A View on International Politics

[Shane Roach]

I believe just in general that the Democrats tend to be better for the US in matters of national economy, and the Republicans in national defense. At this time, I am concerned, given the disconnect that we in the US had with international politics during the Clinton years, that people do not understand exactly why the Republican vision is superior to the Democratic vision for international dealings.

To lay some groundwork, post WWII, France and Germany were not our allies. You might have thought France would have been, but not long after the war, Jean-Paul Sartre and a group of far left leaning intellectuals very strongly supported the USSR. Even when it became clear the abuses of Stalin during that time, these people felt that it was better than supporting the evils of capitalism.

I don't think I have to elaborate much on the situation Germany ended up in. We have a good relationship with Germany now, but since the reunification of that Country, their interests do not lie as strongly with us, but rather with France to their west, and Russia to the east, Russia being the strongest country in that direction that they need to be concerned with.


Russian traditional alliances were, previous to WWII, towards Europe. It is only their land grab in the Easter Block that ruined this, and even after that there has been a significant undercurrent in Europe towards Communism. Russia made a lot of progress towards the east, but the relationship with China was, and is, strained. Both nations have visions of their own future in world politics that run counter to the other's interests. Thus our interests in the east are already fairly well balanced.

The Republican vision is to take into account both the war on Terror and the changing shape of international politics. By moving our alliances to the east in Europe, and not giving as much attention to the desires of Germany and France, we put ourselves as a nation in the position that we enjoyed before in Europe after Russia's land grab in Eastern Europe. That is to say, the nations of eastern Europe need and want our support much more than Germany and France do, and by positioning ourselves in those nations, we once again get the attention of Russia, which at this point is intent on reforming alliances in Europe, most especially France.

Kerry has suggested we concentrate on strengthening the old alliances of NATO. The problem is obvious. NATO is a cold war organization, and the cold war is over. I am not suggesting France has become our enemy, or that we should ignore a powerhouse like Germany, but the situation in Europe has shifted substantially and it is important that we realize this and act upon it. It is in our best interests as a nation to situate ourselves politically such that we have good relations with the nations of Eastern Europe, who appreciate our actions in the cold war and desperately could use our economic connections as well.

Our domestic policies are in sad shape. Bush's combination of spending and simultaneously cutting taxes to try to trap us in that situation where we have to choose to cut domestic spending in order to deal with the deficit was a cold and rather blatant and obvious move against middle class America. Unfortunately, the Democrats have allowed themselves to be overrun by nigh incompetents in the foreign policy domain, and it is time and past time to get some things done that, if we don't achieve them, will leave us very poorly positioned internationally in the upcoming decades.

My opinion is that folk should vote Bush for president, and consider voting democratic for congressional members. I know elections are not scientific things, and if a person simply cannot see their way clear to do one or the other of these things, well, that's the way it is. One cannot piece together a precise balance of Congress and the Presidency on ones own single vote. But, I think that this combination would be best, as it would leave a Republican in the White House who has already voiced this direction in international affairs, and yet balance it with Democrats in the House and Senate who might be able to head off the worst of Republican damage to domestic issues.

As an aside, I tend to be more conservative when it comes to "culture war" issues, so that may tend to move me further in the direction of Republicans as far as the international political subject is concerned. Still, I think the benefit to this country in moving our alliances to the east in Europe, where there is a great deal of potential economic growth, is staggering in its importance over the next decade or so, and that normally left leaning voters might want to take that into consideration.

Obviously, full on liberals will not be tempted by this idea, and I'm sure we will hear from them soon enough.

 

[The Pinata]

Delete Me!

 

[BobbieDog]

Good analysis Shane.

You put a lot of structure on the table: and debate can weave around that.

I think we could use what you put down here as a general building block.



Just a few quick comments.

"Religion": Islam, Christianity and Communism, all as ideologies of great power; not really dynamically factored in.

ME: not really factored in.

Global resource demands, especially energy and water: not really factored in.



The reservations you fulcrum in France and Germany, are actually much more diffused, and much more so through the body of the EU.

The idea of the USA involving itself in a region, and eroding its regional integrity for its own strategic interests, here by somewhat prising new Eastern member states away from an EU identity: would see a continuation of an American policy, that has earned it enemies around the world; and would fundamentally exacerbate a division between the USA and Europe, that already does global harm.



