France bashes Bush -- but wait for next year

The French television, press and radio have been doing as thorough a job as anyone in marking the September 11 anniversary. The air has been thick with  decent documentaries and reportage on the attacks and the aftermath for America. Inevitably, though, the five-year mark has allowed France to indulge in what I call one of its Soviet moments. These are the times when the country's feuding political tribes unite to deplore a universally agreed evil. Listening to most of the commentary today, you would believe that le mal du moment is President George W Bush.

From Chirac's centre-right administration to the lefty commentariat, opinion is the same. Libération, the leftish daily, summed it up: "The Bush administration has succeeded in achieving the tour de force of reducing to zero the immense wave of compassion and solidarity which swept the world after September 11." France Inter, the state radio, commented this morning that the Islamists have pulled off game, set and match, thanks to the invasion of Iraq and Bush's other post September 11 policies. Le Monde attributed the "success" of Al Qaida to the way that Bush responded to the 2001 attacks. 

The public comments are echoed in private by officials and ministers. A French ambassador in a big Nato capital put it to me the other day, "We are being careful not to say it, but if ever there was a case for saying 'we told you so'..." The sentence trailed off into a shrug. The media line is not so much anti-American as a lament to the conduct of Bush administration. Americans are regularly hauled into the media to confirm the French view. They are always academics, Democrats, writers or entertainers who are opposed to Bush. If you take the French media as a guide it is near impossible to understand why a sane person votes Republican. 

The consensus has been in operation since the run-up to the Iraq war, when Chirac and Dominique de Villepin, his then Foreign Minister and now Prime Minister, waged what France saw as a glorious crusade through the United Nations against the 2003 invasion. The result has been a strange transfer of blame by implication. From the chatter today, you might assume that the Americans and their British allies are responsible for the terrorism. The point that the Iraq invasion was a counter-productive error is inflated to the point of somehow making Bush and his team the perpetrators of bomb attacks around the world. Occasionally, though, a voice is raised to cut through the nonsense. Le Figaro, the conservative daily, broke with the consensus today and reminded France that Bush was not the enemy.  "Those who finish up seeming to prefer the former dictator of Baghdad to the tenant of the White House... make us think of the brilliant minds who used to refuse to recognise the atrocities of the communist totalitarians," it said.

Even more interesting, Chirac's handling of the Iraq war came under fire at the weekend from his own side. Nicolas Sarkozy, the Interior Minister and centre-right favourite to succeed Chirac next spring, faulted the president's tactics over the 2003 invasion. Chirac's futile confrontation had  caused the biggest crisis with Washington since de Gaulle withdrew from the military side of the Nato alliance in 1966, said Sarkozy. "The crisis was emotional. The Americans felt abandoned by a nation with which they felt close because of history and shared values," he said."The threat to apply a (UN) veto was pointless because there would never have been a majority for the war in the Security Council and because it led to a feeling of humiliation in America."

Sarkozy, talking to le Monde, did add that Chirac was right to oppose the invasion, but he was sending a signal. Sarko is a big admirer of the United States and under his leadership France would drop the antagonism that has been Chirac's hallmark. On the other side, Ségolène Royal, the Socialist favourite, also speaks more warmly of the USA than is usually acceptable for a French leftist. Since one or the other is likely to move into the Elysée Palace next May, prepare for a thaw.

Comments

[GAG]

French editorialists and politicians do appear to be gloating over the United States’ problems. Yet I wonder if in 6 months time they will still be gloating if France’s involvement in the Lebanon starts to heat up ? If any real soldiers ever get there, that is.

French journalists aren’t a very imaginative lot and always follow each other like sheep, so the anti USA line is to be expected. What a pity that they can’t find some other country to hate. Any suggestions ?

M. Sarkozy should be admired for taking a stance against the French establishment line. Mme. Royal’s comments are to be expected, as whatever she would have us believe, imagination and common sense are not her strong points.
GAG

[Frank Schnittger]

"From the chatter today, you might assume that the Americans and their British allies are responsible for the terrorism."

