<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Rewarding Europe&#039;s favourite American</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/22/rewarding-europe%e2%80%99s-favourite-american/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/22/rewarding-europe%e2%80%99s-favourite-american/</link>
	<description>Canada&#039;s only national weekly current affairs magazine.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 26 Oct 2011 16:13:00 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: top SAP Consultant</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/22/rewarding-europe%e2%80%99s-favourite-american/comment-page-1/#comment-194405</link>
		<dc:creator>top SAP Consultant</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 25 Jun 2010 20:05:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87216#comment-194405</guid>
		<description>Very well written editors. I can say this is an amazing article.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Very well written editors. I can say this is an amazing article.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: sea_n_mountains</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/22/rewarding-europe%e2%80%99s-favourite-american/comment-page-1/#comment-194403</link>
		<dc:creator>sea_n_mountains</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:33:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87216#comment-194403</guid>
		<description>&quot;...it will be up to America alone.&quot;

Did Steyn write this?

Oh great a polemical piece about those lefty/soft Europeans! I like the logical fallacies embedded in this piece.

First, in taking down those nasty Europeans you argue that as an exercise in multilateralism Afghanistan has been nothing short of &quot;a disaster&quot;, because &quot;Most of the heavy lifting to date has been done by the U.S., Britain and Canada.&quot; Remind me again what continent Britain is located in again, if you would be so kind. I must have forgotten.

Second, While you are at it, would you mind terribly doing the same for Canada? Last I heard we here in Canada had not agreed to extend the mission either. But I thought this was just Europe versus America? And what about Australia? Are they expanding their role or its duration? Interesting quip from their defense minister just today: &quot;I don&#039;t want to see Australian troops in Afghanistan a day longer than is necessary&quot; that is fueling speculation in that country that Australia may pull its 1,500 troops out of their already limited mission in Afghanistan sooner than expected. Did Australia join the EU while I was reading?

So let me get this straight. Much of Europe, Canada Australia, and other countries are against extending or expanding their role. The US is undecided (except for Cheney who tinks that 40K additional troops is the silver bullet). No other contextual factors (e.g., the implications of diverting attention and resources to settling old scores in Iraq rather than pursuing the actual attackers and the real issues including the Taliban in Afghanistan), nor the polls in (nearly) all participating countries - including the US - indicating that citizens want their troops brought home are relevant in assessing the actions of those hypocritical Europeans.

And, the conclusion, that I am to draw from all that is: &quot;The situation shows that Europe&#8217;s fascination with multilateralism is largely fictitious. Group efforts are fine, so long as they don&#8217;t involve any great pain for Europe (viz. Kyoto)&quot; Oh, and it also proves that Obama does not deserve the Nobel.

Well done! *sigh*</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;&#8230;it will be up to America alone.&quot;</p>
<p>Did Steyn write this?</p>
<p>Oh great a polemical piece about those lefty/soft Europeans! I like the logical fallacies embedded in this piece.</p>
<p>First, in taking down those nasty Europeans you argue that as an exercise in multilateralism Afghanistan has been nothing short of &quot;a disaster&quot;, because &quot;Most of the heavy lifting to date has been done by the U.S., Britain and Canada.&quot; Remind me again what continent Britain is located in again, if you would be so kind. I must have forgotten.</p>
<p>Second, While you are at it, would you mind terribly doing the same for Canada? Last I heard we here in Canada had not agreed to extend the mission either. But I thought this was just Europe versus America? And what about Australia? Are they expanding their role or its duration? Interesting quip from their defense minister just today: &quot;I don&#039;t want to see Australian troops in Afghanistan a day longer than is necessary&quot; that is fueling speculation in that country that Australia may pull its 1,500 troops out of their already limited mission in Afghanistan sooner than expected. Did Australia join the EU while I was reading?</p>
<p>So let me get this straight. Much of Europe, Canada Australia, and other countries are against extending or expanding their role. The US is undecided (except for Cheney who tinks that 40K additional troops is the silver bullet). No other contextual factors (e.g., the implications of diverting attention and resources to settling old scores in Iraq rather than pursuing the actual attackers and the real issues including the Taliban in Afghanistan), nor the polls in (nearly) all participating countries &#8211; including the US &#8211; indicating that citizens want their troops brought home are relevant in assessing the actions of those hypocritical Europeans.</p>
<p>And, the conclusion, that I am to draw from all that is: &quot;The situation shows that Europe&rsquo;s fascination with multilateralism is largely fictitious. Group efforts are fine, so long as they don&rsquo;t involve any great pain for Europe (viz. Kyoto)&quot; Oh, and it also proves that Obama does not deserve the Nobel.</p>
<p>Well done! *sigh*</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gaunilon</title>
		<link>http://www2.macleans.ca/2009/10/22/rewarding-europe%e2%80%99s-favourite-american/comment-page-1/#comment-194404</link>
		<dc:creator>Gaunilon</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:05:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www2.macleans.ca/?p=87216#comment-194404</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;Exactly.&lt;/i&gt;
Well done Editors.

I am in the unusual position of being unable to find even the smallest point of disagreement or addendum.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>Exactly.</i><br />
Well done Editors.</p>
<p>I am in the unusual position of being unable to find even the smallest point of disagreement or addendum.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

