1
   

Europe still beating the drum for America?

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 02:12 pm
Lash wrote:
The PNAC paper lists Not Allowing a Competing Power to Arise as like...#2 on their To Do List.

Out of Europe, or anywhere else.

I hadn't come across that exact phrase before.

Power emerges to fill every vaccuum.....and they resolve not to leave a crack open.

It also says nuclear power will not be allowed in Iran and NK. I believe they mean it.


Interesting policy, is it not? Let's rephrase it as a conversation...

"We (the US) will do whatever it takes to ensure that you (the EU, Britain, China, India or any combination of states/political entities) remain disempowered in relation to us."
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 03:48 pm
Not for all that long, history be thanked.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 11:30 pm
ebrown_p wrote:
Quote:

Enables Europe to continue to fund a welfare society that, generally speaking, results in a relatively docile version of, historically, one of the most violent populations on the face of the Earth.


Was this intended to be funny? (This is either very intelligent subtle satire or very stupid conservative blather. I can't tell.)

Do you know where US history started?


You're reliable if nothing else ebrown.

The dilemma of the modern Liberal: All he has been taught and holds dear tells him that Colonial, Crusading, White, Male Dominated, Militaristic, Christian Europe should be beneath his contempt, and yet it, currently, represents some sort of progressive Utopia, scrubbed clean of its past sins by an anti-Americanism that modern Liberals find so utterly irresistible.

Assuming America is every bit as violent a region as Europe (and why should it not be, considering it's parentage), as the Old Europeans are so fond of telling us Yank upstarts, America is historically a juvenile compared to their proud continent. By such measure, it only stands to reason that as Europe eclipses America in terms of culture, so too it eclipses it in terms of violent heritage.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 11:41 pm
oralloy wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Doesn't Niro's expression of concern over the threat posed to "Europe" by NATO expansion into Eastern Europe, tend to demonstrate (in at least his case) a distinctive Old Europe world view?


Maybe, but I took it to mean that he feared war with Russia.

Indeed, that is precisely his fear, but isn't it so typical of Old Europe to value its own safety over the prosperity and security of Eastern Europe?


Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
By assuming so large a share of the burden, America:

#1 Effectively prevents a re-militarized Europe.


I kind of like the idea of a re-militarized Europe.

I don't think we'll be going to war against Europe, and I see Europe as a potential ally in future wars.

I don't see us going to war with Europe either, thanks in part to the fact that since WWII it has relied upon us to provide its security. It is much better for all concerned that the Europeans spend their wealth on social programs rather than arms.

I think it would be foolish for us to count on Europe as an active ally in future wars. Barring an attack on Europe, which one would almost feel certain would result in Europe allying itself with us in its defense (But then remember France during WWII), for what sort of war might we realistically expect its support? A war against China or Korea? Not likely. A war against Iran? Doubt it. A war against Israel? Yes, I think there we can count upon their support.

0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 18 Mar, 2005 11:44 pm
username removed 3/18/05 wrote:
Hi ebrown

I actually find the DAILY abominations of Bush's Nazi filth--from throwing kids off bridges and laughing while they drown, to beating prisoners to death, to massacring huge numbers of civilians with gleeful indifference---a bit on the offensive side, so it appears we're even.


marburg! I was wondering when you would ooze into an appearence on A2K
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 10:57 pm
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Indeed, that is precisely his fear, but isn't it so typical of Old Europe to value its own safety over the prosperity and security of Eastern Europe?


It's possible that human nature the world over is to prioritize the security of your own people over other people's security.



Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
I think it would be foolish for us to count on Europe as an active ally in future wars. Barring an attack on Europe, which one would almost feel certain would result in Europe allying itself with us in its defense (But then remember France during WWII), for what sort of war might we realistically expect its support? A war against China or Korea? Not likely. A war against Iran? Doubt it. A war against Israel? Yes, I think there we can count upon their support.


I don't think we should count on them to always be there along our sides. I'm sure there'll be plenty of fights they'll sit out. And maybe some fights they'll choose that we'll sit out.

But I think we could be allies in future wars also.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 11:01 pm
blatham wrote:
Interesting policy, is it not? Let's rephrase it as a conversation...

"We (the US) will do whatever it takes to ensure that you (the EU, Britain, China, India or any combination of states/political entities) remain disempowered in relation to us."


It's not the first time lust for power has gripped people.

But it should be remembered that "W" Bush isn't a Neocon. He just takes advice from them sometimes.

His brother Jeb, however, might be a different story. I believe he is one of the original signatories of the PNAC policy.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Sun 20 Mar, 2005 11:35 pm
oralloy wrote:
His brother Jeb, however, might be a different story. I believe he is one of the original signatories of the PNAC policy.


Yep.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2005 04:04 pm
Re: Europe still beating the drum for America?
oralloy wrote:
Niro wrote:
the recent Russia's drive to quit the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF)


Really? We might be able to have ground-launched cruise missiles again?

Cool! Very Happy


I went and looked this up:

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/5bdeb1cc-9040-11d9-9a51-00000e2511c8.html

I think it would be a good thing. Russia is not a threat to the Europeans anymore. And just think if we had been able to lead off the Iraq war with 5,000 Pershing II missiles (I'm thinking conventional warheads here) fired from Bahrain or Qatar in the first hour of conflict.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 24 Mar, 2005 10:21 pm
oralloy wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Indeed, that is precisely his fear, but isn't it so typical of Old Europe to value its own safety over the prosperity and security of Eastern Europe?


It's possible that human nature the world over is to prioritize the security of your own people over other people's security.

By extension, it is human nature to prioritize one's personal security over the security of all others and yet altruism remains an undeniable aspect of human nature, and as such, there is no reason not to expect its manifestation within larger societies of humans.

In any case the threat of Russian aggression, at this juncture, is so limited that anyone or any country that would sacrifice the welfare of its neighbors to avoid such a threat is utterly craven, and that is not part of human nature.




Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
I think it would be foolish for us to count on Europe as an active ally in future wars. Barring an attack on Europe, which one would almost feel certain would result in Europe allying itself with us in its defense (But then remember France during WWII), for what sort of war might we realistically expect its support? A war against China or Korea? Not likely. A war against Iran? Doubt it. A war against Israel? Yes, I think there we can count upon their support.


I don't think we should count on them to always be there along our sides. I'm sure there'll be plenty of fights they'll sit out. And maybe some fights they'll choose that we'll sit out.

But I think we could be allies in future wars also.

At this point in history, it is extremely unlikely that any nation in the world is about to declare war on the US. We don't need to have our allies come to our defense against nation state aggressors. As much as the military assistance of Coalition partners like the UK, Australia and Poland is to be honored and appreciated, let's face it, it has not been militarily significant. The value is far more political than military, just as is the risk to our allies.

If the entire contingent of Coalition military forces were wiped out it Iraq, the impact would be immensely more political than military. Not the UK, Australia or Poland would be left defenseless by such a catastrophe. The ruling parties in those countries would be defenseless though.

We need political support from our allies far more than we need military support, and this is how it will likely be for the foreseeable future. I think it is foolish to believe that nations which only face political risk, rather than military risk, are going to ally themselves with us on a consistent basis.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

THE BRITISH THREAD II - Discussion by jespah
FOLLOWING THE EUROPEAN UNION - Discussion by Mapleleaf
The United Kingdom's bye bye to Europe - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
Sinti and Roma: History repeating - Discussion by Walter Hinteler
[B]THE RED ROSE COUNTY[/B] - Discussion by Mathos
Leaving today for Europe - Discussion by cicerone imposter
So you think you know Europe? - Discussion by nimh
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/16/2021 at 03:50:57