I know you take all this to be self evident nonsense, Charles, but Terrorism has been going on for a lot longer than 9/11 and not all of it has been caused by Islamic terrorists. It is also quite rational to argue that Bush has made matters worse, not better, without "seeming to prefer the former dictator of Baghdad to the tenant of the White House"

Since Bush will also be leaving the White House in two years time it is logical to assume there may be some thaw in Franco-American relations, regardless of who is elected French President. But the really interesting thing is whether the EU and the US will continue to drift apart in world affairs regardless of the precise personalities involved.

Arguably both Bush and Chirac accentuated the differences with inflammatory remarks and gestures, but there are also many serious international relations theorists who believe that the Interests of Europe and the US are diverging. Conflicts over trade, the environment, spheres of influence, the Middle East, Oil and the Third World are deep and perhaps lasting, and we should not assume that Bush’s successor will pursue a dramatically different course.

Sarkozy’s point about the veto is well made but his stance on the Iraq war does not appear to be dramatically different from Chirac. Blair’s departure, along with Aznar and Berlusconi, removes all the major Pro-Bush European leaders from the scene. There may be a thaw in inter-personal relations, but real policy differences could, if anything, become more pronounced in future years.

[Antoine Delord]

Sorry Mr Bremner, but where exactly is the 'nonsense' that your article is meant to denounce (and make mock of)?

What the vast majority of French media and commentators are saying is that Bush has been playing into the hands of the 9/11 perpetrators by reacting the way he has - and this is indeed what appears in the comments from Libération, France Inter and Le Monde which you refer to here. Let me summarise this opinion by quoting an article entitled 'Democrats should not fight fire with fire': 'To react to an atrocity by abandoning the customary self-control of democracy is to help the terrorist to do his work. [...] To extend further America’s Middle East economic santions, isolation and military aggression offers succour to the terrorist. These policies have not hastened the spread of democracy or stability through the region. They have, if anything, done the reverse.' Did I find this text in a French neswspaper in September 2006? Well, no, this is an opinion expressed by Simon Jenkins in The Times on 12 September...2001 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-160-111380-28369,00.html).
So please tell me, what has Bush been doing over the last years, if not 'abandoning the customary self-control of democracy' and thus 'helping the terrorist to do his work'? And what is wrong with denouncing this attitude, when all the facts confirm that the worst that could be expected on 12 September 2001 has been triggered off since then by the Bush administration?

I personally don't mind if such a message is repeted ad nauseam by the French press - sound analysis is worth repeting to inform public opinion and decision makers. And I much prefer that breed of 'sheep' to the ones which lined up very quietly behind Mr Blair at the time of the 45-minute claim and other scaremongering 'nonsense'.

[Tara]

I am curious as to whether people know how American tourists, in general, are received overseas. My husband and I don't consider ourselves "Ulgy Americans" - we're not really loud types of people, we don't wear sneakers everywhere, we're not overweight. We don't wear "My Country Right or Wrong" shirts, either. But we've heard things are pretty bad. Anyone have a feel for how two (rather unassuming) Americans might be treated in, say, London or Paris? The standard line we've always heard is, "Europeans do make a difference between American citizenry and the American government." But for those who are actually there, what do you think?

Just curious.

[Frank Schnittger]

Tara - I can only speak for Ireland, but I can assure you that you will be made to feel very welcome here. There was a drop off in American tourism post 9/11 but as far as I know it is back to pre-9/11 levels and I have not heard of any negative incidents. There is also no need for you to feel that you should be shy or unassuming about your American identity - be proud. If you do wear a "I love Bush" T-shirt you will probably be drawn into a good natured argument in the pub - thats the way we are - we argue about politics, sex and sport all the time - and then you will become aware that Bush is very unpopular here, but that will never be translated into personal hostility. You might get the odd pitying look though!

[john gregory Flinn]

David Selbourne (Sept 9th, The Times) writes about “the vicarious satisfaction felt by many at America's reverses”, which echoes your summary of the French media (and elsewhere in Europe) response to this anniversary.
Although, Le Figaro seems to be the beacon of commonsense in a media mix of 'Bush-bashing', collective denial and smug leftists. It poses the sort of questions one rarely sees made by British media journalists, and puts things into the kind of perspective of your quoted example. It challenges received wisdoms often accepted by the British media with findings in direct contrast to them. For example, Micheal Smith posted this comment on Aug 3rd (The neo-cons next war - has it already begun?) - “Mick says: I guess that would be because most muslims in this country see themselves as fundamentally British and not in any way set apart from the rest of society...”
On Sept 6th Le Figaro quoted a reputable source, 'Simon Weathley/Magnum' that effectively contradicts MS's assertion, it found 81% of British muslims are muslims first rather than (British) citizens. Of course it's possible that Brit muslims say one thing to the Brit media and another to foreigners!

The point about 9/11 is that it was America's wake-up call, just like Pearl Harbour in 1941.
Europe has yet to suffer such a devastating atrocity. The terrorist attacks in London, Madrid and elsewhere are treated as criminal, and the police are pursuing criminals rather than an enemy. This is the pattern from the IRA and Basque terrorist campaigns, except that these terrorists emerge from indigenous people of europe, whereas Islamic terrorists are foreigners or of recent foreign origin.
Thus it might take a much larger atrocity to galvanise European opinion in the same way as America. The London and Madrid bombings may be seen as a result of support for Bush. To wake up Europe as a whole a major atrocity might have to be on France or Germany. But such an attack may never come because, for example France has a far better understanding of the Islamic threat, and with its common-sense approach could probably avert or thwart such an attack.

At least President Bush can claim he has protected american citizens against further terrorism since 9/11. Whereas Tony Blair has been a dismal failure, also Senor Aznar, but they threw him out as a result. As well as this TB's multiculturism, which is the engine behind the muslim 'detachment' from being British, continues apace. Muslim 'sensibilities' are appeased, right-wing warnings are dismissed as racist or unlawful and leftist clowns like Ken Livingston regale foreign muslim clerics (Sheikh Youseff Karadawi et alia) as icons for British 'diversity'. Craven conciliation is the mantra for new Labour in this respect in the UK.

Sadly the discord that exists between Europe and America about the 'war on terror' only serves to aid Al Quaeda's classic strategy of divide and rule.
It should be remembered that unless the West defeats this threat of total Islamification, murderers like Mohammed Atta and his ilk will eventually be venerated as martyrs and heros of Islam in the very same cities where they committed their evil.

[Tara]

Hi Frank,

Ireland is HIGH on our list of "must-sees". Thanks for the update on Irish-American relations. I got a nice smile when I read your account of what to expect. My husband will be thrilled - he's actually lobbying to see Ireland before London/Paris, since one of us (me) has been to both places previously.

:) Tara

[James]

If only Jacques Chirac were available to run the world.

I mean, after all, he's done a splendid job with France...

James

[Peter Mason]

Tara,

Experience suggests that so long as you don't adopt an 'in-your-face-the American-way-is-the-only-way' attitude then you are unlikely to experience difficulty. If you visit the French-speaking or Celtic ares of Europe I'd make sure that you don't sound too 'English' though. That seems to be a bigger provocation to hostility than being American

[Frank Schnittger]

Sorry Peter, but we have loads of Brits living and working in Ireland - especially since the Celtic Tiger days. Some but my no means all are second or third generation Irish migrating back to their ancestral home. All speak with various English accents and I don't know of any who have experienced hostility on account of it.

We do sometimes like to mock the "snob" accent adopted by posh Brits because it reminds us of a colonial and more deferential age - but it is now all in good fun. Just like we love to beat the Brits at their own games - Soccer and Rugby. We will be welcoming the English Rugby team to Croke Park - the home of Gaelic Football and Hurling on the 24th. of February.

This will be a very emotive occasion because Croke Park is the Headquarters of the Gaelic Athletic Association which is very closely associated with Irish Nationalism. (In 1920 it was also the scene of an atrocity when the British Army enter the grounds during a match and shot into the crowd killing 14 - including one footballer).

It is thus a major symbol of changed times in Ireland that "God Save the Queen" will now be played at the spiritual home of Irish Nationalism. I have no doubt it will be a great sporting occasion - and that Ireland will win!

