Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ANALYSIS: An Even-Handed Look at American, European Relations

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Chill, Genghis Farb. When you look at GDP figures, America does less than its fair share.
    In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Ned
      K, we really out to pull our troops and bases completely out of Europe. I see no reason for them to be there as Europe can adequately defend itself from Russia if push comes to shove.
      The US doesn't keep troops in Europe to defend it from Russia anymore, Ned. The US keeps a base network and a relatively small number of troops there because it makes sense to have forward bases close to realistic flashpoints, especially when they can be in areas where they are somewhat welcome. Just look at how much the US benefits in Iraq from having bases at its disposal in Germany and Turkey, not to mention places like Qatar and Bahrain. The latter two on that list only serve to emphasize the point even more - the US can, for example, move pretty much whatever it wants, whenever it wants, in and out of Ramstein in Germany (where there is first world infrastructure, support, policing, etc). Bases in the Middle East are always going to be a more problematic, especially since there is alot more hostility towards the US in general in the region.
      "The French caused the war [Persian Gulf war, 1991]" - Ned
      "you people who bash Bush have no appreciation for one of the great presidents in our history." - Ned
      "I wish I had gay sex in the boy scouts" - Dissident

      Comment


      • Originally posted by notyoueither


        I don't think that is entirely correct. Yes, the world price effects all supplies, but not all supplies are economic or possible for any given region.

        Take Alberta's oil for instance. There is no infrastructure in place to ship it anywhere but to Eastern Canada and the US. The cost of getting that oil to Europe or Japan would be a huge additional cost, and wouldn't even be possible until significant alterations in logistics were made. That takes time. In a crisis, we're talking about access to any oil at all, not just the cost of the oil you can get.
        Misses the point. Just because it is easy for the US to physically get oil from Alberta, doesn't mean that it's going to be happy with paying $50-$75 a barrel if the ME supplies start to cinch up. And just because there would be a lag in building the infrastructure doesn't mean it would happen, and start to happen right quick. But Canada's hardly the only other source - Russia, Africa, Mexico, Venezuela are all major exporters too, and they can get it to Europe relatively easily. So all that really happens is that the price of oil will spike and sure, Europe may have a harder time getting it, but the US is still going to pay a sh*tload more for oil than it wants to. Which brings us back full circle - the voters may want the US to become more isolationist, but that sentiment will start to disappear when the economy starts to hurt bad and a few more million people are out of work.

        It's always a balancing act. The US cannot be isolationist if it wants to maintain the status quo. It could in the past because there simply wasn't the level of globalization we see now. Pre-WWI, the US flat out didn't depend on foreign trade anywhere near the amount that it does now. I suppose the US could conceivably go back into that mode, but it would take a major shock to the economy to get it done.
        "The French caused the war [Persian Gulf war, 1991]" - Ned
        "you people who bash Bush have no appreciation for one of the great presidents in our history." - Ned
        "I wish I had gay sex in the boy scouts" - Dissident

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Agathon

          It's no wonder that the Euros would rather spend the time on diplomacy and put up with less than optimal results, because they've suffered the horrors of war. Meanwhile, on the other side of the world you have a bunch of people who applaud smart bomb videos.

          Couple of points:

          1) It may be true that they dislike war, however, you will notice, that the two European nations that can actually project power, have done so quite on several occasions. That would be France and the UK. The other powers have static defense forces and so are not able to commit them to things other than peacekeeping missions.

          So don't glorify the holy Europeans as having the super high moral ground when we have the French and Italians invading a country to conquer THE DAMN CHOCOLATE SUPPLY. We have French units consistenly making excursions all over Africa.

          2) Nobody over here likes, "watching smart bomb videos." Nice uneducated stereotype though.
          We the people are the rightful masters of both Congress and the courts, not to overthrow the Constitution but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. - Abraham Lincoln

          Comment


          • Why don't the other UN members ante up their share?


            This is amusing considering the US's recent delinquency of payment of dues . Europe, Japan, etc, have had to make up the slack.

            It may be true that they dislike war, however, you will notice, that the two European nations that can actually project power, have done so quite on several occasions. That would be France and the UK. The other powers have static defense forces and so are not able to commit them to things other than peacekeeping missions.


            Excellent point! If European states can project power they will. The 'horrors of war' have little to do with it.
            “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
            - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Ted Striker
              2) Nobody over here likes, "watching smart bomb videos." Nice uneducated stereotype though.
              CNN must show them all the time precisely because they are so unpopular with the viewers, I reckon?
              It is only totalitarian governments that suppress facts. In this country we simply take a democratic decision not to publish them. - Sir Humphrey in Yes Minister

              Comment


              • More likely because they are cheap and easy to show, and/or the only relevant footage available.
                One day Canada will rule the world, and then we'll all be sorry.

                Comment


                • That was an even handed analysis? All I see are comments from Europeans identifying America's "faults".

                  Comment


                  • Chill, Genghis Farb. When you look at GDP figures, America does less than its fair share.
                    There's that, "you're rich, your 'fair share' is more than ours", argument. The US pays alot more in blood, do you want to put a $ value on that? And the US pays more, period.

                    Comment


                    • Berz, it's a voluntary organization. If the US doesn't like the terms of the agreement, no one is preventing it from leaving.
                      “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                      - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                      Comment


                      • It's about as voluntary as taxes, but so what?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
                          Berz, it's a voluntary organization. If the US doesn't like the terms of the agreement, no one is preventing it from leaving.
                          I totally agree. I thought the UN would help keep genocidal regimes from staying in power yet it tried to keep Saddam and his regime gassing 100,000s of people of a race they considered useless. I for one would support the US leaving the UN.

                          At least there are still a few countries that were prepared to stop Saddam despite the UN's position on supporting it.

                          Comment


                          • GF, Imran didn't say we should leave. I suspect he disagrees with you given how he is a Bob Dole Republican.

                            Comment


                            • I am somewhat indifferent to the leaving/staying in the UN. I just don't necessarily see that much of a downside to leaving.

                              Comment


                              • Me neither, just pluses. Actually, I find the UN to be a repugnant institution, bigger nations effectively go around "voting" on the fate of smaller nations and peoples within those nations and those votes are enforced only when it's in the interest of the most elite nations with the forces, i.e., the US and Europeans acting as partners of a "coalition".

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X