The Arab and Islamic bloc: not really factored in. I have no animosity towards the USA, and wish only for an international family acting in concert, for the global interests of all.

But, like many Europeans, especially as further storms gather in the ME: the sense that we should come to stand with our Arab and Islamic neighbours, rather than an America with a more Pacific and Asian orientation; grows in me. It's not a worked our position, or geo-political perspective: just a growing sense that things are going badly wrong, where led by America



The American dimension to that: is that while they will remain the single most powerful player; that even in the Pacific, and SE Asia specifically, an emerging regional consensus could see America somewhat squeezed out, certainly from its current position of hegemonic dominance.



China and Russia remain two unknowns to me.

My sense is that China will run into matters to do with sustaining its present monolithic and centralised form: I suspect its economic miracle will peter out, as did Japan's and Germany’s.

Russia intrigues me. A shell shocked, brutally mixed society, with a charming chancer at the helm. Putin may be doing the right thing, in clawing back the privatised wealth and industry. They danced well through the build up to Iraq war. What they do in Chechnya is an insane tragedy. Conflict with the USA in Georgia would be another useless cul de sac: the USA simply should not be there; it’s like Cuban missile sites all over again in reverse, but in Florida. If Russia can bootstrap its way past resource poverty, and get politically enlightened, and that remains possible: then Russia could be an important epicenter.



I think in general, that I do a negative of your analysis: where the global question I ask is, just how can the rest of the world countervail the unilateral exercise of US power; while preventing that USA embroiling the world in a war that might go nuclear.

 

[Shane Roach]

Good analysis Shane.

You put a lot of structure on the table: and debate can weave around that.

I think we could use what you put down here as a general building block.



Just a few quick comments.

"Religion": Islam, Christianity and Communism, all as ideologies of great power; not really dynamically factored in.

ME: not really factored in.

Global resource demands, especially energy and water: not really factored in.



The reservations you fulcrum in France and Germany, are actually much more diffused, and much more so through the body of the EU.

The idea of the USA involving itself in a region, and eroding its regional integrity for its own strategic interests, here by somewhat prising new Eastern member states away from an EU identity: would see a continuation of an American policy, that has earned it enemies around the world; and would fundamentally exacerbate a division between the USA and Europe, that already does global harm.



The Arab and Islamic bloc: not really factored in. I have no animosity towards the USA, and wish only for an international family acting in concert, for the global interests of all.

But, like many Europeans, especially as further storms gather in the ME: the sense that we should come to stand with our Arab and Islamic neighbours, rather than an America with a more Pacific and Asian orientation; grows in me. It's not a worked our position, or geo-political perspective: just a growing sense that things are going badly wrong, where led by America



The American dimension to that: is that while they will remain the single most powerful player; that even in the Pacific, and SE Asia specifically, an emerging regional consensus could see America somewhat squeezed out, certainly from its current position of hegemonic dominance.



China and Russia remain two unknowns to me.

My sense is that China will run into matters to do with sustaining its present monolithic and centralised form: I suspect its economic miracle will peter out, as did Japan's and Germany’s.

Russia intrigues me. A shell shocked, brutally mixed society, with a charming chancer at the helm. Putin may be doing the right thing, in clawing back the privatised wealth and industry. They danced well through the build up to Iraq war. What they do in Chechnya is an insane tragedy. Conflict with the USA in Georgia would be another useless cul de sac: the USA simply should not be there; it’s like Cuban missile sites all over again in reverse, but in Florida. If Russia can bootstrap its way past resource poverty, and get politically enlightened, and that remains possible: then Russia could be an important epicenter.



I think in general, that I do a negative of your analysis: where the global question I ask is, just how can the rest of the world countervail the unilateral exercise of US power; while preventing that USA embroiling the world in a war that might go nuclear.

I don't believe building better relations with Eastern Europe comes with the entire loss of France and Germany. All that I hear from Europeans about "fear" of the US makes no sense to me. Europe has great ecoomic clout, and one of the several reasons Europe is doing so well is they to this day hardly need any military because you actually all know good and well the US isn't going to do you any harm in that arena. You bring uo Kosovo, and that's a good example of what I am talking about here. Far from hurting Europe, we tend always to come to the aid of our allies. It's just that France ,specifically, doesn't concern itself at all with returning the favor.