[dada]

Anyone who goes to the movies very often might reasonably conclude that Hollywood has declared war on France. Consider:

# In last November's "Derailed," when America's Sweetheart Jennifer Aniston is brutally raped by a fiendish inner-city Chicago thug, the guy inexplicably turns out to be French.

# In last October's "The Legend of Zorro," Antonio Banderas' villainous adversary is not a gringo or a Spaniard or anyone else you might expect to find in Old California, but a French count.

# In last February's remake of "The Pink Panther," Steve Martin as Inspector Clouseau manages to encapsulate every contemptuous cliché conceived about the Gallic character.

# In last May's "The Da Vinci Code," the conspiracy is mostly French created and Tom Hanks is hunted not by just a brutish French police chief but by seemingly the entire nation of France.

# In last month's Will Ferrell comedy, "Talladega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby," the heavy is a farcical French Formula One driver who, at one point, wrestles the hero to the ground and makes him say he loves crepes.

And there's more. We've seen a parade of French-speaking villains provoking a holocaust in "Hotel Rwanda" and French gangsters terrorizing the Midwest in "Crime Spree." In the upcoming CGI feature, "Flushed Away," Jean Reno plays an animated rat villain named Le Frog.

It's an epidemic of caricature and vilification, and the slurs are, for the most part, neither subtle nor gentle. As one French critic noted recently, "Hollywood hasn't engaged in this kind of wholesale nationality-bashing since Pearl Harbor." What's going on?

It's a debatable issue, but it doesn't take a sociology degree to see that it mostly stems from two factors: American anger over the lack of French support for the Iraq invasion, and the absence of politically correct movie villains since the end of the Cold War.

Since 2003, a wave of anti-French sentiment in America has resulted in boycotts of French products and such stridently Francophobic books as Richard Z. Chesnoff's "The Arrogance of the French: Why They Can't Stand Us & Why The Feeling Is Mutual." We laugh about it, but the ACLU is not complaining, and it's had an impact.

At the same time, the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of apartheid in South Africa has created a shortage of the kind of instantly recognizable national villains that, along with Nazis, have been the stock movie bad guys of the past half-century.

Francophile director Jim Jarmusch says, "We're at war with Muslim terrorists but we're afraid of caricaturing Muslims in films or even portraying them in a bad light. So what do we do? We take it out on the French. They're a safe target."

Director Oliver Stone, whose mother was French, adds, "And it helps that they don't complain about it. The French dish it out, but they can take it too. Their arrogance does not mask insecurity. They're confident of their culture and have a long tradition of self-criticism."

The blatant animosity is a strange turnaround for a love affair that began with Lafayette and has endured two world wars. Traditionally, French characters have been totally sympathetic in American film; witness the Hollywood careers of Charles Boyer, Maurice Chevalier and Pepe le Pew.

French cinema also has been the darling of American critics since the silent era. Films like "Grand Illusion" and "Children of Paradise" are on every U.S. critic's short list of great movies, and France has scored a record 32 foreign-language film Oscar nominations.

and last but not least the sadistic aristocratic couple formed by lambert wilson and in matrix.

[Frank Schnittger]

God James, you must have had a sad life. Spending your whole day trying to goad innocent bloggers into reponding to your little taunts. Is this part of your mission to capture Bin Laden? Or do you just like to bask in the reflected glory of being a citizen of the world's only superpower? You're certainly not shy about claiming the credit for all of America's achievements. Apparently America is great because it has followed your moral precepts. What is it like to have so much power? Got any plans to invade Iran yet? Perhaps you could give Charles an exclusive interview on your next move in the war on terror. The French People need to be told!

[Tara]

Dada,

I think many of us feel Hollywood has a ridiculous view of reality. My only question - - and I think it's fair to ask - - is that why would Hollywood (self-proclaimed anti-Americans themselves, and as Left as one can get in America)do anything to the French alone? What I mean is, of all people, Hollywood would likely be on the side of the French.

I guess my thought is that it's not that Hollywood is anti-France; I'd bet money that they veer toward pro-French attitudes than others in America. Instead, I think it's a simple case of what's always been the case in media: nasty stereotypes and small-mindedness. (And no, I don't think all of Hollywood is like that. But generally speaking, those of us from the South are seen as stupid and slow, those from the Northeast are portrayed as business-oriented and smart, blondes are frivolous and dumb, and so on.)

