What the Eurotwits would like George W. Bush to say

[Velociryx]

Willem...buddy....seriously.

Who in their right (or wrong!) mind would attack them with the USA standing watch? Even at the height of her power, Russia didn't.

Unfortunately, since the world is a dangerous place, the ability to move men with guns around the globe is of paramount importance if you wanna play on the world stage.

Two ingredients must be in place though.

1) You have to have men with guns to move around. Europe has a few of these, and that's a good start.

2) You have to invest in the equipment needed to move them from point a to point b. - Europe lacks even the more basic means for doing this. Twenty heavy lift cargo planes, 2-3 modern carriers....and yet, they want an active, equal role on the global stage.

When I hear that, what I really hear is: Well, we have no desire to committ the resources necessary to be a world player, we'd rather spend it on our welfare state, wine, and holidays, but....we want you to TREAT us as though we are spending those resources.

No.

Sorry, but no.

If you wanna be taken seriously, ante up.

-=Vel=-

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Willem...buddy....seriously.

Who in their right (or wrong!) mind would attack them with the USA standing watch? Even at the height of her power, Russia didn't.

Hey, I'm just pointing out that there's another side of the story. If you want to have a meaningful debate, you have to be able to look at both views. European history is full of examples of this type of thing happening, they have a good reason to feel nervous about going down that road again.

Are they taking it the extreme? Maybe. But you shouldn't just discount their concerns, they do have their reasons. Having parents that lived in The Netherlands during WWII, I can fully understand why they've taken their approach. Your country on the other hand didn't really suffer very much then, aside from your loss of soldiers. The war was "over there" for your people.

[Velociryx]

All true.

Also true that most of "our people" came from over there.

The thing is....nobody (not even us, by the way!) can have it both ways. Either you claim a "superior," "enlightened" position, stating that you have learned important lessons from history, and are simply "above" such petty, worldly concerns as the rest of the world knows (in which case, why bother to look anywhere outside of Europe!), and in that case, you *choose* not to arm yourself in the face of a hostile world (thereby surrendering your position as a world player, and ceding your defense and continued safety and well-being to those who are willing to spend the resources to make that happen), or....you ante up and play the game.

And perhaps that is what Americans see as being at the core of the problem.

All we hear from Europe is how badly we're screwing things up.

We hear talking. Lots of talking, which amounts to, from our rough-edged perspective, just so much hot air from European windbags who lack the courage of their convictions. *If* we are wrong, then the proper course of European action would be to get themselves in a position to *demonstrate* how we're wrong by doing it "correctly."

Sadly, this is not what occurs. Instead, Europe gets her proverbial panties in a wad and laments at the latest stupidity of those upstart Americans, demanding a full share of attention, while being unwilling to do anything much beyond cheering from the sidelines.

That doesn't cut it.

You either care enough about your safety and freedom to get dirty and do something about it, or you don't.

IF you do, spend the bucks and show us how it's done! For God's sake, do it and come stand beside us so we can work together!

Or....don't. We have demonstrated that we're willing and able to do it for you, but IF you choose that path, then don't whine when we go about it in our own way.

You wanna change it? It's real easy.

Ante up.

-=Vel=-

[Ned]

Vel, what do you think would happen if we pulled our troops out of Europe and the Germans began to rearming very serious way -- perhaps even developing nuclear weapons?

Do we really want this?

To the Europeans want this?

Somehow I think Europe has developed the way it has because American troops remain in Germany in Germany remains pacifist

[ravagon]

Originally posted by Willem

Hey, I'm just pointing out that there's another side of the story. If you want to have a meaningful debate, you have to be able to look at both views. European history is full of examples of this type of thing happening, they have a good reason to feel nervous about going down that road again.

Admirable though it may be that Europe wishes to set a peacable example, if I may (mis)quote a rather notable Euro philosopher, - "Those who treat the world as they would have it rather than as it is, are ... well, destined to go up ye creek without yon paddle" so to speak.

(Somebody's sig puts it a great deal better).

[HershOstropoler]

Vel:

"First, let me say that NONE of the above was meant to be in any way personal, and I hope you didn't take it as such."

I didn't. And if I were really riled up, you'd notice it very, very quickly.

"Second, do you not see, by your own response to my criticisms of the EU, a certain double standard?"

There's always a danger of that, but I dare say that my criticism of US politics or whatever is an informed one - that by Hitchens is definately not.