I didn't really concern myself with religion or ideology deeply, but they are at the heart of some of my motivation. Europe has become more and more secular, whereas the Middle East is, well, the Middle East, and almost everything there revolves around religion, from terrorism to oil to Israel. Eastern Europe is the place where this ongoing conflict actually begins to run up into western ideologies, and that's just one more reason we need a stronger presence and stronger ties there.

The fundamental base for US alliances is that we do things to spread freedom, and usually, Iraq being a possible exception, nations appreciate that. Eastern Europe certainly seems to appreciate it more than their neighbors to the west, and in the Far East, many countries are gratefull for our presence, rather than 'fearfull' as the Europeans always pretend to be even while they more or less depend on us for their own defense.

I guess to sum up, I don't understand your objections. The US is not now interested in some conflict with Germany or France, but neither do we really need to beg and plead for their favor. There are other nations out there with interests that more closely dovetail with our own, and they need and appreciate help rather than taking that help and then turning around and stirring political resentment afterwards. Persoally, I think the US branching out and moving east would change that attitude because, as I mentioned, it appears to be rather solidly built on a false fear of this country, and also largely is just a political argument used by left leaners in Europe to stir up their political base.

 

[Cjwinnit]

It's an interesting issue. I shall raise a few points:

1/ The EU is a very complex problem for the US, but it has changed in recent years. Prevously, it was controlled by France and Germany, who favoured a superstate to "counterbalance" (read: rival) the US with them at the helm. "Old Europe" (include Belgium and Luxemburg) if you like. As soon as more countries joined, a new strong faction of eastern european countries found favour with Italy, Spain and the UK. This "New Europe" is strongly pro-American (Spain has switched sides with the new Spanish government) and is now politically stronger than "old europe".

New Europe and Old Europe do not get along on many issues. France in particular is very annoyed at it's percieved loss as the figurehead of the EU. Chirac recently said about the Eastern European states that sided with Bush "They missed an excellent opportunity to keep quiet". France and the UK very publickly fell out over Iraq. France was ready to veto action and vehemently opposed sending troops, the UK was strongly in favour and sent 45,000.

"Old Europe" is also opposed to alliances with the US on military matters. France in particular is not a NATO member. Recently the "old Europe" club got together and made a "european HQ" for defence against NATO wishes. Fortunately it was a joke. France (well you know all the jokes about France,), Germany, Belgium and Luxemburg do not really constitute much of an expeditionary army. Colin Powell referred to it as "a bunch of chocolate makers".

New Europe on the other hand includes such members as the UK (most powerful military in Europe), Italy, Spain, and almost every ex-Soviet state, which adds up to large numbers. Even more, it's allied to the US and almost all of them are NATO members.

2/ The EU and North America constitute almost half of all the world's economy. With excellent trade and diplomatic ties, the world has no option but to listen.

 

[Shane Roach]

It's an interesting issue. I shall raise a few points:

1/ The EU is a very complex problem for the US, but it has changed in recent years. Prevously, it was controlled by France and Germany, who favoured a superstate to "counterbalance" (read: rival) the US with them at the helm. "Old Europe" (include Belgium and Luxemburg) if you like. As soon as more countries joined, a new strong faction of eastern european countries found favour with Italy, Spain and the UK. This "New Europe" is strongly pro-American (Spain has switched sides with the new Spanish government) and is now politically stronger than "old europe".

New Europe and Old Europe do not get along on many issues. France in particular is very annoyed at it's percieved loss as the figurehead of the EU. Chirac recently said about the Eastern European states that sided with Bush "They missed an excellent opportunity to keep quiet". France and the UK very publickly fell out over Iraq. France was ready to veto action and vehemently opposed sending troops, the UK was strongly in favour and sent 45,000.

"Old Europe" is also opposed to alliances with the US on military matters. France in particular is not a NATO member. Recently the "old Europe" club got together and made a "european HQ" for defence against NATO wishes. Fortunately it was a joke. France (well you know all the jokes about France,), Germany, Belgium and Luxemburg do not really constitute much of an expeditionary army. Colin Powell referred to it as "a bunch of chocolate makers".