[Jess]

The notion of 'squandered compassion' tells you much about the mindset of those who deplore it. This is pure victim mentality. It holds that America would have been fine if only it had exploited the world's sympathy following 9/11. When it stopped being the victim and became the aggressor, it lost.

Well, no... actually. Victims lose. That's what being a victim is all about. The world's sympathy didn't prevent the indigenous peoples of the Americas being conquered and colonised. Moral condemnation of Cortes didn't save the Mexica, and it won't bring them back. Being the victim, or playing that role, wins plaudits but not palms.

In the real world, it's being tough, aggressive and determined that wins the day. It's a truth Europe has forgotten amidst its peacenik marches, featherbed social security, lefty political correctness and feelgood happy-clappism. As the incarnation of these particular failings, France can be counted on to be principle cheerleader for apathy, inaction and victimhood. The saddest part is its continuing conviction that anyone cares any more what it thinks. Who takes counsel from losers?

[Peter Mason]

Frank,

I'm glad to hear that in your part of the Celtic world an English accent doesn't provoke hostility [although I'm not sure why you feel it acceptable to mock 'posh Brits , would it be acceptable for Scots to mock Liverpudlians for example?] and I wonder how far it's because they are resident and therefore viewed as a special case. My experience working in a multinational engineering consultancy and participating in an EU forum is largely the reverse, the majority of Celts [both UK and non-UK] and Francophones treated an English accent as the proverbial red rag regardless of whether it was posh or not. I've actually heard Frenchmen and Irishmen openly state that they viewed the EU as a means to suppress 'Anglo-Saxon' culture although I'll admit it was an Icelander who advocated the extreme position that a cornerstone of EU policy should be the removal of 'every vestige of the Anglo-Saxons from Europe'.
Also, recent events within the UK during the World Cup suggest that you over state the case, I still find it odd that an Assistant Chief Constable in Wales can state that any one in Wales flying a St George's flag has provoked any violence or abuse they receive [and there wewre well documented cases] yet within five minutes drive of my home in Essex I pass three St Andrew's flags and a St Petroc's flag displayed quite happily.

Dada,

Whilst I don't disagree with your overall premise [in the 80's/earlier 90's virtually every Hollywood villain seemed to be British) two points do need comment. I believe the Zorro film was set in the mid 19th century when Napoleon the 3rd was intervening in Mexico, and Hotel Rwanda is set in that country which being an ex-Belgian colony is Francophone.

[Frank Schnittger]

Peter - I'm afraid in Ireland we have a tendency to slag (=tease) each other about just about everything all the time. It's meant in good humour but can be a bit off-putting for visitors not used to the genre. "Talking off" each others accents, mannerisms, and ways of speach is a bit of a national pastime and is what friends do. It's not considered bad manners unless done in a nasty or inconsiderate way - e.g. refering to body shape, race, or foreignors having difficulty with the language.

Irish people have been the butt of to many "Irish" jokes in the past to wish to inflict national stereotypes on anyone. The "posh Brit" accent is actually only slagged when it is perceived as affected rather than genuine - and used as a means of signaling social/educational superiority. Affectation of any kind tends to get a rough ride - particularly if exhibited by someone in public life.

Joining the EU and later the Euro was for Ireland an important statement of strategic direction, because at the time we were still very dependent on the UK for trade (and migration) and needed to diversify. Now that the "Troubles" have been largely resolved and, perhaps more importantly, now that Irish economic development has surpassed that of the UK and Europe there is no need for the old colonial inferiority complex in relation to Britain.

Of course you still get the few morons and hooligans who's boorish behaviour can spoil any event, but thankfully that has not been a major problem. I would be interested to know how recent your experiences are. Ireland has changed more in recent years than any other country I know.

[Peter Mason]

Frank,
The forum was up to last year, the other involvement about 3 years ago. Mind you most of those I came into contact with were expats and a German colleague once suggested that this aggravated the militancy of the attitudes held. However, there was an article in a recent [early 2006] National geographic article on the 'celtic fringe' which argued that a key characteristic of modern Celtic society is antagonism toward English/mainstream French society.