Europeans slam for example the US death penalty practice, or laugh about your election system. "aristocratic, over-your-shoulder bearing", however - Americans are at least as guilty of that as Europeans. If we do not consider scientology a religion, we're evil state-church advocates. If we do not involve god and jesus into politics, we're evil heathens. If we do not use GAAP as the standard, we're clueless socialists. The list is pretty much endless.

I don't mind criticism. You have the right to criticise everything and anything in Europe, just base it on facts not prejudice. Where I feel a strong sense of annoyance is for example when mostly american economists make up a totally fictional mandate of the ECB and drivel about those stupid europeans. Well, I'd prefer criticism from at least semi-literate people who could actually read the ****ing mandate.

"But, when the shoe shifts to the other foot, we get the same kind of cagy, almost catty defensiveness we see when you attack us."

In this case a bad comparison. Hitchens is the equivalent of me looking at the federal reserve districts and US statistical regions to make a claim that the federal government wants to dissolve the states and establish some 10 provinces ruled by a federal director.

"Likewise, I would say that the vast bulk of Euro-criticisms are equally uninformed."

A lot of them are. Did I say otherwise? One of the silliest is the Iraqi oil grab (oil plays a role, just on a larger scale). Funnily enough, the silliest version of that I've read is coming from William Safire.

But why don't you give a good example and get your facts in order?

"since WWII, Europeans have chosen to invest in welfare state infrastructure and coast under the umbrella of a strong US military to keep them safe"

European defense spending approached something like 70 % of US levels in the 70s, still 50-60 % in the 80s. Could get the stats from Kennedy, Great Powers, but I don't have the book here.

"due to the fact that Europe whines about losing its front seat position on the world stage"

That's mostly a british and french problem. Nowhere worse than among the french elite. I don't give a rat's ass about front seats.

"germany couldn't even get it's equipment to Afghanistan on its own"

We're 13 years behind on restructuring the militaries. That's a really lame performance.

"We know, we're working on it."

But we are.

"Isn't is possible....just *possible* mind you, that Americans *might* be considered to know a thing or two about what they're doing...."

You sure do. I'm a lot more sceptical about your government though, as I'm about all governments. There are a couple factors though that make me particularly sceptical about your government, eg the role of people from rightwing "think" tanks who live in a complete fantasy world.

"War, Peace, Disarm, rely on paper treaties to protect them."

Protection from whom? Western europe's armies have been designed to defend against a large scale tank invasion, and that still shows. Even the US could not win in an invasion attempt against the combined european armies.

And don't forget one thing - while the US spends 350-400 billion a year on the military, the EU combined would be instant second with 150-200 billion. And the US government is doing everything it can (which is very little, we're mostly standing in our own way) to stop that from happening.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Pardon me if I'm behind the times, but why does Roland have a new login?

Yea, He's HarshOstrogoth now.

[HershOstropoler]

That's pretty much correct, geographicly.

[Velociryx]

Couldn't sleep, so I figured I'd come here (yes....it's 4:30 in the morning).

Ned - One would like to think that Europeans *have* indeed learned the lessons of their history well enough that yes, we'd like to see Europe take a more active stance where her own defense is concerned.

HO - You said earlier that the EU parliament has law-making capabilities, even now (whether or not they have begun exercising those powers is another debate)....these officials are not elected by the rank and file European citiizen, as I understand it, but are appointed by Euro-governments.

Is this trans-national organization then, considered a democratic body, with her appointed officials capable of (if not actively engaging in...yet) passing laws affecting European citizens, while not directly accountable TO those citizens?

The article Sikander posted some pages ago (that another European poster found interesting reading) was what I used to begin my research with, btw....among the first articles I found was a piece by Johan Goldberg (probably another rightwing nutjob extremist, as was, no doubt, the author of Sikander's article), and that, in turn, led me to approximately half a dozen others, by Joshua Muravchik, Karina Rollins, Jeffrey Gedmin, Andrew Sullivan, Jonathan Rauch, Mark Steyn, Michael Kelly, and John O'Sullivan).

For additional materials regarding the EU's process and capability to make and pass laws, I red Richard Minter's article on the subject, and for information on the "elite" of Europe and their mindset, I read Michael Ledeen's article, entitled "Europe loses its mind" (not literally, of course....the summary line of the article reads: After centuries of cerebral pioneering, Europe has lost its intellectual energy and spark. The continent shows few signs of regaining its footing.)