New Europe on the other hand includes such members as the UK (most powerful military in Europe), Italy, Spain, and almost every ex-Soviet state, which adds up to large numbers. Even more, it's allied to the US and almost all of them are NATO members.

2/ The EU and North America constitute almost half of all the world's economy. With excellent trade and diplomatic ties, the world has no option but to listen.

Don't you think "Old Europe" will be drawn into the fold if steps are taken to act on the newly arising order, such as making stronger ties with Eastern European nations and perhaps even seeing if some are interested in taking on bases previously located in Germany for example?

 

[Cjwinnit]

Don't you think "Old Europe" will be drawn into the fold if steps are taken to act on the newly arising order, such as making stronger ties with Eastern European nations and perhaps even seeing if some are interested in taking on bases previously located in Germany for example?

I think one of the litmus tests will be how they treat the US. France do not seem to value any alliance with the US. If France keep saying to the Eastern Europeans and the British to stop, then one of the factions is going to have to give way. I really worry that if we side with France that the Western world will split more....

 

[Shane Roach]

I think one of the litmus tests will be how they treat the US. France do not seem to value any alliance with the US. If France keep saying to the Eastern Europeans and the British to stop, then one of the factions is going to have to give way. I really worry that if we side with France that the Western world will split more....

Yeah, that's more or less my point. I don't want to side with France, and Kerry seems to be headed that direction. If we go the other way, we unite the west and France comes along, either reluctantly, or else changing their political tack and finally becoming a more whole hearted supporter of democraticly regulated capitalistic, open and free societies.

Right now, France would hardly lift a finger against Iraq, and I still remember their defense of Libya, refusing the use of their airspace. They seem to defend the rights of dictators on the basis of nations being free and sovreign despite any international consequences of their actions. But I think if a nations actions have international consequences, nations should work together to prevent that, and that includes nations that violate human rights and the like. Virtual slave labor in India, for example, hurts our local economy in the US.

 

[Aeschylus]

One thing Shane:

Germany wasn't the US's ally during the Cold war as there was no such country until the nineties!

There was West Germany which was defintely an ally of the US, th US had a considerable number of troops and weapons there and poltically the two countries were close. Ther was also east Germany which was defintely not the US's ally being very muched aligned to the USSR.

Farnce was the US's ally, the point about Sarte is irrelvant (and also slightly incorrect as Satre was aligned to the French communist party which form the sixties onwards was crtical of the USSR) as you can hardly hold the opinions of satre and his friends (again it's worth pointing out that Sartre himself was heistant in his criticsm of Stalin, but his friends such as Albert Camus were noted for their criticsm of the communist regime in the USSR) as the opinion of France at that time, esp. when nationalists such as De Gaulle often dominated French politics.

 

[BobbieDog]

I'm not sure I buy too much into this old Europe, New Europe distinction. And neither do I see France as troublesome and isolated.

Remember the massive popular opposition to war in Iraq, throughout Europe: where the French Defense Minister, much more than Chirac who has always been a bit of a charlatan; was an eloquent spokesperson and lightening rod, for the biggest single bloc of opinion on the Iraq war, in the EU.

What we have now is a larger number of members of the EU: and different processes for brokering power. France and Germany will remain heavy hitters in the new EU.

It is wrong to peg a general concern about the USA to the "left leaning". Yes there will be a left element: but most of it comes from simple observation, and evaluation; people watch their TV's, and blether on the net, and just pick up too much data on what America currently does in the world, to remain at ease.

The hysteria concerning Islam, and the States of the ME, which is endemic in the USA: is much more qualified in the EU; although not entirely absent.



I am angered by the American assumption that they can be players in Europe: just as I am confused by their claim to be our military defenders.

Imagine in the EU was openly working with Florida or Alaska, to ease them away from the Union: just imagine the consternation, indignation and anger.

I think this arrogance about American omnipotence, the assumption that their involvement is always wanted, and always for the good: is some very dangerous part of what makes America what she is; where it is the nations of Islam and the ME, who currently bear the brunt of its effects.



I believe that what Americans often now call "anti-Americanism", is the single most important dimension in global politics.

We have to address this Anti-Americanism, and seek to understand it: not just from the American point of view, nor from any one other point of view; but from all points of view.

It's not a matter of taking sides, or being partisan: it’s a matter of addressing and understanding an enduring and crucial dimension of our global occurrence.



I am not alone in thinking that there is something fundamentally problematic about the current place of America in global life: just as France has not become isolated through questioning policies of the USA.

Europe must be united in resisting all American interference in our own affairs: we alone should decide what we think of France and Germany; if we allow ourselves to be divided by America, we may find ourselves somewhat ruled by America.

 

[Cjwinnit]

I'm not sure I buy too much into this old Europe, New Europe distinction. And neither do I see France as troublesome and isolated.

It's not isolated but certainly troublesome (from our point of view )

Certainly a few things about the EU need looking at. The biggest one is the Common Agricultural Policy. Kill that one off...

I am angered by the American assumption that they can be players in Europe: just as I am confused by their claim to be our military defenders.

True on the "defenders" point. Certainly as the armed forces stand here, we are more than capable of defending ourselves now.

Europe must be united in resisting all American interference in our own affairs: we alone should decide what we think of France and Germany; if we allow ourselves to be divided by America, we may find ourselves somewhat ruled by America.

Even if Europe were divided in two (which it won't be) the two constituent blocks are still big by world standards. I would doubt the prophecy you say has any base. Besides, in the EU we are almost one country. The question is twofold: How unified are we going to be and what is our place in the world, as a leader or as a follower?

 

[Shane Roach]

One thing Shane:

Germany wasn't the US's ally during the Cold war as there was no such country until the nineties!

There was West Germany which was defintely an ally of the US, th US had a considerable number of troops and weapons there and poltically the two countries were close. Ther was also east Germany which was defintely not the US's ally being very muched aligned to the USSR.

Farnce was the US's ally, the point about Sarte is irrelvant (and also slightly incorrect as Satre was aligned to the French communist party which form the sixties onwards was crtical of the USSR) as you can hardly hold the opinions of satre and his friends (again it's worth pointing out that Sartre himself was heistant in his criticsm of Stalin, but his friends such as Albert Camus were noted for their criticsm of the communist regime in the USSR) as the opinion of France at that time, esp. when nationalists such as De Gaulle often dominated French politics.

I like your post.

I'm not sure how "aligned" east Germany was with the USSR. They were held there aganst their will, and when there was any choice given they immediately worked to be re-unified with the rest of Germany.

My point regarding Sartre is that that ideology had a much stronger presence in France than it ever had in the US, and is something a lot of people in the US have no clue about. We don't even have a communist party here, of any note. That's an example of how far apart the general outlook between the two nations is.

Again, I want to stress I'm not taling here about going miles out of the way to alienate France. I am talking here about a simple acknowledgement that they have very different concerns, and even values than those of the US, and that there is more to be gained to the east than currying favor from France or Germany.

 

[BobbieDog]

I would doubt the prophecy you say has any base.

You make an interesting response. Could I be allowed to just reorientate it a little.
Some people in Europe feel that American influence is already too great: that a ME war was begun, on our doorstep, against our general wishes, and we proved powerless to prevent it. Many in the ME feel that the ME is effectively controlled by America. The similar feelings in much of South and Central America, and elsewhere. So there is this significant constituency who feel in this way.
Then there is another constituency, around the world, who take perspective where they don't come to this opinion and conclusion.
But, by virtue of these constituencies being extant: the understanding that American does exert an unduly controlling influence on much of the world; is already a political fact, of major importance and scale. We might say that the world is divided on this matter.
So, yes, we can argue the issues and perspectives back and forth in this: but there is no prospect of the constituency who view America as unduly controlling, or even as threatening and dangerous, can be argued into the ground. This understanding is a political reality, has political reality: where any arguments as to who is right, and who wrong, is almsot an incidenatal matter.
So, although your point about prophecy might be argued, and perhaps accepted, in appropriate perspective: politically the prophecy has been fulfilled; as there is a vast constituency who subscribe to it.

 

[Shane Roach]

I'm not sure I buy too much into this old Europe, New Europe distinction. And neither do I see France as troublesome and isolated.

Remember the massive popular opposition to war in Iraq, throughout Europe: where the French Defense Minister, much more than Chirac who has always been a bit of a charlatan; was an eloquent spokesperson and lightening rod, for the biggest single bloc of opinion on the Iraq war, in the EU.

