←back to thread

160 points cruzcampo | 4 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
gizmo ◴[] No.43651892[source]
Much of what this article writes is not true:

- You can absolutely get in trouble for voicing political speech in Europe. We've seen plenty of headlines of people who got fired in Europe for making offensive statements. In the UK in particular criticizing the wealthy is extremely dangerous because of slander laws.

- Europe absolutely does not have an extremely generous immigration policy. An estimated 24,000 immigrants have died trying to cross the Mediterranean. And this is because of European policy. It's because Europe refuses to honor refugee/asylum claims at the airport desperate people are forced to cross the sea in rickety dinghies.

- Europe does not track wealth of its citizens. Many companies are privately held. Many assets are held overseas. So how does the Economist know wealth inequality is low? But it is known that every time a heat wave hits Europe many elderly die because they can't afford to cool their home.

- “Nobody in Europe is even casually implying they will invade other countries.” Did the Economist forget that European soldiers actually joined the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq? Europe also used its military to topple the Gaddafi government in Libya. Europe doesn't just talk about invading other countries, it actually has invaded other countries in recent history. Must be amnesia! (You might believe these invasions were morally justified, but that's beside the point.)

- It's true that Europe does not have out of control tech execs who boast about throwing bits of Europe into the wood chipper. But this is because Europe's entirely depends on the US for tech and we don't have any oddball "founder CEO" types. There is no European Bezos, Gates, Jobs, or Musk. CEOs in Europe are professional managers. It's not the same.

The article isn't horrible, but it makes way too many claims that don't hold up to slight scrutiny.

replies(1): >>43652321 #
watwut ◴[] No.43652321[source]
Afghanistan invasion was America invading Afhanistan and using NATO article 5 to force Europe into it with them.

Funny how now an American is somehow trying to blame Europe for it while America is acting like a victim because they were not sole benefactors of the alliance.

replies(1): >>43652674 #
1. gizmo ◴[] No.43652674[source]
1. Europe joined the US willingly in the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Even with article 5 NATO countries could have protested against it or provided minimal non-combat support.

2. This isn't about blame or NATO or ethics. This is about the Economist rewriting history.

replies(1): >>43653008 #
2. watwut ◴[] No.43653008[source]
1.) They did protested, quite a lot. And Ameruca resented it a lot, it especially went full on hating on Frannce.

2.) This is about trying to blame everyone except republicans and conservatives for what conservatives do.

replies(1): >>43656221 #
3. Gud ◴[] No.43656221[source]
Regarding the invasion of Afghanistan, it is my opinion that the Europeans were fully behind the US. The Iraq invasion, not at all.
replies(1): >>43659138 #
4. ZeroTalent ◴[] No.43659138{3}[source]
I'm baffled it's not called The Iraq Genocide. History is, indeed, written by the winners.