Now...I'm not sure how much reading is required before it can be fairly considered that one is now "informed" but I daresay that I have done a bit more than go through the motions (unless of course, I have simply stumbled on a cache of articles written by folks who just *happen* to all be members of that scantly-numbered population of right-wing nutjobs you referenced earlier, and in that case, I would venture to say they are quite prolific, if few in number!)

Of my reading, I choose to start by quoting Hitchens, because I felt that his name would be the most likely to draw a response, and in that, it appears that I chose correctly. Nonetheless, having read articles and digested them for the better part of the day before posting the snippet I did, I think it's fair to say that I didn't just pull my misguided facts out of my arse, but based them on a fairly wide selection of readings.

Does a day's reading make me an expert? Hardly, but it was a solid enough beginning, one would imagine, and that reading will continue, cos it's a subject interesting to my brain.

Regarding protection....and protection from whom:
The world outside of Europe is, believe it or not, still a very dangerous place. In our collective efforts to win the cold war, there are a great number of armed to the teeth, unsavory characters out there who have publically stated that they wish to unmake the western world. To refuse to acknowledge their desire to do so is to fall back into the historic European pattern of "ignore the problem and it will go away." Forgive me if I do not subscribe to that point of view, given it's previoiusly witnessed effects.

And, while it is true that taken as a whole, the combined weight of European military spending does indeed put them second, a healthy chunk OF that spending comes from recently added member nations....former members of the Eastern-bloc, who spend their Euros maintaining impossibly outdated troops and equipment....not exactly the makings of a fearsome European force, I fear.

As to modernization....France has ONE modern Aircraft carrier. One. Europe combined has...what? 3? 4?

Twenty-two heavy lifting cargo planes?

These are basics.

Fundamentals.

It's one thing to say that Europe is "behind" on its military infrastructure, but h3ll...if the fundamentals aren't even in place, then that's an indication that it's a bit more than just being a bit "behind" no?

And lastly, economics. You guys are certainly free to persue whatever economic model you want, but given the size and success of the American model, I'm guessing that if you are interested in emulating that success, it might be an intriguing possibility to study its inner workings.

One notable difference is the fact that, while we enjoy a holiday as much as the next person, we don't give part time employees four weeks of vacation (as Britain was recently required to do for it's part timers, to bring them into EU compliance--unless that's more rightwing propoganda, of course). Another thing we don't do is pay 40-50 cents on the dollar to support a welfare state, which is, if that's how you want to do it, okay, so long as your population isn't aging, and birth rates declining to such a degree that you have fewer and fewer workers in the field, supporting an ever increasing number of recipients.

Is it possible then, that these could be at least some of the reasons why German unemployment remained stubbornly high, even during the 90's boom (hovering in the 9-10 percent range?) Or is that simply yet more right wing propoganda designed to make Europe "look bad?"

One thing we agree on is a general mistrust of governments. I don't trust yours OR mine. Not any further than I could hurl my truck. I am always watchful of them and their attempts to steal away liberties. (the b@stards!)

Where we differ (USA and Europe as a whole, not you and I), is that Europe (as you say, Britain and France mostly, but I'd also include Germany) seems to wail and lament their lack of centerstage role, wringing their hands and gnashing their teeth, telling American's how stupid their policies are....but you know what? The European alternative is never floated. Worse, rather than all that b*tching and moaning, they never get up and DO anything.

If their plans were so inherently superior, why not act on them? Why not *demonstrate* that superiority in some tangible way? Spend the necessary resources and show us how it's done?

We're still waiting....

-=Vel=-

[HershOstropoler]

Vel:

"HO - You said earlier that the EU parliament has law-making capabilities, even now... these officials are not elected by the rank and file European citiizen, as I understand it, but are appointed by Euro-governments."

Short rundown of the Art 251 procedure:

Commission makes a proposal, Council and Parliament either agree on it, it's passed. They don't agree, go to conciliation comitee. If they make a deal, they pass it. If not, the act does not become valid.

The Council members aren't exactly appointed by national governments, but the council consists of the competent national ministers, eg the foreign ministers. Member states are free to use procedures where national parliaments give them mandates on the way they vote (most stringent in Denmark and Austria).

The Parliament is elected directly by the peoples of the member states.

