't want to
assimilate. Which leaves 90 per cent who do.
Eric: One popular complaint is that, as global hegemon, the US gives Europe a
free ride in military matters. You get to build up your social infrastructure
while we have to throw so much money into defense--our defense and yours.
Fair point. But:
1. That's what hegemony means. Is the US complaining because it's top dog? How
many times have I heard (not on Lit-Ideas) that the US has the biggest and best
military in the world. If you want boasting rights fine, but there are
responsibilities that go with it.
2. Don't forget how many millions of Europeans died in both world wars. Europe,
continental Europe especially, has an understadable phobia about militarisation
and wars. Can you blame them?
Eric: For example, why should the US have to deal with the Balkans? It's
your(EU's) backyard. Same with Iraq.
The Balkans was a minefield. Historical ties with different Balkan states meant
that some European countries were siding with different states. Yes, Europe was
indecisive, but it wasn't unconcerned. When the time came, we went in with the
US. As for Iraq, well I don't see that you can equate it with the Balkans.
Apart from Britain and Spain, Europe didn't want the war. The concensus was,
and is, that if the US wants to build a pile of shit...etc.
Eric: As a united European entity, the EU should have military responsibilities
on par with its GNP.
This is the nub I think. The EU has a policy on European defence. (spelt with a
'c'). It's military is measured for those purposes. The US has a military that
is measured by the need to defend US interests. These are two different
concepts, the one being essentially geographic, the other being globally
economic. The US had a choice once the Cold War was over. It could have scaled
down its military in keeping with the diminished threat from another
superpower. However it chose not to, and since Bush came into power, it has
increased spending on the military. If you're saying that Europe should help
the defence of US interests, I think you're on shaky ground. If you're saying
that Europe should adjust its military policy to defend its own economic
interests, then it might be worth a discussion.
Eric: But the MAIN concern is that (because of your internal policies) Islamic
terrorists will use Europe more and more as staging grounds for attacks on the
US.
It's interesting that the blame is being passed across. As I remember it,
European intelligence organisations gave the US countless warnings in the
Summer before 9/11. Conversely, the US was negotiating with the Taliban to get
a pipeline built across Afghanistan. And before that it was bankrolling the
Pakistainian ISI, the organisation that in turn was bankrolling bin Laden's
organisation. Yes Europe has a Muslim population, yes there are a small
minority of extremists amongst them, but there a lot more in Pakistan living
under a military dictatorship that the US counts as an ally.
What I see Eric (and not from you), is a measure of hypocracy and certainly a
creeping agenda against Europe. Talk of the 'Muslim takeover of Europe', really
is preposterous. There's a greater liklihood that Mexicans will take over the
US. In Britain there was probably less than a hundred muslims demonstrating in
London over the Danish Cartoons. In France, the riots were about economic
deprivation.
Under it all, I suspect, is a growing market in the US for all things dangerous
and frightening. Terror this, terror that. The subject is hot, there's money to
be made and people like to read what they believe in. Lawrence, unfortunately
(because he takes cracking photos) is a case in point.
Regards
Simon
Other related posts:
