Read This

[Marius]

No, really, read the whole thing.

http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html

[spudman]

Very interesting, but I'd really like to get the European POV on that essay.

[The Mighty Buddha]

Summery pls, to busy to read long things.

[FlameBlade]

Buddha:

Summary? How anyone can summarize that essay? How can anyone butcherize that guy's language?

[Marius]

Heh. Yeah, I was about to reply that I don't think it bears summary. It almost /is/ a summary, though I'd hate to see the length of the research work that layed everything bare.

[Salvation122]

<Salvation122> This article articultates very well the reasons I get pissed off with European pacifism: "If we don't protect you, you won't be able to take the moral high-ground, and you know it, so shut the fuck up."
<Reika> Salvation - Yeah, the writer didn't hold back from both sides
<spudman> I wonder if the European system would remain if the US packed up and left Europe.
<Salvation122> No.
<Salvation122> It would die a slow death, righ before it self-destructed in a nuclear haze.
* Veed (vanderlitr@62.199.0.0) has joined #bulldrek
<Reika> spud - Of course it wouldn't, they'd all go back to squablling amongst themselves.
<spudman> I'm not sure of that.
<spudman> I'd like to give em a little credit. They did manage to colonize most of the world, after all.
* Reika is thinking that might not have been such a good idea.
<Flame> I'm thinking
<Salvation122> The thing is, if we pack up and leave, they become a target ripe for the picking. They can't defend themselves against a determined enemy.
<Flame> that European countries
<Veed> mornin'
<Flame> will have to unite
<Flame> in order
<Salvation122> Let alone an internal one.
<Flame> to "check" United States' power
<spudman> Flame, but they are united, more or less.
<Flame> exactly
<Flame> united by necessity
<Veed> ...
<Flame> I mean, what will happen if no one stands up against United States?
<spudman> They just don't have power projection capability to the same degree.
<Flame> to "check" United States?
<Flame> yep
<Flame> Hey Veed
<Flame> how ya doing?
<Salvation122> Well, that's te idea. THe problem is that I don't think the United States would really let the EU build its military to that point, because the EU is really beginning to get pissy with us.
* Reika watches Veed go "wtf did I walk into."
<spudman> I was thinking more of a scenario where the US contracted back into its old isolationist stance.
<Veed> I have to be at work in 15 minutes
<Veed> and it's 5:45
<Reika> spud - That's a bit difficult to do at this point don't you think?
<spudman> Not really.
<Flame> Then there's a matter of Russia
<Salvation122> Spud: that's not possible. Besides the fact that the US would be destroyed by people taking advantage of its less aggressive role...
<Flame> anyone think it's possible for Russia to work with EU indirectly
* Alareth has quit IRC (Quit: dIRC IRC Client - www.dragonmount.net/dirc/)
<Flame> to keep US in check?
<spudman> Yeah, Flame.
<spudman> As client states.
<Salvation122> The rest of the world would basicaly destroy itself in the squabbles that the US is constantly smothering out
<spudman> Sal, part of me says "good riddence".
<Salvation122> Flame: I think Russia will work with Russia to keep th US in control.
<Flame> ?
<Salvation122> After we give them the tech to finaly tap the Siberian resources.
<Flame> <Salvation122> Flame: I think Russia will work with Russia to keep th US in control.
<Flame> read that sentence
<Salvation122> They won't /need/ the EU.
<Salvation122> As opposed to...
<Salvation122> it's possible for Russia to work with EU indirectly
<Flame> yeah
<Flame> Ok
<Flame> here's a question
<Flame> why terrorists are attacking us?
<spudman> biggest target.
<Salvation122> You've got literally an ocean of oil underneath Siberia, along with gold, diamonds, and natural gas.
