[lit-ideas] Re: Londonistan
- From: "Lawrence Helm" <lawrencehelm@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 13:00:16 -0800
There's nothing wrong with quoting from a Brazilian poet? You have this all
backwards, Eric. Would you rather she quote Europeans who can't make
integration work? She's quoting another American, asking why can we make it
work when they can't? Why ask a European? As Bawer and Berlinski both
note, Europeans seem to be either ignorant of their predicament or in
denial.
Yes, we know how many millions of Europeans died in your wars. We can
understand why you don't want to arm each other. You are the guys who
invented Fascism and Communism, but we don't understand why you project your
fears onto the nation that bailed you out in two of your most devastating
wars and nursemaided you through the Cold war..
And you say that to expect Europe to help defend America's interests puts
Eric on shaky ground. Is that the old European entitlement philosophy at
work again? You are entitled to have the U.S. bail you out of your military
problems (we aren't in Europe to defend our interests but yours, Simon), but
don't expect the reverse. That would put you on shaky ground.
And Simon criticizes us for not getting Afghanistan & Pakistan quite right.
Have you forgotten, Simon that you Europeans mucked up that entire region
something awful with your colonization? You then went broke fighting each
other and abandoned your colonies and then after we pumped millions into
Europe to buck your economies back up you criticize us for not finding our
way with European alacrity through the mine fields of your spoiled colonies.
[To paraphrasing Bevin Alexander]
And then that tired accusation that I disproved to any sane person's
satisfaction: namely that I feed only from the Conservative Neocon trough.
You imagine hypocrisy in worrying about Europe being taken over by
Fundamentalist Islam. Who invented the term Eurabia? Who invented the term
Londonistan? Whose narrow policies prevent integration of immigrants and
force distinct and largely hostile enclaves on native soil? You worry about
our military power because you have tried to destroy yourselves twice in the
last century. We worry about your screwing things up so badly that we'll
have to bail you out once again.
Lawrence
_____
From: lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:lit-ideas-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Simon Ward
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 12:16 PM
To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: Londonistan
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:
