Maybe I'm not getting it. It seems Welch's entire argument can be boiled down to one of his own lines.....

"It’s not the invasion, it’s the motivation. Selective use of unilateralism and even pre-emptive military action is OK; just don’t be rude about it."

Well, this is all cute, but where does it take into account some of the following ---

The Euro-Left / Socialists that bitterly protested Reagan were reporters, teachers,activists, and back-bench parlimentarians. Today, those same people are publishers, editors, producers, professors, party chiefs, and parlimentary committee chairmen.

Such people have been RELENTLESSLY hostile to the very existence of the Republican Party, much less it's (always moronic, amazingly) leaders. That hostility to "The Toxic Texan", "The Executioner", "Backwoods Cowboy", blah blah began, well, I'd say five minutes after his election, but its was actually five minutes BEFORE he even announced he was running. That's Bush's fault? (I don't hold Bush blameless, stylistically.... but when do we start blaming some people in Europe for any of this.... ever??)

Then there's the Oil-for-Palaces scandal. Just how OK is "pre-emptive military action" when it will cost you billions in lost bribe money? Does this matter at all?

Then there’s Robert Kagan (Kaplan?)’s theory, well-founded, that our differences do not RESULT in a differential in military capabilities, it is those capabilities that CAUSE the ever-widening differential. This is going to change by politeness?

Face it… Hussien was not Europe’s enemy, and he was our blood-enemy until he, his sons, and their sons finally did the world a favor and died. The US was not into camping out and containing Husseins until the year 2100, no one else ever would, and when they got out of their “box” through WMD or whatever, they weren’t going to go after Paris or Berlin. Thus Paris or Berlin did not care, Washington and Tel Aviv did.

That put the Europeans neutral. Now add in all the above, and they go from neutral to actively hostile. Bush’s style was…... Oh….. 25% responsible…... IF that.

I meant to add one other random thought. Reagan and Bush have both addressesed foreign parliments and been heckled therein. Many foreign leaders have addressed Congress. Has any congressman, in the history of our nation, EVER... even once... heckled a foreign leader because they disagreed with them.

And has any foreign leader ever been heckled in a European parliment for being a too socialist or left-wing dictatorial? Ever?

And they call conservatives self-righteous.

FWIW, Kosovo ain't going too well right now, either.

If there's one thing that Americans are - its polite and respectful. I was constantly amazed how many people in the US would address me as sir. Personally, I found it a little disconcerting, but fair play to you all.

But, still... when it comes to politics and heckling, somehow I prefer the rough and tumble British adversarial system. It's much more fun. And if you can't have fun while you're running the country - when can you have fun???

Point taken.

But I think that we all will treat our brother at the dinner table very differently than we would treat our brother's girlfriend's visiting father at that same table. A guest is basically treated differently than a relative in one's own home.

I know if the US Congress, for whatever reason, invited Gerhard Schroeder to speak there, and some yahoo congressman inturrupted him to accuse him of cowardice, betrayal, or whatever, I would be personally mortified.

Maybe I'm was raised differently than those who take smug, sneering satisfaction in just such actions.

Yeah, I agree. Although, when comparing the US and UK, I have noticed one thing which interests me.

Debate generally in the House of Commons is pretty vehement, rowdy, and verges on the uncivilised at times. But, at the same time, when it comes to the way the two main parties deal with each other outside of the Commons, they actually act in a far more civilised manner, and work together far more harmoniously than you would think.

Wheras, in my experience, while members of the two main US parties are relatively civilised in actual debate - for example in Congress, the division between the two parties outside of that hallowed place is far starker, and far more rancorous than in the UK.

Its a superficial observation, I know, and overly generalised, but I think it is an interesting insight into the difference between our two political cultures.

I have no idea how members of other European parliaments act in debates. Anyone out there with an insight?

If memory serves, the Italian parliament can be every bit as uncivilized if not more so than their British counterparts.

I've heard that some of the Asian legislatures get up to some "energetic" debate at times, as well (Japan, South Korea, etc.).

Note that the Chief Architect of Kosovo, Clinton, did address a meeting of the Labour Party in Britain and got booed there for backing Bush on Gulf War II.

Also, note that Americans only invite foreign leaders wildly popular on both sides of the aisle and with the American public to speak. Thus Tony Blair gets invited while Chirac, Sharon, Aznar and Schroeder do not.

asdf notes that Kosovo is not going too well right now. If that occupation is going poorly, perhaps it is fair to be reluctant to carry out a fourth (after Bosnia, Kosovo/a and Afghanistan).

Yamaeko,

The answer to going poorly is to find what is wrong and figure out how to fix it.

Here's a question which has just occurred to me:

Why is it more acceptable/polite to express our opinion of someone by making a noise (clapping or cheering), but less acceptable/polite to express our opinion by making another noise (booing??

And also -- isn't it strange how comments threat sometimes end up discussing an entirely different topic than the original post. By the way, for what its worth - in relation to the original post, I think the Yugoslav wars will more likely be given historical recognition as a symptom of another turning point - the global realignments brought about by the end of the Cold War - rather than as a turning point in themselves.

It could also be that the Yugoslav conflict was yet another of the repercussions of WWI and Versailles. Interesting how so many of the nation-states created at that time have had troubles in recent years -- Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Iraq.