Animalman, I appreciate your polite and sincere response. And as has often been said, it's sometimes difficult to tell whether a posted written statement is made with a sentiment of sincerity, sarcasm, contempt or whatever.

If you say you meant no insult, that's good enough for me, and I apologize for perhaps over-reacting.

I hope you can see, looking through your previous comments that I specified, how I was able to interpret them the way I did.
Particularly this one:

Quote:

Animalman said:
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I find "simplistic" a rather insulting characterization for a view that is so widely held among pundits, scholars and Journalists writing about the situation in Europe and the Middle East.



So these pundits, scholars and journalists believe that Europe opposes U.S action simply because they want to usurp our position there?

I'd image they would find that insulting, unless I'm misinterpreting you.



I mean, to say that these journalists would find my comments insulting... normally I would have asked you for clarification, but that seemed pretty clear in its harshness.

But you've already answered that, and I don't want to continue to rake you over the coals for something you've already clarified and said was not meant as insult. I only repeat it to clarify my own reaction, and hope you can see my point of view on it, why I interpreted it as I did.

Regarding your signature quote, I see it as less confrontational now, after you explained the story behind it.
It certainly wasn't related to me.

The "stole my signature" joke you made, I actually didn't get at all previously that it was intended as a joke.
Again, it's sometimes difficult to see the tone with which something was said. If you said that in the "Superhero Sex" topic, I might have gotten that it was a joke.
But this has been a more consistently serious topic, and in the context of your other remarks, I wasn't expecting humor. Again, clearer now, with explanation.

Quote:

Animalman said:

...anyway, I'm getting way off track here. Back to my statement. All I was trying to say was that there might be another interpretation to what scholars might say in regards to Europe's stance on U.S action. Not that you had misinterpreted them, and certainly not that you were deliberately misrepresenting them. Only that there might be more to it than what you had described.

Why did I feel bringing that up was necessary? Because, in your argument, you didn't say that "one of the reasons why Europe opposes America" or even "the main reason why Europe opposes America", you just listed it as the reason. Do I assume when reading that that you don't consider other reasons? No. You just didn't mention it, so I wanted to. I didn't really understand what was so insulting about that, but I apologize if you took it as an insult. It was certainly not my intention.



Okay, that's much clearer than in your previous posts, and the point is well taken.

I thought of posting the Charles Krauthammer article from TIME, to save you the trouble of going to the library. I used to just click-and drag stuff from www.time.com , but now you have to pay for archived articles, which is a pain. But if I feel energetic, I'll manually type and post his one-page editorial here.


Quote:

Animalman said:

I also think there are those who look at how much American culture has invaded other nations, "Americanizing" them(especially third world countries), and resent that. And, of course, I think there are simply those who believe that war is always wrong, and that by invading Iraq, America is just "sinking to their level"(the "two wrongs don't make a right" thinkers).



Well, I see your point in the first part of this statement. That America can be resented not only for it's military policy, but also for its economic trade policy, and for its exports of culture that can threaten the native culture of places it is exported to.
An example of that is syndicated television programs. It's actually cheaper for a place like, say, India, to inexpensively purchase big-budget Hollywood programs, that are arguably not only cheaper, but better quality than anything India can natively produce.
And there was a period for several decades where India and many other third-world countries had a very high ratio of American TV programs, and that definitely stifles the preservation of native Indian culture, or other third-world nations where American programs dominate. India has since enacted laws that a certain percentage of programs broadcast now have to be natively produced in India.

So again, your point is made, that there are many factors that influence European thought, at the E.U. policy level, at the national level in each European country, and at the man-on-the-street level. And those factors can be military, economic, or cultural.

But having said that, I still think this is the dominant factor in French/German/Russian defiance of U.S. policy in Iraq, that they are playing to Arab resentment of U.S. policy, while simultaneously seeking to expand their own economic and diplomatic interests.

Quote:

Animalman said:

I, myself, can see where someone might be coming from with some of those viewpoints. While I certainly don't hate America, I do regret the number of people we've assimilated into our culture, at the cost of theirs.



At the cost of culture lost by U.S. culture exports that dominate in their own countries?
Or that they lose by immigrating to the United States?

The latter case, I fully expect them to assimilate within a generation, and have their first loyalty be to the culture of the United States.
For example, I am of English, Irish, Scottish, Dutch, German and Cherokee ancestry, and I have a level of pride in my heritage from each of these. But I'm first and foremost an American.

Quote:

Animalman said:
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

I was speaking of the European news media, not individuals. It is their job to provide both sides. Editorials or public forums are another issue.



Do you think our media provides both sides? Honest question, here, not a loaded one. I'm not sure we do. After all, the media is just a bunch of people, and people have biases and slants like everyone else.



I actually think for American media, our news perspective is heavily influenced by foreign views of the U.S.
Especially up until 9-11, the media (which I've clearly said repeatedly is very liberal-dominated, about 80% liberal, according to every study I've ever seen of reporters) was almost apologetic about saying anything patriotic. I do feel that whether conservative, liberal or arguably neutral, the media tends to choose a "good side" and a "bad side" on a given issue reported, and consistently portray one side as favorable and right, and the other side as wrong, on just about any given story.

But despite that bias, you can still look through many sources and, with a little digging to find the less popular perspective, find perspectives of both sides.
You can read the New York Times and see one side, and read the Wall Street Journal and get the other, even though, in the specific example of news regarding Bush and Iraq, I think it's a very disproportionately small number of media sources in the U.S. --reporting about our government, our President !-- that give a pro-U.S. perspective.

What I object to is that as small a representation of the pro-Bush perspective is here, the pro-argument is virtually non-existent outside the U.S. Except for Blair's government in the U.K., I never hear ANYONE outside the U.S. argue the American perspective in Iraq. Not even the BBC.