<Salvation122> Because we've basically said that you can't shoot your neighbors.
<Flame> I'm talking about root causes
<Flame> not reason
<Salvation122> "Now, now, attack Isreal and we'll nuke your ass!"
<Salvation122> Flame: The same reason they attacked the colonizing European powers when they were there.
<Salvation122> Other nations don't like us interfering with their affairs.
<Flame> not always true.
<Flame> I did some research on terrorism
<Flame> a while ago
<spudman> It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't.
<Salvation122> Unfortunatly, it's necessary for United States/European survival.
<Veed> work time
<Veed> later
* Veed has quit IRC (Quit: I'll be back.)
<Salvation122> Bye.
<Flame> most of terrorism arise from resentment
<Flame> poverty
<Flame> oppression
<spudman> Resentment and a lack of hope.
<Flame> think about it
<Salvation122> <Salvation122> Other nations don't like us interfering with their affairs.
<Salvation122> :0
<Flame> United States and many countries
<Salvation122> , even.
<Flame> work for their own...
<Flame> interests
<Flame> (they have to anyway.)
<Salvation122> Every country acts for their own interests. All of them.
<Flame> But in a way, when working for interests...
<Flame> they tend to neglect
<Flame> people
<Flame> a LOT
<Salvation122> At the ver least, what they believe is in their own best interest.
<Flame> yeah
<Salvation122> I disagree.
<Flame> But problem is, often, they doesn't know what is the best interest
<Salvation122> Well, you can dispute that, of course.
* JetIsGone (~kjlkjl@cloaked.midsouth.rr.com) has joined #bulldrek
<Salvation122> Ultimately, it's not in their own best interests to rip apart their economy to help a nation one hundreth of their size on th other side of the world.
* JetIsGone is now known as JetPlame
<Flame> true
* JetPlame is now known as JetPlane
<JetPlane> There we go. 'Allo
<Adam> yo sis
<JetPlane> hey bro
<Salvation122> Which is what is necessary to stop poverty and oppression.
<Salvation122> And, as a result, you get resentment. Wow. How circular.
<Salvation122> Hello, Jet.
<Reika> Alo Jet
<Flame> that's problem
<Flame> the circular part
<Flame> is the problem
<Salvation122> And, unfortunatly, you /can't/ break that particular mobius strip.
<Salvation122> It's just not possible.
<JetPlane> Hey Reika and sal
<Flame> question
<Flame> :
<Flame> How do you know that it's not possible
<OverLord> Hi Sal.
<Flame> Did you explore that question
<OverLord> How's the music coming?
<Flame> from zillions angles?
<Salvation122> <Salvation122> Ultimately, it's not in their own best interests to rip apart their economy to help a nation one hundreth of their size on th other side of the world.
<Salvation122>
<Flame> maybe it can be the best interest
<Flame> for us to help just enough
<Flame> to prevent terrorism
<Salvation122> Well, okay, let's follow that al the way through. Give e a dollar amount: how much money is enough to help, say, Somalia?
<Flame> true
<spudman> There isn't such a dollar amount.
<Salvation122> Thank you.
<spudman> As Toby said on West Wing "They'll like us when we win."
<spudman>
<Salvation122> FUCK YES!
<Flame> heh
<Flame> and point is, there's no winner or loser
<Flame> in this
<Flame> game
<Salvation122> I've been saying that since I first saw that episode.
<Libidocaine> Flame: Sounds like trying to fill in a hole with a paper clip when you've got a steamshovel nearby
<Flame> I happen to like paperclip, ok?
* Libidocaine slaps Flame for being Microsoft's roofied up whore
<spudman> rofl
<Salvation122> The problem, Flame, is that you can really help maybe one or two countries, /really/ help them, build factories, houses, elcetrical plants, farming equipment and training, the whole works.
<Flame> and other problem is resources, right?
<Salvation122> And then the rest of te countries hate you because you didn't help /them/.