The Commission is (simplified) appointed by the Council after it recieves a vote of confidence by the Parliament. Parliament can also oust the Commission by a vote of no-confidence.

"(whether or not they have begun exercising those powers is another debate)...."

The EU has pretty much made use of all its legislative powers.

"For additional materials regarding the EU's process and capability to make and pass laws, I red Richard Minter's article on the subject"

Link?
Most journalists write total rubbish on legal issues. I can't imagine he's a lawyer or at least a polsci guy.

"Europe has lost its intellectual energy and spark."

That's a funny claim.

"Now...I'm not sure how much reading is required"

I don't know, but the sources you read obviously have not even explained the difference between Council and Parliament.

"The world outside of Europe is, believe it or not, still a very dangerous place."

It is. But even Oklahoma territory got judges, not just marshalls.

"a healthy chunk OF that spending comes from recently added member nations...."

I was talking about the EU-15. The spending by the 10 new members to come 2004 is very small. Poland as the biggest is I think about 4-5 billion $.

"Twenty-two heavy lifting cargo planes?"

A-400 is on the way.

"I'm guessing that if you are interested in emulating that success, it might be an intriguing possibility to study its inner workings."

Well what success would we be looking for?

Vacation - the pause that refreshes.

Welfare state - in the broadest definition, 20-33 % of GDP. IIRC the US is in the 15-20 % range. Fixing the pension systems is easy, it's the chickenshit politicians who move so incredibly slowly.

"the reasons why German unemployment remained stubbornly high, even during the 90's boom (hovering in the 9-10 percent range?)"

When Germany had its bubble economy, west german unemployment fell to 4 % in 1991/92.

"Or is that simply yet more right wing propoganda designed to make Europe "look bad?""

It obviously is, if it comes along with recipes to emulate the US labour market as the only solution. Austria and the Netherlands have unemployment rates much lower with their own models.

"I am always watchful of them and their attempts to steal away liberties. (the b@stards!)"

Good.

"The European alternative is never floated."

Depends on the issue. There is for example a clear alternative for the Israel/Palestinian problem.

"Spend the necessary resources and show us how it's done?"

That would have the paranoia guys in Washington burn their brains through. You mean spending money on the military? Or that Europe does about 3-4 times more economic aid (if we exclude Israel and Egypt, the ratio gets a lot higher even).

[Velociryx]

You're dancing 'round the issue, HO.... That's okay, but the core of the matter is, whether YOU personally care about the center stage position or not, it is clear that the "movers and shakers" of the EU certainly do. And rather than put forth any real effort to step onto the center stage, they'd rather b*tch and moan about the guy that's currently there.

I can see the attraction. That is certainly much easier and less risky than taking the plunge and doing something.

But is it any wonder, really, that the US scoffs at such complaints, when the folks making them are unwilling to propose viable alternatives and take pains to see their alternative plans (if they have any) enacted?

And yes....let's talk about the Israel/Palestine issue a moment. In my reading, I discovered that (IIRC, a French-led panel?) set about studying the root cause of terrorism in the ME. Their conclusion was not that radical fundamentalism was at the core, nor that hate-spewing regiemes such as Iran's, but rather....poverty.

Poverty.

So...the EU starts sending lossa Euros to the Palestenians. Now...if the theory was correct, and poverty was the root cause, the Palestenians (who recieve the largest amount of aid, per capita of any group I know of) should be among the LEAST likely group to perform acts of terror.....is that not the expected conclusion?

Is that, in fact, the case, and if not, what does it say about the validity of the approach?

Further, how does the "poverty is the root of terrorism" theory fit in with the notion that the men who drove the jetliners into the WTC were men of comfortable means?

And let's look at some more examples of highly consistent European ME policy, while we're at it.

When US economic sanctions were put in place against Iraq, the European community (and especially France and Germany) railed against them, claiming that they only hurt the common folk of Iraq, and didn't really do anything to the leadership.

And so....when we shift gears in an effort to try something...shall we say..."harsher", those SAME Europeans come out in droves extolling the virtues of....economic sanctions! Does that strike you as particularly consistent?

Another: It has often been said in Europe that America is focusing on the wrong primary target in the ME....that Iran is by far, the more dangerous of the two countries. Is that why then, France in particular, and many other European countries do massive business deals with them? If there was a genuine fear that Iran was far more dangerous, is that a particularly consistent and rational approach to take?

