Double standards in Europe II.

Remove all ads!

In the first instalment of this thread (Double standards in Europe), I was harshly told that it's only me who incorrectly feels double standards, and that they're normal in politics and it is not justified for me to mention them etc.

Hereby I recommend a good article to those who were reading that thread and disagreed me (or believed the viewpoint of those who said there are no double standards). The article is written by Tibor Fischer, a British Novelist.

The article:
http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/feat...e-old-guard-tibor-fischer-viktor-orban-fidesz

The article is based on historical facts, so it's not merely the presentation of an "opinion" based on personal taste or preference.

A request to those who aren't interested at all in this thread but feel an urge to send posts in it: please spare everyone of the "who cares about Hungary?! Why do you post here?" type of comments. If you don't care, just ignore the thread IMO.

 

I wasn't aware that there was a Europe II; is this a new continent? And how hard would it have been to come up with a totally different name? It's not like there are that many continents on the planet that it would have been difficult to come up with something new.

 

Zeeland, Hampshire, Jersey, York, Orleans, Mexico and Caledonia agree

 

Splunge is in 1st April mood today... wait, it's 1st April today, so no worries

Some correction, though. The title is "Double standards in Europe II.", there is a period at the end. It's important.

 

Flood of positive rep for Morgoth in 3...2...1...

 

Sorry, I was just expressing desperation. Won't happen again.

 

I should hope not.

 

Do Americans realize that Europe consists out of a bunch of conniving nations who hate each others guts and will gladly go to war over trivial matters?

 

Doesn't sound much different than here. How many wars has America been in the last 20 years? I lost count....

 

Europe can thank a lot to USA. E.g. without your intervention, Milošević would still be slaying people in Yugoslavia, because Europe did jack there.

 

That is what you get when lefties are left with making though decisions on a military basis.

 

Merlanni - That would be Bill Clinton, the biggest "lefty" in America before, of course, Obama. It was the righties in the US who didn't want to stop Milosevic.

 

No he wouldn't. Milosevic was voted out over a year after the bombings, remember? Then when he tried some shenanigans after the elections, there were mass demonstrations that led to him quitting. The attacks had very little to do with any of this - in fact, for a time they boosted his popularity tremendously (iirc he polled in the 20s just before that, and was in the 60-70s during most of the attacks). The Serbs knew better than anyone else he was a bastard, but it's natural to rally together when faced by an external threat - at least he was their bastard.

One could credit the strikes with embarassing Milosevic or making him too fearful to use repressions against the protests, but that's quite a stretch - the operations against the Albanians actually gained intensity after the bombings began, and he wouldn't need tanks to use violence against mostly unarmed protesters. There was no doubt political pressure, but you might as well thank the Russians for brokering the peace deal that ended the war - without a war, there was nothing to help Milosevic unite Serbia.

Europe can have a lot to thank the US over, especially during the Cold war, sure. However, no nation bases its policy on what is good for other nations - not even the US.

 

"not even", or "especially not"?

 

Hey, let's be honest here - there are much worse nations around than the United States. A lot of the anti-Americanism of recent years is due much more to disillusionment (people expected the US to act in a more idealistic and moral way) than outright hostility.

 

Yep, I'd say it's mostly about the discrepancy between the lofty talk and the very (at times other-)worldly actions. Americans won't believe that, but a lot of the folks abroad really bought into the 'shining city on the hill' thing and the notion of American Exceptionalism and all that other stuff that Americans like to flatter themselves with. It is probably a good thing these illusions have been shattered.

But then, the popular appeal of American pop culture and the general way of life is very much as strong as it was pre-9/11. People like America, and Americans - they are pissed at American policies. Ten years ago I'd have never thought that American policies are as ideological as they actually are.

 

True. I just said Europe can a thank a lot to the USA because sometimes there is just too much US bashing everywhere, and part of it is not justified at all.

As for comparing Russia to the USA, I usually don't do that. The two just can't be compared in many respects, especially for us Hungarians. (And not just because there was a Soviet control here until 1989.) For example, I'm sure that if the Russians had arrested Miklós Horthy (Regent of the Kingdom of Hungary) in 1945 instead of the U.S. 7th Army, he would have been hanged eventually. He was treated fairly by the Americans, in fact, they practically saved him from the rage of Communists who would have sentenced Horthy to death and executed him for sure.

 

Sure, part of it. Then again, I think there might be more than a few people in the US with undeservedly low opinion of "Europe". "Bashing" happens pretty much anywhere. Overall, it was better to have been occupied by the US than the USSR in WW2, sure, but conflating everything Russia to USSR 45-89 is kinda the same as equating USA to the Bush administration (or any other, really). As for the two not being comparable... I think just because one side tends to look worse in comparison doesn't mean it can't be compared, you just need to be more careful to show the real amount of the difference .