<Salvation122> Well, yeah, that too.
<Flame> I'll bet
<Libidocaine> Not really. There are enough resources in the world for everyone to be rich.
<Flame> just that
<Flame> no one is sharing the resources
<Salvation122> Well, yeah, if everybody /shares./ Not that that's fucking likely or anything.
<Salvation122> Also environmental concerns, asour wonderful EU friends would point out.
* Salvation122 bashes his keyboard against the desk.
<Salvation122> WORK!
<Libidocaine> The problem is mobilizing resources. They say that it takes money to make money, but that's not quite true. You can't share, because sharing isn't something that happens. It takes an economy to make money, and where there'sno economy to help someone, no one gets helped
* Lightfinger has quit IRC (Quit:)
<Salvation122> The bottom line is that the US, Canada, and the EU combined really can't even try to fix /China/, let alone everything else.
<Salvation122> Very true, Marius.
<Salvation122> Charity doesn't happen on the international level.
<Libidocaine> Which is why globalization is good. In narrow focus it looks like globalization hurts third world countries at the expense of the first world, but in truth it helps everyone.
<spudman> part of me doesn't want to try to fix the world, just pack up and go home and take care of our own for a while.
<spudman> But the other part says the only way to take care of our own is to at least try to do something.
<Libidocaine> Just like in narrow focus it looked like the Industrial Revolution hurt poor people, but what it really did was improve the quality of life of the poor beyond what anyone had ever imagine it could be
<Flame> true.
* Reika is desperately trying not to give up totally on the human race, but she's seen the uglier side of humanity and wonders if it's worth trying for.
<Salvation122> If it isn't, why do you get up in the morning?
<Flame> I have one question
<Salvation122> I mean, if we're all hopeless, wretched scum, what's the point?
<Flame> know Bill Gates
<Reika> Because I'm too damn stubborn to just lie down and give up.
<Flame> oh wait
<Flame> bad example
<Flame> I mean...there's a few billionaries
* SeriousPaul (~pjensen@198.92.0.0) has joined #bulldrek
<Flame> I have one question
<SeriousPaul> I have one answer.
<Flame> what they can do with all of the these money?
<Reika> Because there are some days I actually make a difference in one person's life.
<spudman> yo Paul
<Flame> lol, Paul
<SeriousPaul> Spudman!
<Reika> Alo Paul
<SeriousPaul> Flame.
<SeriousPaul> Hey there Reika!
<Libidocaine> Flame. That question is very important.
<Reika> Flame - Build themselves posh mansions and lord it over the rest of us.
* SeriousPaul does some lording allright.
<spudman> Flame: they can build ostentatious houses and suck up a lot of resources for their own pleasure.
<Libidocaine> It's a doorway to understanding something very important - that Reika doesn't, if only facetiously
* SeriousPaul nods towards Adam, Bull, Nex, Marius, and Sal.
<Flame> I mean...in a way, I think that's a waste of resources in a sense.
<Libidocaine> nor supudman right there
<SeriousPaul> Yo my niggas.
<Salvation122> Hey Paul
<Reika> Marius - I'm just being bitchy atm
<Libidocaine> The question is, "How much money does Bill Gates have?"
<spudman> Marius, we'd all like the ultra-rich to give back their wealth to those less fortunate.
<SeriousPaul> More than me?
<Flame> I heard that Bill gates
<Flame> have enough
<Flame> money to buy everyone a house in Washington State
<SeriousPaul> I don't care if Bill Gates gives me anything.
<Flame> small house
<Libidocaine> You heard wrong.
<spudman> Flame: mostly paper money.
<Flame> something like that.
<Salvation122> Flame: That's his /net worth/. Big difference.
<Flame> I'm trying to remember
<Flame> details
<SeriousPaul> His total estimated worth, all assetts is what now?
<spudman> its value lies in the stock that he has.
<Flame> good point.
<Libidocaine> If you look at Bill Gates' total worth, you can come up with a lot of things he can do.
<SeriousPaul> Sal:: Exactly.
<SeriousPaul> Marius I see your point.
<SeriousPaul> Personal wealth versus
<Flame> what's difference between net worth...and total worth?
<SeriousPaul> Capitol.
<SeriousPaul> Assetts.
<SeriousPaul> And cash
* SeriousPaul raises hands!
<SeriousPaul> I know!
<SeriousPaul> I know!
<Libidocaine> But the fact is that his total worth /produces/ a lot of things for a lot of people. How many people earn annual salaries entirely from something driven by Microsoft's stock price ?
<Salvation122> Flame: He hasan assload of stock, worth bunches of money, but the money isn't actually in his bank accounts.
<Libidocaine> In the US, probably 100 million, maybe more.
<SeriousPaul> They beat me to it.
<SeriousPaul> He has assetts and stocks, and bonds as well as physical plant (Production facilities and more) in his name. Not all of this is in cold hard cash.
<Libidocaine> Bill Gates is providing Jobs for millions and millions of people. And "his money" is not his to throw around. It is tied up in those jobs
<Flame> yeah
<Flame> true
<Flame> anyway
<SeriousPaul> But the goal is still the same.
<Flame> I gotta go
<SeriousPaul> Bye.
<Flame> my gf just got on
<Flame> so
<Salvation122> He could pull that money in, if he really needed/wanted to - it'd fuck up the stock market royally, but he could do it - but the taxes on it would probably kill him and he'd be in audit for the rest of his life.
<Flame> I gotta go
<Salvation122> Bye!
<Flame> bye bye
<Libidocaine> The fact is that only a tiny portion is in cash, and anything that is /not/ in cash is working for EVERYONE.
<Adam> later Flame
<Flame> that was a very interesting discussion
<Libidocaine> later Flame
<Flame> later
* Flame has quit IRC (Quit:)
* SeriousPaul imagines the stock market crash that the things Sal just describbed would cause.
<SeriousPaul> I disagree Marius.
<SeriousPaul> It isn't directly working for me.
<spudman> It's not really working for /everyone/
<SeriousPaul> In fact it may be directly working against me.
<Libidocaine> It is working for /everyone/
<SeriousPaul> Again I disagree.
<spudman> eh, I don't think you can make that kind of blanket statement.
<Libidocaine> You're wrong. It may not work for everyone in equal portions of disposable income, but it does work for everyone
<spudman> Because his wealth can also act against people.
<SeriousPaul> How is it that what he does with his cash, his facilities, his business plans do not nessacrily benefit me in any way that I consider benefit.
<SeriousPaul> What Microsoft does
<SeriousPaul> Can
<SeriousPaul> Put me out of business.
<SeriousPaul> Put me out of home.
<SeriousPaul> Or
<SeriousPaul> More likely
<SeriousPaul> Nothing
<Libidocaine> Paul: Every hospital that has an integrated computer system is in great part the result of Bill Gates' investment dollars.
<SeriousPaul> I agree with that
<SeriousPaul> I don't use hospitals for myself, but I do for my children.
<SeriousPaul> I would conclude that the services I recieve
<spudman> And it stifles new entrants to markets.
<SeriousPaul> Would be as good
<SeriousPaul> If not better
If not better
<SeriousPaul> With out Bill Gates
<Libidocaine> spud: Now you're not talking about the money, you're talking about something else
<SeriousPaul> Progress would ahve been made with or with out him.
<SeriousPaul> Heh
<SeriousPaul> Yes he is.
<spudman> no, I am talking about money.
<spudman> there would be more money, more "churning" in a more competitive environment.
<Libidocaine> Money does not create monopoly
<Reika> It helps.
<SeriousPaul> Monopoly at its heart isn't about money, it is about power. Money does help.
<SeriousPaul> This is a cool conversation.

