Where's the love?

[Ecthy]

[finkian]

Originally posted by tandeetaylor


You seem to be saying that you think American policy should be based on its own national interests, yet you continue to say that that is unfortunate. So should it or shouldn't it. Stand up and take a side and stop contradicting yourself.

All right, fine, if I must--
It is, in international politics, a dog-eat dog world. It's not that morally US foreign policy SHOULD be based on it's own interests-- it MUST. If it's judged that going to war in Iraq would hurt the US's interests, then we shouldn't. As yet, I haven't seen how it counters our interests-- with foreign countries, with Europe, etc. However, plenty of people-- US, Europe, the Iraqi people-- have a lot to gain by the liberation of Iraq.

[The Vagabond]

Does anyone remember Siro's thread some time ago, where he made reference to an interesting (and long) article by Robert Kagan about the relationship between the United States and Europe? I believe it's relevant to the present discussion. I don't have reference to the web page, but I have a hard copy.

One of the main points of the article is that the US security guarantees have created quite a specific situation, when Europe got relatively detached from the harsh reality of the real world.

Quotes from the article:

Within this wall of security, Europeans pursued their new order, freed from the brutal laws and even the mentality of power politics. ... The end of the Cold War ... allowed Europe's new order, and its new idealism, to blossom fully. ... Europe became still more confident that their way of settling international problems now had universal application.

American power made it possible for Europeans to believe that power was no longer important. And now, in the final irony, the fact that the United States military power has solved the European problem, especially the "German problem", allows Europeans today believe that American military power, and the "strategic culture" that has created and sustained it, are outmoded and dangerous.

Most Europeans do not see the great paradox: that their passage into post-history has depended on the United States not making the same passage.

America's power and its willingness to exercise that power -- unilaterally if necessary -- represents a threat to Europe's new sense of mission. Perhaps the greatest threat.

[Mr. President]

The stuff in DinoDoc's article surprises us why?

[DinoDoc]

Vagabond: Where does Russia fit in all of this?

[nationalist]

Why doesn't Germany take a more active role in world leadership? German leadership seems to have a problem with American leadership, and I think its time that they put their money where their mouth is. Germany has one of the most powerful economies in the world along with the most influence in the European political arena (take that France). I think that the Germans should rearm and start pulling their weight on the international level. They have the potential to be a superpower; it is time to start acting like it.

Ecth, I'd really like your opinion on this.

[DinoDoc]

The Germans are afraid of power.

[Boris Godunov]

I'd rather not see Germany go back to those days. It's a wonderful place as it is now, and should strive to regain Germanic cultural prestige rather than military power.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Vagabond: Where does Russia fit in all of this?

What can be said of Russia in that context is f.e. that, unlike Europe, Russia is not isolated from the harsh realities of the world and is fully responsible for its own strategic security.

[DinoDoc]

I meant how do they view the US in the post-Cold War era.

[nationalist]

Why shouldn't Germany have military power? It has the largest population of any European nation, and I believe the third strongest economy in the world. The U.S. can't go at it alone, as the Germans are more than eager to point out. Why shouldn't they do their part? You're not afriad that they'll shine up their boots, put on their spikey helmets and go marching into Paris, are you?

[Verto]

Why are there so many trees in Paris?

Because the Germans like to march in the shade.

[Boris Godunov]

German military aggressiveness has led to disaster for Germany, repeatedly. Thanks to such behavior, over 4 million Germans and tens of millions of others died in a senseless, wasteful war.

I think Germany should stick to the things it has proven it does best among the best: Science, business and (in a bygone era, alas) music.

Rearmament isn't necessary nor wise for them, unless perhaps you just want to get off on seeing goosestepping Soldaten again.

[The Vagabond]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I meant how do they view the US in the post-Cold War era.

This question is too big for a short answer. The perception of the US evolved through several stages during the 1990s. But now it seems to have more or less settled. Thanks to Putin it has become more pragmatic and largely depends on whether Russia and the Russian interest are respected.

In principle, if not for the American hypocricy, the US could have a good basis for mutual understanding with Russia. Perhaps even more so than with the idealistic Europe.

[nationalist]

Why would a rearmed Germany want to march on Europe? They've already conquered it through the E.U. A rearmed Germany doesn't equal a bellicose Germany. It would mean that the U.S. would have a world power that could actually come close to its status as both an Economic and military power. Someone else could take part of the responsibility, as well as shoulder some of the blame. The world does not have to fear Germany.