What we have now is a larger number of members of the EU: and different processes for brokering power. France and Germany will remain heavy hitters in the new EU.

It is wrong to peg a general concern about the USA to the "left leaning". Yes there will be a left element: but most of it comes from simple observation, and evaluation; people watch their TV's, and blether on the net, and just pick up too much data on what America currently does in the world, to remain at ease.

The hysteria concerning Islam, and the States of the ME, which is endemic in the USA: is much more qualified in the EU; although not entirely absent.



I am angered by the American assumption that they can be players in Europe: just as I am confused by their claim to be our military defenders.

Imagine in the EU was openly working with Florida or Alaska, to ease them away from the Union: just imagine the consternation, indignation and anger.

I think this arrogance about American omnipotence, the assumption that their involvement is always wanted, and always for the good: is some very dangerous part of what makes America what she is; where it is the nations of Islam and the ME, who currently bear the brunt of its effects.



I believe that what Americans often now call "anti-Americanism", is the single most important dimension in global politics.

We have to address this Anti-Americanism, and seek to understand it: not just from the American point of view, nor from any one other point of view; but from all points of view.

It's not a matter of taking sides, or being partisan: it’s a matter of addressing and understanding an enduring and crucial dimension of our global occurrence.



I am not alone in thinking that there is something fundamentally problematic about the current place of America in global life: just as France has not become isolated through questioning policies of the USA.

Europe must be united in resisting all American interference in our own affairs: we alone should decide what we think of France and Germany; if we allow ourselves to be divided by America, we may find ourselves somewhat ruled by America.

Well, I would be interested in what exactly would tempt Florida or Alaska to leave the US for aliances with Europe. Much of our national history has beena desperate struggle not to be retaken by European powers, who suddenly seek to present themselves now as victims of our hegemony.

I think France's attitude towards those nations which as has already been mentioned here, "missed an opportunity to be quiet," says volumes about what actually divides Europe, and that is the strong nationalism that still exists in France and Germany, and indeed in all the nations there. There doesn't seem to be anything to unite all of Europe. Why should Eastern Euroean countries prefer to be under the thumb of France and Germany over being under the thumb of the US? Ultimately, they will want to find some balance between the US and Western Europe, and having the US there would provide exactly that balance, since without us there, they are entirely subject to the actions of 'heavy hitters' like France and Germany, who seem not to hold them in much esteem.

 

[Cjwinnit]

Clearly we have some very intelligent posts for many points by many people. If some of my replies seem simplistic, I can only elaborate

BobbieDog: Your point about America having so much influence around the world is very probably true, but I'm not so sure it applies to the EU, it being such a big set of countries in it's own right. Although it could happen in the future, I doubt France would be happy about it. I rag on France a bit but at least you know where they stand, and they don't generally take insolence lightly!

My primary guess as to why the US has so much influence around the Middle East is probably this: there isn't anyone else to get "muscle" from. the EU might be very handy for humanitarian aid or ecomonic or diplomatic aid, but military presence nor staying power doesn't seem to be one of the things we offer many countries.

The theory might be that the more European countries take a presence in the world, the more leverage the EU will have. Certainly having 2 Security Council permanent seats helps..

 

[BobbieDog]

My point regarding Sartre is that that ideology had a much stronger presence in France than it ever had in the US, and is something a lot of people in the US have no clue about. We don't even have a communist party here, of any note. That's an example of how far apart the general outlook between the two nations is.

Sartre could still be used to illuminate a thinking still possible in Europe, and far less posssible in the USA: not in the details of his existentialism; but in the manner in which he sustained an attempt to do his own thinking. I think that its was just such thinking that saw so many, gasp in disbelief at the perspective being offered to justify war with Iraq: if you could do this thinking, and not be reliant on big chunks of comprehension being passed to you by some collective process; then it was all to easy to see it for the spin and candy floss that it was.

 

[Shane Roach]

Sartre could still be used to illuminate a thinking still possible in Europe, and far less posssible in the USA: not in the details of his existentialism; but in the manner in which he sustained an attempt to do his own thinking. I think that its was just such thinking that saw so many, gasp in disbelief at the perspective being offered to justify war with Iraq: if you could do this thinking, and not be reliant on big chunks of comprehension being passed to you by some collective process; then it was all to easy to see it for the spin and candy floss that it was.