I'm *certainly* not saying that America is without fault! God knows, we've made some whoppers of mistakes! (and will, no doubt make more in the future). The difference in the past couple decades is....we're at least out there trying. The world is a pretty mucked up place, post-cold war, and we (collectively) did a lot of stuff not to be proud of in its winning. We could sure use a more active hand in cleaning it up. THAT is my main point. And my main contention is that until Europe (both individual nations and collectively) starts taking an active hand (and by "active hand" I mean doing something beyond griping about the direction that America is heading off in), I can sorta understand why the US Administration gets exhasperated. Wouldn't you?

Lastly, I'm not sure where you got your "Europe spends 300%-400% more on foriegn aid than the US" figure from, but my gut tells me that number is inaccurate. I admittedly have not searched it out, but you have me curious. And for the record, I hope you are right. I genuinely hope that Europe will come 'round and roaring back to life. But right now....she seems to be sleeping.

-=Vel=-

PS: I will attempt to find article links online, but much of my research was done the "old fashioned" way....via books and magazines scoured through on the lunch break and read between issues at work, and in the evening.

[Spiffor]

Vel :

I agree with pretty much everything you say about EU's lack of real willingness to become as big as it wishes. I agree most disagreements from France comes from the longing of the gone superpower it was (in Germany however, the population seems to be really highly pacifistic about Iraq, and gets more and more pacifistic each day)

Had we more political cohesion within the EU, we might have more vision. But for now, we are pretty much nothing on the international diplomatic / military stage (our military is strong, but not independent enough, being under the aegis of NATO).

I hope the future European Constitution (the first step should be complete by summer) will give more coheseion to the EU as a whole, and will make it able to allow men with vision at the helm.

[Velociryx]

Spiffor, I share that hope and dream, bud! It will be a shining time indeed when Europe unifies itself sufficiently to begin flexing those muscles, and steps back onto the stage. With the combined might and know-how of that alliance, and its committment to Democractic principles, there'd be no stopping that particular flower from spreading to every corner of the globe, and on that day, the Saddam's of the world will find their days truly numbered.

And that would be....awesome.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

PS: And (thinking long term here), if you think a fully united European Economic Union would kick vast amounts of a$$, just *imagine* what a trans-atlantic economic union would do....an economy over twenty TRILLION dollars in size....wow....

-=Vel=-

[Ramo]

And yes....let's talk about the Israel/Palestine issue a moment. In my reading, I discovered that (IIRC, a French-led panel?) set about studying the root cause of terrorism in the ME. Their conclusion was not that radical fundamentalism was at the core, nor that hate-spewing regiemes such as Iran's, but rather....poverty.
Poverty.
So...the EU starts sending lossa Euros to the Palestenians. Now...if the theory was correct, and poverty was the root cause, the Palestenians (who recieve the largest amount of aid, per capita of any group I know of) should be among the LEAST likely group to perform acts of terror.....is that not the expected conclusion?

You're making the logical fallacy that a state getting relativly high international aid means that its people are rich. That isn't the case. Due to Israel-enforced curfews, closures, unfair distribution of water resources, trade and immigration barriers, West Bank and Gaza have a horrible amount of poverty. I remeber seeing statistics that at the time unemployment was obscenely high, something around 50%, IIRC. Furthermore, consider that not much of the international aid actually gets to the Palestinian people since Arafat is an authoritarian *****.

It has often been said in Europe that America is focusing on the wrong primary target in the ME....that Iran is by far, the more dangerous of the two countries. Is that why then, France in particular, and many other European countries do massive business deals with them? If there was a genuine fear that Iran was far more dangerous, is that a particularly consistent and rational approach to take?

Neither Iran nor Iraq are particularly dangerous. Iran has made some pretty impressive strides towards liberty since the Islamist revolution. Honestly, I wouldn't be suprised if there's democracy in the country in 20 or 30 years.

That would have the paranoia guys in Washington burn their brains through. You mean spending money on the military? Or that Europe does about 3-4 times more economic aid (if we exclude Israel and Egypt, the ratio gets a lot higher even).

Or 50% higher agrisubsidies.

I had to get my fix of jinogism.

[Spiffor]

By "vision" I didn't necessarily mean "waging war around the world". While a unified EU will de facto be a major diplomatic and military power, even superior to Russia in China in the forseeable future, it doesn't mean Europe will take the American way to "solve" problems.
But maybe Europe will finally apply its way of solving problems, rather than just talking about it.