[spudman]

Jebus we're long winded. Anyone from the other side of the Pond have an opinion of the article?

[Sorrow]

I'll get back to you on that when I have time to read long things and think about them.

Tonight, with any luck.

[DV8]

I'll comment on the article when I finish reading it.

[Eva]

Read it. Thoughts:

This is one of the few articles I've read that investigates and analyzes this delicate subject this deeply and manages to report in a manner that I find offensive to neither Americans nor Europeans. Obviously I can't speak for Americans, but I would be surprised to see you being offended by statements made and opinions voiced in this article.

It's also a fine example of writing an intelligent piece about a relatively complicated issue without assuming expertise on the reader's side. Sure, there is a basic knowledge level required to understand and appreciate the piece, but even I - with my limited knowledge of both Europe and America's past - thoroughly enjoyed reading it. It manages to educate, while still remaining an intelligently-written article.

Finally, I was struck by the irony of the term 'the German problem' to indicate the potential power of Germany within the European context. As some might know, the term 'the Jewish problem' (die Judenfrage) was used in Nazi-era Germany for the perceived troubles the Jews were causing.

All in all, I found it a very interesting read that took me forever. Thank you, Marius.

[DV8]

I want to disagree that it's not offensive to either side. Things like...

But appeasement is never a dirty word to those whose genuine weakness offers few appealing alternatives. For them, it is a policy of sophistication.

...are subtle stabs, and very, very annoying.

Overall it's a good read, but still coloured and can't be taken as truth, which bugs me, because the article started out fairly unbiased and I was hoping it would finally state things as they were - however annoying the truth might be - and not just a bunch of opinions.

I guess that's very hard to do when you're an American living in Europe. I mean, I feel very Dutch when I'm abroad, especially in the United States, and I can imagine I am not the only one to feel that. Next to that you are reporting on one's opinion of the other.

I apologize, I'm rambling. An interesting read, Mooch. Thank you.

[Salvation122]

For Americans, who stand to lose at least some freedom of action, support for universal rules of behavior really is a matter of idealism.

That's relatively insulting to me, Deev, but I don't think it makes the article biased, because it's true.

[Marius]

I think it could be offensive to anyone who wants to be offended. While reading it I felt like I wanted to tiptoe around all that talk about "weakness." What I came away with, though, is that it didn't coddle either side. I don't think there are any subtle stabs in the whole piece, but I think he really wanted to get through it making sure people understood that he wasn't interested in making anyone feel warm and fuzzy about their own opinions.

In fact, I don't understand what is either annoying or insulting about the quotes given by either Deev or Sal.

[DV8]

For Americans, who stand to lose at least some freedom of action, support for universal rules of behavior really is a matter of idealism.

That's relatively insulting to me, Deev, but I don't think it makes the article biased, because it's true.

How can you be insulted if it's true?

[EvanMoore]

Buddha, here's your summary:

Americans are pushy because they are strong and have the might to be pushy.
Europeans are accomodating because they are weak and can't afford a fight.
Supporting evidence: When the positions were reversed 200 years ago, so were the attitudes.

No, I'm not offended. It's really pretty accurate.

Evan

[DV8]

Americans are pushy because they are strong and have the might to be pushy.

...or; Americans are pushy because they are a young nation, brass and full of life and relatively successful on a political, military as well as a geo-political front.

Europeans are accomodating because they are weak and can't afford a fight.

...or; Europeans are more accomodating because they have had their times of colonial pushiness and are now looking at a more "sophisticated" way of solving problems. This due to the fact that WWII left their military power next to nothing, which fueled the transition from expansionists to what they are now.

Supporting evidence: When the positions were reversed 200 years ago, so were the attitudes.

To quote 32: "Europe is what America will be in fifty years."

[Marius]

...or; Americans are pushy because they are a young nation, brass and full of life and relatively successful on a political, military as well as a geo-political front.

First of all, the phrase "Americans are pushy" shouldn't be used in any summary of that essay. It had nothing at all to do with the social manners of American people.

Second, Evan's summary simplifies far too far; the essay certainly did not imply that American policies are simply a result of American capability. The more important points in the essay concerned differences in perception and morality that have resulted from different experiences, including different capabilities and responsibilities.

The age of the nation has nothing to do with any point made in the article, and I think, is really extraneous. I'd say that "success" also is less important than simply "power." After all, the point is not made that Europe's and America's differing stances on foreign policy come from histories of success or unsuccess, but rather from a present of relative potency or inability in certain arenas.

...or; Europeans are more accomodating because they have had their times of colonial pushiness and are now looking at a more "sophisticated" way of solving problems.

I think this view was dealt with rather elegantly.

Fewer like to recall that the military destruction of Nazi Germany was the prerequisite for the European peace that followed. Most Europeans believe that it was the transformation of European politics, the deliberate abandonment and rejection of centuries of machtpolitik, that in the end made possible the “new order.” The Europeans, who invented power politics, turned themselves into born-again idealists by an act of will, leaving behind them what Fischer called “the old system of balance with its continued national orientation, constraints of coalition, traditional interest-led politics and the permanent danger of nationalist ideologies and confrontations.”

Fischer stands near one end of the spectrum of European idealism. But this is not really a right-left issue in Europe. Fischer’s principal contention — that Europe has moved beyond the old system of power politics and discovered a new system for preserving peace in international relations — is widely shared across Europe. As senior British diplomat Robert Cooper recently wrote in the Observer (April 7, 2002), Europe today lives in a “postmodern system” that does not rest on a balance of power but on “the rejection of force” and on “self-enforced rules of behavior.” In the “postmodern world,” writes Cooper, “raison d’état and the amorality of Machiavelli’s theories of statecraft . . . have been replaced by a moral consciousness” in international affairs.

We are reminded that this belief translates directly to opinions which perhaps do not descend directly from morality about power, but from protection of morality:

As Americans have for two centuries, Europeans speak with great confidence of the superiority of their global understanding, the wisdom they have to offer other nations about conflict resolution, and their way of addressing international problems. But just as in the first decade of the American republic, there is a hint of insecurity in the European claim to “success,” an evident need to have their success affirmed and their views accepted by other nations, particularly by the mighty United States. After all, to deny the validity of the new European idealism is to raise profound doubts about the viability of the European project. If international problems cannot, in fact, be settled the European way, wouldn’t that suggest that Europe itself may eventually fall short of a solution, with all the horrors this implies?

And we are reminded that American views that such "sophistication" may be overly idealistic are not themselves necessarily unsophisticated:

How nations could achieve perpetual peace without destroying human freedom was a problem Kant could not solve. But for Europe the problem was solved by the United States. By providing security from outside, the United States has rendered it unnecessary for Europe’s supranational government to provide it. Europeans did not need power to achieve peace and they do not need power to preserve it.

The current situation abounds in ironies. Europe’s rejection of power politics, its devaluing of military force as a tool of international relations, have depended on the presence of American military forces on European soil. Europe’s new Kantian order could flourish only under the umbrella of American power exercised according to the rules of the old Hobbesian order. American power made it possible for Europeans to believe that power was no longer important. And now, in the final irony, the fact that United States military power has solved the European problem, especially the “German problem,” allows Europeans today to 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. Because Europe has neither the will nor the ability to guard its own paradise and keep it from being overrun, spiritually as well as physically, by a world that has yet to accept the rule of “moral consciousness,” it has become dependent on America’s willingness to use its military might to deter or defeat those around the world who still believe in power politics.

. . . “The challenge to the postmodern world,” Cooper argues, “is to get used to the idea of double standards.” Among themselves, Europeans may “operate on the basis of laws and open cooperative security.” But when dealing with the world outside Europe, “we need to revert to the rougher methods of an earlier era — force, preemptive attack, deception, whatever is necessary.” This is Cooper’s principle for safeguarding society: “Among ourselves, we keep the law but when we are operating in the jungle, we must also use the laws of the jungle.”

Cooper’s argument is directed at Europe, and it is appropriately coupled with a call for Europeans to cease neglecting their defenses, “both physical and psychological.” But what Cooper really describes is not Europe’s future but America’s present.

To quote 32: "Europe is what America will be in fifty years."

I doubt it very much.

[EvanMoore]

According to that report, Europe is what America was 200 years ago.

It's just a cycle.

Evan

[Marius]

No, I don't see anything to lead me to think it's cyclical.

[EvanMoore]

When one of our techs was in Australia, he commented that they were in noticably better shape than Americans. At one point, he saw an overweight couple walking down the road and shouted out to them, "Are you from the US?" They said, "Yes! How'd you know?" He smiled and said, "Just a wild guess!" and walked on.

What bearing does that have on this conversation? <scratching head>

<This interlude brought to you by Canine Crunchies, we now return you to your regularly scheduled program...>

[Eva]

Overall it's a good read, but still coloured and can't be taken as truth, which bugs me, because the article started out fairly unbiased and I was hoping it would finally state things as they were - however annoying the truth might be - and not just a bunch of opinions.

How could you /possibly/ write about this subject as 'truth'. Everything is 'a bunch of opinions', let alone an article that analyzes the current state of world politics, attempts to historically explain it and speculates about its future state. Analyses, explanations and speculations are very little but a 'bunch of opinions'.

[Serious Paul]

Uhmm, hmm, where to begin.

I think that this piece was well written, and I completely agree with Marius that the Author, Robert Kagan doesn't make an attempt to coddle the truth to either side of the pond. As with any thing people are bound to disagree, and be offended. After all it is simply a position paper written by one man.

A well written thurough, well thought, researched to hell and back paper. I like that he spares no ones feelings. Thats what makes people like me think even harder on this sort of thing.

DV8 I also agree with Marius that it is hard for me to see America ever becoming another "Europe". In fifty years or five hundred.

Ideology, geography, religion, language-both its use and form,polotics and history have shown that while we are similar creatures, no two people are exactly the same or even "really close".Akin yes. Alike yes. Same. No.

Eva:: I thought the reference to the German "problem" was humorous and somewhat nasty all int he same breath. Bill Mahr once made a joke, probably not his own, but he said, "Germany is found of naming other countries. They name them Germany." A unified Germany in many ways is seenas threat to our precold war/cold war mentality. And I would say it is safe to say that a good deal of exsisting policy and policy yet to come is based off of Cold War and World War Two experience. Germany is a large technically proficient nation with a history of ass kicking. (Just ask a french man! heh) Can or will it happen again? Hmm good question.

Evan:: Why did you do that? Please tell me it was an attempt at hmor?

DV8:: Out of curiosity what defines successful in the terms of Military?Political? How about that funny term you used "Geo-Political"? (I seem to be at a loss what was the last country we took over and when?)

Also as far Colonialism goes are there any countries that maintain Colonies still? Protectorates? Any of them eurpean? Any of them have to live up to recent treaties and turn over said Colonies to anyone?

I have a hard time seeing Europe as a place that I would describe as sophisticated. What little of europe I have seen, about ten or twelve countries worth, would best be described as War ravaged left overs. Even today many areas show the scars. They remind me of run neighborhoods. They were something special once, now they just house a bunch of crack heads and low income betties. The occasional college student and everyonce in a while a nice spot.

Don't take it wrong, not all of Europe fits that description and I am certainly not saying that America is better in any substansive way, since I could never provide proff postive. I agree with Kagan. Europe is in a power decline. They are not the force that they were prior to World War Two.

[DV8]

Let me clarify, 32's comment a little bit, because I see that I've used it wrong, in this context - my apologies for that - at the time we were talking about the welfare structure. I retract the statement since it has nothing to do with the conversation in question. Cheap shot, I apologize.

[Paul]

Found it!

[DV8]

That's funny. I'm pretty ashamed of some of the things I said three years ago.

[Eva]

So am I, but thankfully that's not in this thread. :o)

[Kai]

Jesus, zombie thread from hell Paul...

[Paul]

Ask Bull. I'm good for that.

[JongWK]

Oh, I would have loved to add some Third-World perspective to that discussion. Pity it was before I joined.

[FlakJacket]

So get commenting now then.

[Paul]

What he said. You think this is the first thread I've brought back from a three or so year death? HA!

[Anguirel]

The article, at least the opening, still seems very relevant. I'll poke through it in pieces, though, too long for one reading.

[WillyGilligan]

Rezzing old threads for fun and profit.