Well, from the beginning, Bush said that we would act against all those terrorist entities that had global reach, and while Al Queda may not have had strong ties there, support by Saddam for other terrorist entities who clearly had global reach was obvious.

I remember prior to the war, many were arguing that Iraq should even be allowed out from under the sanctions. In effect, Europe presents a scenario where once more in history, we simply let brutal dictators do whatever they wish and take no action to keep international peace and stability.

This turns out to be just one more example of the US trying desperately to help with a mess that is largely European in its genesis, since the situation is mostly exacerbated by the existence of Israel, and while Europe, having participated in the re-creation of that nation, now seems quite happy to just let it suffer under constant military attacks, the US tries as best we can to work towards some sort of lasting understanding and peace there.

 

[BobbieDog]

There doesn't seem to be anything to unite all of

Europe.

Many things are in process of uniting Europe: all of Europe; without leaving fundamental structural divisions.

What seems to impact the UK the most is EU law. The European Court is now an ingrained part of routine British consciousness: we all know that there is this process we can follow; with appeal to the highest European Court. British society has been transformed by European law. Our news is constantly filled with items about changes stemming from European law. Presumably it is the same for all member states.

European budgets are massively important things. Outlying and economically backward regions, can get vast amounts of their budget from Europe.

We share labour. We share immigration flows.

There will be a progressively important European army.

Small countries like Scotland look to alliances in Europe, with other smaller nations.

Political groupings, like the Greens, who would fair poorly in any single country, are powerful in their European aggregation.

The processes of voting and representation and governing, through European institutions, is very important.

The school children in every member country, learn to take the EU for granted.

We have open borders. Most share one currency.

We are still in the throes of creating a unified Europe: but it is happening; and the myths of old Europe/New Europe, are no more than that, myths.

There are member states, and there is pragmatism. Sure there is jockeying and residual nationalism: but that has very little to do with the raw power of the underlying processes; that every day take us closer to a greater effective unity.

 

[Cjwinnit]

There will be a progressively important European army.

I think a European armed force is still a long way off from being formed, and an even futher-off reality that it could actually be useful without NATO. And until the UK joins it's not exactly world-beating.

Small countries like Scotland look to alliances in Europe, with other smaller nations.

Scotland doesn't really have external international alliances out of the UK anymore.

We have open borders.

The UK is not a part of the Shengern treaty.

There are member states, and there is pragmatism. Sure there is jockeying and residual nationalism: but that has very little to do with the raw power of the underlying processes; that every day take us closer to a greater effective unity.

I disagree with the EU as a single country but that's another debate.

 

[BobbieDog]

Well, from the beginning, Bush said that we would act against all those terrorist entities that had global reach, and while Al Queda may not have had strong ties there, support by Saddam for other terrorist entities who clearly had global reach was obvious.

I remember prior to the war, many were arguing that Iraq should even be allowed out from under the sanctions. In effect, Europe presents a scenario where once more in history, we simply let brutal dictators do whatever they wish and take no action to keep international peace and stability.

This turns out to be just one more example of the US trying desperately to help with a mess that is largely European in its genesis, since the situation is mostly exacerbated by the existence of Israel, and while Europe, having participated in the re-creation of that nation, now seems quite happy to just let it suffer under constant military attacks, the US tries as best we can to work towards some sort of lasting understanding and peace there.

While seeking to avoid offence: the most direct expression of our difference in understanding, would come in saying that from the point of view of the European understanding I was speaking off; none of wht you here state could be accepted, as other than what we call spin.
It consists largely in what this way of thinking would have to see as inversions of the truth, departure from fact: where it is precisely this manner of American comprehension which inverts what we see as facts, for the convenience of an Americo-centrism, that is the basis of our concern with America.
Again, and please accept this, I do not mean to offend. I simply wish to explore, though no more tonight, as I must go to bed: this fundamental tension between an American manner of viewing the world, and what it America does in that world; and the view of this America and its doing, that is held to by many others in this world.
Again its not a matter of the partisan, or of giving offence. Rather, it is a matter of being very clear about fundamental differences in how we are viewing things.