As for a transatlantic alliance : way too early. For now, Europe needs a common rival to get some feeling of unity, and the US just happen to be the most convenient rival of the time. A EU-US meaningful alliance will happen only when China or the Arabic World will be enough of a threat.

[Velociryx]

Ramo - I know, on both counts....but the point is that the findings mentioned above ARE the findings of the folks in Europe, and represent the supposedly superior position. IF the Pals aren't getting the money, then it's not doing them much good, which is worse, in some ways, than the theory being just plain wrong, because the execution is shoddy. I was not making any attempt to make sense of the logic of it, only demonstrate that it hasn't been any more effective or "superior" to US methodologies in the region.

And Spiffor...well, I did say long term.... And I'll be looking forward to the new European emergence, with full understanding that we won't always see eye to eye.

Friends get over it...

-=Vel=-

[HershOstropoler]

Vel:

"whether YOU personally care about the center stage position or not, it is clear that the "movers and shakers" of the EU certainly do."

Some do, some don't. I do not know why I should be identified with the politicians.

"So...the EU starts sending lossa Euros to the Palestenians. Now...if the theory was correct, and poverty was the root cause, the Palestenians (who recieve the largest amount of aid, per capita of any group I know of) should be among the LEAST likely group to perform acts of terror"

First I doubt that we get anywhere near US aid for Israel, probably not even Jordan. Anyway, the situation was relatively stable until it got out of hands on both sides. And aid is pointless when the Israelis destroy the aid projects, from gaza airport to cultural institutions.

Is poverty the main cause? I don't think so. But your argument does not speak against it.

"When US economic sanctions were put in place against Iraq, the European community (and especially France and Germany) railed against them"

Those are UN sanctions. I'm not sure what you mean. The reviews of the oil for food programs? The US buys (or bought) the bulk of Iraq's allowed oil exports anyway, under sanctions.

"Is that why then, France in particular, and many other European countries do massive business deals with them?"

Business and the idea that isolation will only help the fundis, not the reformers in Iran.

"we're at least out there trying."

And the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Just look at drug prohibition (well, some there have good intentions....)

"I can sorta understand why the US Administration gets exhasperated. Wouldn't you?"

I understand that the current admin gets exasperated by dissent. But its approach is so utterly chaotic and counterproductive, that there is little to do but dissent. The Bush admin has shown several times that it is impervious to arguments. The hystery about Kyoto and the ICC have shown that in abundance.

"Lastly, I'm not sure where you got your "Europe spends 300%-400% more on foriegn aid than the US" figure from"

3-4 times as much, I think I said.

http://www.oecd.org/xls/M00037000/M00037866.xls

27 billion $ vs 11 billion, but in 2000 exchange rates. GDP-wise 0.33 vs 0.11 %, so given equal GDPs, it's about 3 times.

"*imagine* what a trans-atlantic economic union would do...."

I doubt the US would do anything beyond NAFTA. And I guess they wouldn't even do something like NAFTA with the EU. It's bad enough for Washington to lose all those WTO cases.

[CerberusIV]

Originally posted by Velociryx
I'm *certainly* not saying that America is without fault! God knows, we've made some whoppers of mistakes! (and will, no doubt make more in the future). The difference in the past couple decades is....we're at least out there trying. The world is a pretty mucked up place, post-cold war, and we (collectively) did a lot of stuff not to be proud of in its winning. We could sure use a more active hand in cleaning it up. THAT is my main point. And my main contention is that until Europe (both individual nations and collectively) starts taking an active hand (and by "active hand" I mean doing something beyond griping about the direction that America is heading off in), I can sorta understand why the US Administration gets exhasperated. Wouldn't you?

-=Vel=-

Maybe the world would be less mucked up if the US (amongst others) stopped trying to correct its old mistakes by possibly making new ones. Then again politicians who don't claim they can correct the mistakes of their predecessors don't get elected.

[Velociryx]

See? It's one of those posts that LOOKS like it has substance, but filled with artful dodges. Well done tho....

While the rest of the post picked apart my points against "superior" European notions in the ME, the heart and soul of the matter was answered with the dodgy reply of: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions..." (which of course, implies that because this is so, it is better to do nothing).

Yes it is, and you wanna know where the road leads with NO intentions?

Nowhere.

With well-intentioned action, there is not a 100% chance that the road will lead to hell.