A recent BBC progtramme on modern attitudes toward the Union Jack included an interview with a Welsh nationalist politician who argued that a key factor in the future of Britain was how the English develop their concept of themselves. My concern is that the concept developing is a seige mentality.

[Frank Schnittger]

Peter - I suspect that those Celtic "Fringe" areas which are seeking greater autonomy/independence from the metropolitan centres of London, Paris, or Madrid may well feel a sense of alienation and remoteness from decisions made on their behalf by "Headquarters". You also see that in the rural/urban divide or even in regional North/South England discussions. Ireland, being Independent has no one to blame for its problems but itself - though you also see some elements of resentment in rural areas of the dominance of the Dublin elite - and some vestiges of resentment towards the "Brits" particularly in the North and amongst the older generation.

I would personally expect more moves for greater independence/autonomy amongst the Scots, Welsh, Breton, and Basque peoples because ongoing Urbanisation is leaving fringe areas more and more isolated. I see it as a positive thing - people taking more responsibility for their own destiny - though the acid test will be whether regional parliaments will also be given tax raising powers.

Ireland has shown that it is possible for a small Nation to be very successful within the EU and I have no doubt that an independent Scotland or Wales could do better with a Government answerable to the local electorate and with policies fine tuned to the particular needs of Scotland or Wales. This shouldn't be seen as anti-Englishness - merely an attempt to reassert local interests and identities which might have become submerged into much larger and more diverse political entities. It can also work both ways. There is no reason why England shouldn’t have it’s own regional Parliament.

In an increasingly Globalised world, with the EU taking on more and more “competencies” and with many things being harmonised throughout Europe, it is no harm at all that local/regional communities should want to reassert their own identities and that this should extend beyond colourful displays of local culture for the tourists. It would be a pity to see the English developing a “siege mentality” in response to such nationalist movements. England has a National identity all of its own which it too should cherish.

[James W Bremner]

Jess - great post, couldn't have said it better myself. Losing and victim hood is for losers. Perhaps Frank should be made to read your post 10 times over and he might make some progress toward a better grasp of reality.

Frank - as for your post to the other James, speaking for myself, I am currently applying for US citizenship and early next year when I become a US citizen, it will be a truly great feeling to be a citizen of such a great and powerful country, the most powerful country the world has ever seen. The country that provides more aid (public and private) than most other countries put together, the country that buys more goods and services from the rest of the world than any other country, thus providing jobs and income for untold millions of people around the world. A country that is growing, innovating and prospering much more so than any other developed country in the world, especially the sclerotic and feeble countries of Old Europe. It will be a wonderful feeling to become a citizen of such a great country (great in many more ways than the handful I mentioned above).

As you and so many around the world who unceasingly whine and bitch at the US illustrate, feelings of jealousy, resentment, envy and impotence are powerful and corrosive emotions. I wouldn't swap places for anything.

James Bremner, New Orleans USA

[Frank Schnittger]

James W Bremner - I am the proud citizen of a country (Ireland) which has a far higher standard of living (GNP per Capita), growth rates (6%+ p.a.), accummulated wealth per capita, proportionate contribution to UN Missions, record of public and private foreign aid contributions, and social sevices provision than the USA. It also has balanced budgets, a rapidly growing workforce (more than doubled in the past 15 years), and a good record of innovation in recent years. We are of course a lot smaller than the US, we don't have nuclear weapons, and we are only in the process of overcoming the legacy of the Northern Irish troubles. I would hope that our success will not make us arrogant or complacent about the fate of peoples less succesful than ourselves. I wish you all the best as an American citizen, I do not envy you in the least.

[dada]

"James Bremner, New Orleans USA".
this is an hilarious "chute" to your convert story.
peace.

