...we don't know how the world works. We think that when you Europeans say you have freedom and democracy over there that it means you have freedom and democracy over there. We have no idea how Europe really works.

Most Americans would be shocked to find out. Most of us still can't quite believe that Euros think we should give them a say in who our leaders are. Talk about skyscraping hubris.

I mean, you can't expect us to understand that the EU's idea of democracy is to give foreign dictators and EU beaurocrats each a vote in governing us or any other nation. Most Americans' jaw would hit the floor if you informed them that Euros think the delegates from other countries in the UN can just decide to tax us. Or haul us before their courts for breaking laws our legislature didn't pass or ratify.

European unification sounds like such a good idea when you know nothing about it. My first thought was, "Good. That would be great. Then maybe the European nations would stop fighting and grasping and we could bring our troops home, confident that it was finally safe to so because "War in Europe!" is the no longer the headline the whole world dreads seeing every few years.

But you know, it's only the elite who really back it. That's the left. If the American government said one word against unification, the people of Europe would demand it tommorrow. We are doing the best thing we can do. Besides, we do believe in minding our own business.

...are not the same thing.

@ Yitzhak

Glad to hear you are not in conspiracy theories and reflexive anti-Americanism, but you sure are too quick in confusing "facts" with (your) opinions.

1) Can we agree on the following prepositions?

-- Turkey 'officially' wants to join the EU. 

-- Most non-EU countries in the world 'officially' support Turkey in that.   Doesn't cost them anything to do that.  This applies to Canada, China, Brazil, USA, etc..... They all want 'good' relations with Turkey and with the EU.

-- Most EU governments 'officially' support Turkey's membership 'in principle', but in fact they do not, and they are also too scared to ask their people for 'permission'.  Hence, temporising and delaying tactics....Wisely so!

--  The USA also 'actively' supported EU membership of Poland, Hungary, Rumania, etc...in previous EU enlargements.   So did most other countries in the world, although one could argue about the degree of 'action' and of 'influence' of different countries in the world on this matter.   

--  Only the EU's complex decison-making machinery can decide on matters of EU membership. 

2) If we can agree on the above prepositions, then I invite you to reread your 'original' posting, and discover that you have singled out the USA for purported 'machinations' and attributed to it powers-of-persuasion that it does not possess.

3) We certainly disagree on 2 specific points.

-- You seem unaware that there is often a difference between what European governments say and what they think or want.   While most of them may not want Turkish membership, very few (if any) have actually said so publicly.  Their official position, recently reaffirmed 'collectively' in Brussels, is "yes, eventually...."!   

-- You mistakenly seem to think that the government of Turkey is an American 'puppet'.  The days that Turkey needed American protection from Stalin and his successors in the Soviet Union are long gone.  Your notion that "without American support there is no Turkish bid for EU" is pure fantasy.   The Turks pursue their own interests, with or without American support.  In fact, they may soon be at war with America if they decide to invade Northern Irak, possibly in a few weeks from now, to snuff out Kurdish aspirations for self-determination (both in Irak and in Turkey itself).  'Kirkuk' will be the 'pretext'.   If you do not believe me, ask the Armenians, they have fewer illusions than you about American 'influence' over Turks. 

First of all, I think it is important to read Lawrence Auster's comment in its context, which is the longer discussion (follow the link!) which was initiated by me. The quote above is his humble reflection after digesting my analysis. It's not a newsflash.

Auster's concluding paragraph is omitted above:
"That's what Conservative Swede has been saying since the beginning of this discussion, but I'm only seeing it now. After all, I said that he is the elephant and I am the blind man."

He puts the focus on the "EU tyranny", as the blind man's description of the elephant, if I may say so. But the elephant is much bigger: it's the "Wilsonian world order". So, American troops and missiles and tanks are in Europe to prevent any uprising by European patriots and nationalists against the Wilsonian world order. A world order which, in Wilson's own words, means "an organized, common peace", instead of as before "a balance of power".

And the greatest threat to this has ever since been considered potent European powers. The quest to render European states impotent has gone through many stages, starting with the slaughtering of the Habsburg empire. The European Union is merely the last stage of this development.

In the EU referendum in Sweden in 1994, a favorite argument for the EU was that it had created peace in Europe. Such a laugh! We all know it's been the American troops stationed here that created the peace ..."an organized, common peace". A peace based on the idea that the European powers must stay put, that European nationalism is bad, will only lead to unnecessary wars and bloodshed, and that we should be friends and focus on trade etc., under the protective wings of America.

This idea is since long internalized among Europe’s ruling elites; the ruling classes of the old days are long gone. And it made things easy-going and comfortable for us for many decades. So there is no need for America to be directly responsible for imposing EU tyranny. Quite as the American troops obviously needn't be directly involved in stifling uprising from European patriots and nationalists. The Eurocrats do it so well themselves. But the American troops here are the ultimate guarantor of this order, this “organized, common peace”. This is what becomes clear to us when unwinding the historical layers, as we have just done now.

Things must be getting bad *again* if the Europeans need someone to blame for their condition. I wonder if they ever think of blaming themselves? Why do they keep turning out Napoleon's, Stalin's, Hitler's, Moussolini's, and Milosovic's? Why do millions have to die in periodic European upheavals, why do they always need to de-humanize and hate somebody? The Europeans have always been in control of their destiny. That is the ugly truth that they cannot bear to face. Europeans do not need an external enforcer to make a mess of it. They do it themselves.

Auster: "I have always been utterly aghast at the American elites’ support for the unification of Europe. Why did Americans support the elimination of historic states and nations in this unaccountable, post-national, post-human, air-conditioned nightmare of the EU? "

I think the European integration project has been hijacked by the bureaucracy and the left wing ideology. But, in the beginning, the idea of European integration had nothing to do with universalism or building a "world government" at the European level. On the contrary, supporters of European integration probably thought that each European country would be protected by being part of a greater European alliance. Now, things have become different: the EU leaders are supporting mass immigration and Turkey's entry!

"But now a worse possibility – though it is only a possibility - appears on the horizon. It is that America is not merely the friend and cheerleader of the EU project, but its enforcer."

I think our worse enemies are our own European governments and media. The current evolution of the EU reflects the evolution of European governments and the cultural dominance of the extreme left, particularly in the media. It has nothing to do with the USA. Bush doesn't have a say in Brussels.

One day, Turkey will become an official member of the EU, and Iraq will become the 51st American state. We'll be neighbors ! It's going to be fun.
Maybe we should attack the United States and annex Iraq (and maybe Iran) ?
It is dangerous for our security to have an imperialist bully like the US occupying a formerly free country next to our borders.

(Sorry, I just felt like writing rubbish ;-)

@ FL

As you can see, Mr lee, even some European jews believe in anti-American conspiracy theories and will 'parrot' media mantras.   'Yitzak' seems to think that Europeans themselves do not control who gets to enter the EU.  He even seems to think naively that Austria is an important player in that issue.  It's really pretty sad, when grown men believe to 'know' what Condi told 'plassnik', and to think that she 'controls' Austria, a so-called 'neutral country' that never even joined NATO.   No one has to take responsibility for anything.  Just blame it on George and Condi.   The fact is that EVERY country in the world, that wants to have 'decent relations' with Turkey, officially 'supports' Turkey's EU entry.   It is up to the Europeans to make their own decisions, but Yitzak likes to single out the Americans for purported 'machinations'.    

As for 'Iqbal', what can one say about such a level of non-'reasoning'?  Really, what can one say, about such a mindless rant of infantile name-calling, of indiscriminate hate, and total lack of any nuance?   Pathetic.....really!   

First, @sprx:  The US government is not "insisting" that the EU admit Turkey.  Rather, they publicly voice their support for Turkey's membership -- because if they didn't, they would be accused of anti-Muslim bias.

I could make a similar response to Auster:  What exactly would the European reaction be if the US elites were not supportive of the EU?  Wouldn't that be the height of arrogance and meddling?  Besides, Americans are well aware of what happens in Europe when Germany and France are not locked in a tight embrace, and well aware that Europeans expect the Americans to solve the problems that ensue when Germany and France have at it.

I have felt for a very long time that the American left elites (celebrities & Democrats) share the same "world view" as European left elites.  Not only do they cheer on the EU; but they want America to follow the same model of government.  The American right (Republicans) do not support the EU or the UN and their socialists policies.   For this reason, Bush is hated by an elitist left media on both sides of the Atlantic.

By insisting on the enlargement of the EU with at least turkey -and what more?- the US is eliminating a capitalist rival by making sure the EU will not devellope due to illiterated masses and an incompatible culture. The EU would soon start disintegrating into several different blocs, if not totaly.

EU project is a joke.

Lawrence Auster: "But now a worse possibility – though it is only a possibility - appears on the horizon. It is that America is not merely the friend and cheerleader of the EU project, but its enforcer. Our troops and missiles and tanks are in Europe to prevent any uprising by European patriots and nationalists against the EU tyranny."

The American military presence in Western Europe had three aims: (a) occupying defeated Germany and assisting in the reconstruction of those nation-states occupied by the Wehrmact; (b) deterring Soviet military expansion beyond those states already 'liberated' by the Red Army, which had not hesitated in 1919-1921 to attempt a full-scale invasion of Western Europe; and (c) using Europe as a base for power projection, especially in the region under the administration of what is now CENTCOM. In 1919, Wilson was committed to national self-determination through sovereign statehood, however, this ideal was subordinated to that of collective security, resulting in the 'creation' of Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia to counter future German aggression. Similarly, it was clear to the Western Allies that supranational mechanisms were necessary to co-ordinate economic development and military defense given: (a) the obvious threat posed by 6,000,000 Soviet soldiers and their 50,000 tanks, and (b) the socialist and communist movements active from Athens to London. Thus, in order to prevent Western Europe from willingly or unwillingly being gobbled up by Soviet Russia, NATO and the EEC were necessary steps towards collective security and prosperity. Given that the Soviet leadership was more than content with its 1945 possessions and was unwilling and unable to start a war with the West and that the USSR and its bloc is now dissolved, the EU is unnecessary, even to compete with China or the United States, especially as individual Western European nation-states are more than capable of maximizing their comparative advantages without assistance from Brussels. Certainly, loose, Warsaw Pact-style military integration is beneficial, as is free trade, but the supranational institutions and common currency must go if national sovereignty is to be maintained. Mr. Auster is associating Soviet behavior with American military deployments, which is fallacious, as the United States has little interest in the EU, and is more likely opposed to it; moreover, why would it spend the money to repress Europeans on behalf of their own governments?

Oh dear, conspiracy theories have reached the tipping point, haven't they?