With nothing but hot air, there is a 100% chance of nothing changing.

:: shrug::

it's cool tho.

-=Vel=-

[Velociryx]

Cerberus - it'd be nice if it worked that way, wouldn't it?

The only problem though, is that when we sit back and do nothing, you know what we get?

We get shreiking and hand-wringing from Europe and elsewhere that we're becoming isolationist and not standing up to tyranny.

Interesting catch-22, wouldn't you say?



-=Vel=-

[HershOstropoler]

"See? It's one of those posts that LOOKS like it has substance, but filled with artful dodges. Well done tho...."

I'm a lawyer, and I'm one of the best.

Seriously though, on some issues we see what we percieve as american overactivism that is difficult to explain. Maybe it's because we did the crusade thing ages ago, and it didn't work too well. Maybe we are too cynical.

But do you really prefer the US occupying Iraq with a huge chance of messing it up over the current permanent, but low-level crisis?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Velociryx
Cerberus - it'd be nice if it worked that way, wouldn't it?

The only problem though, is that when we sit back and do nothing, you know what we get?

We get shreiking and hand-wringing from Europe and elsewhere that we're becoming isolationist and not standing up to tyranny.

Interesting catch-22, wouldn't you say?



-=Vel=-

Actually, even if I'm heavily left-winger, I really wanted Bush to win 2000 elections, because I was looking forward for US isolationism
Yet another dire consequence of Sept. 11

[Velociryx]

HO: Ahhh....I thought I recognized that from somewhere....

's true, Europe and the US approach problems from very different angles. On the one hand, this could be devastatingly effective, because what one misses, the other surely won't. Unfortunately, this requires that both parties be relatively equal on the world stage, and right now, this isn't so. Perhaps when you guys get caught up on that military infrastructure thing....I hope so, it'd be great to see!

As to Iraq...I have to say, yes! Saddam is like month old leftovers in your fridge. He's a cold war relic, and, just as the cold war that spawned him has ended, his regieme ALSO needs to be ended. And it shouldn't stop there, either.

For the first time in history, we....the western, democratic world, have the opportunity to ensure democratic liberties for everybody on the planet. If we work together, we can change the world in ways that almost defy comprehension. Not by creating goose-stepping empires, but by unleashing the awesome powers of Democracy everywhere. As the first to arrive at that place, we are pioneers, and *as* pioneers, we need to be resolute and fearless as we explore the new possibilities the post-cold war has for us.

It's up to us though...if we divide, then we risk falling back into those same old historic patterns.

I hope we can rise above that, and usher in a new, democratic era for everybody.

-=Vel=-
(hmmm....that almost sounded like a campaign speech....with the difference being that I meant it sincerely)

[Willem]

Originally posted by Velociryx
As the first to arrive at that place, we are pioneers, and *as* pioneers, we need to be resolute and fearless as we explore the new possibilities the post-cold war has for us.

Well you no doubt won't like this very much, but it was the French Revolution that provided a model for the American version. And the French offered alot of support for your cause at the time.

Just giving credit where credit is due, you can refrain from jumping down my throat now.

[HershOstropoler]

"Perhaps when you guys get caught up on that military infrastructure thing..."

If we take Israel/Palestinians, how would that help? As long as the US supports Israel regardless of what Sharon does, Sharon can play the concrete head. The only EU option would be to fund the opposing side with a couple billion per year and military supplies, and that is not an option. Military infrastructure or not.

"For the first time in history, we....the western, democratic world, have the opportunity to ensure democratic liberties for everybody on the planet."

You can't force democracy on people where you lack the basic structures (which were present in Japan and Germany post WW2). I also doubt the current US government has any interest in that.

So while it sounds great, I do not think it would work.

[HershOstropoler]

"but it was the French Revolution that provided a model for the American version"

By timewarp?

[Velociryx]

Wasn't gonna jump down your throat....what I meant to say that we...all of the western world, have arrived at a unique point in history....with the the cold war has ended, and the western world has an opportunity that has never before been seen.

This is a time like no other, and an opportunity we can't afford to miss.

-=Vel=-

[Kropotkin]

Fukuyama anyone?

[DuncanK]

Yes, and I'm sure Bush meant all the patriotic crap that he used in his campaign. The fact is that the US is not very democratic, and never has been. Our nation was not founded on enough good principles. We can never lead the world into utopia until we pick better principles.