[James Bremner]

Frank - the old "per capita" routine. When I lived in New Zealand we were always comparing ourselves on a "per capita" basis. While it is a logical way to make comparisons between countries, it is also a great way to make something insignificant and border-line non-existent, seem significant and meaningful. Who cares if Lichtenstein or Monaco has the highest per capita whatever? It makes no difference to anyone outside those countries and will have no impact on the world whatsoever.
Refresh my memory Frank, how many aircraft carriers was Ireland able to have standing off the coast of Sumatra 48 hours after the Indonesian Tsunami, providing aid and support and saving countless lives? If I remember correctly, Paddy O’Flarerty couldn't get his fishing boat there very quickly. How many Irish aircraft and helicopters were providing support to Kashmiris within days after their terrible earthquake a year or so ago? I don’t think Seamus O’Donovan could get his Piper Cub in the air. Raw size does matter; in fact it makes all the difference in the world between really being able to make a difference and have an impact and do something meaningful, and having to puff out one’s puny chest and quote per capita statistics.
Since Ireland adopted very Anglo-American economic policies and cut taxes even more then Bush has over here, Ireland has had a startling turnaround. Well done. If all the rest of Europe followed Ireland’s lead, it would be a much better place. Oh, and by the way, how much of Ireland's recent success has been the result of American multinationals basing there European operations in Ireland? Maybe, quite a bit? But of course, we can't admit that can we? Of course not, America must be denounced and considered to suck and be the source of all bad things in the world no matter what! And of course, what a swell place Ireland was for the 300 years or more prior to its recent 15 years of relative success. I am sure you will find a way to blame America for that too. Europeans, are very creative, they can find a way to shift blame from themselves to America for just about anything of which you can think (this is one of the few things Europeans are very good at these days, unlike for example, putting together peace keeping missions for Lebanon).
I don’t think Americans are arrogant or complacent about their success, and the fate of peoples less successful than themselves. In fact you might have noticed that America is spending more than the annual GDPs of numerous countries and the lives of almost 3000 of its citizens, trying to make countries less well of than itself, Afghanistan and Iraq, into better places that will not pose any kind of threat to either America, their own people or other countries in their regions. And this is not the first time America has spent its blood and treasure trying to make the world a better place, both for itself and for many others.
Americans are not arrogant or complacent, just sick and tired of being bitched and whined at, and far more often than not, criticized on an extremely hypocritical basis. If you want text book definitions of arrogant and complacent, you need look no further than Europe. In fact a European calling or implying America is complacent and arrogant, is a prime example of hypocrisy.

PS: Just as Europeans continue to frustrate me, one steps forward and shows some backbone and wisdom and inspires hope for the future of Europe. Pope Benedict, God bless you and whatever you do, don't backdown, there is no need to apologize for the truth.

[Frank Schnittger]

I find it a bit strange being lectured by a would-be American living in New Orleans on the brilliance of American responses to natural disasters. If I recall correctly, Ireland even made a symbolic contibution to the New Orleans hurricane disaster relief effort. I won't dignify your mocking of Irish relief efforts around the world with a response.

The Irish economic model is significantly different from the Anglo American one. We have had 20 plus years of National pay agreements which have provided industrial relations stability and a low inflation environment - but would undoubtedly be condemed as Socialist by most Anglo-aAmerican economists and political scientists. We have also enthusiastically joined the EU and the Euro.

A lot of the early success of the "Celtic Tiger was due to our success in attracting American Multi-nationals to base their operations here, and very good employers most of them proved to be. However Ireland now invests more abroad (including in the US) than is invested here by foreign firms.

You seem to have a bit of a chip on your shoulder about Europe generally. On many economic metrics it compares rather well with the US. But that is not the point is it? We disagree with you on foreign policy quite a bit (at least since Bush came to power) but that's what sovereign nations do. You seem to resent the fact that Europe is till somewhat independent and not part of the American Empire. Personally I'm glad that we have retain the freedom to disagree. It's what happens in democracies James, it even happens in America - but its a freedom some Americans seem to seem to resent others having. I hope you don't turn into one of them.

[Joshua Taylor]

James Do you have books in America? You find them in what’s called a library. Why don’t you go find one on history and read about the Roman Empire, The British Empire, The Venetians, Ottomans and Portuguese among many others. You will soon discover America is not 'the most powerful country the world has ever seen' as you claim. Powerful countries rise and fall and America will be no different. You are doing America no favors, it is people with blind arrogance like yours that give America a bad name.