A coalition without the US?

<b>glynch</b>: What "continual US miliary bullying" are you referring to? I thought bullies were uninvited?

 

Ah glynch, you become what you've ridiculed. Interesting. That is, to put it mildly the point you've been missing in this argument about how to respond to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.

We have the military power to ensure our security. We will use it in the absence of a better solution.

Diplomacy alone has failed. To continue to depend on it is a recipe for a disaster unseen on the planet. A rogue state with nuclear weapons.

Hmmm, i find this to be most curious. Many interventions, including in Afghanistan (which you opposed) were either in under the auspices of, or with the approval of, the UN and Europe. You, on the other hand, seem to oppose all military interventions. So I hardly think that YOUR position would lead to harmony within the UN and between the US and Europe. And there is NO support in the policymaking structure in either the UN nor Europe for your position. Most of the literature you provide is diametrically opposed to any intervention (see antiwar.com, the Independent). How do you deal with this? Are you for UN intervention but not US unilateral intervention? Are you for no intervention as it seems? Please elaborate.

If only it were so easy.

Articles from the Independent and the Guardian are hardly representative of European governmental opinion. If you want to know what the policymakers read, the Financial Times is much closer to the 'truth.'

Still bitter about Vietnam I see. Considering the R & D for the modern military is mainly directed towards information technology, I hardly think it will be a drain on the economy. But of course I'm sure you think the R & D from the Cold War is useless. You know, silly stuff like THE INTERNET, lol.

Very similar to the predictions of our early demise at the hands of the Japanese in the 80s, no? The reports of our demise, to paraphrase Twain, have been greatly exaggerated...

And without a comparable military structure, what would be the worst case scenario of the Europeans 'hating us?' A trade war? In a globalized economy? That is a joke. Such an action would hurt the economies of Europe and Asia much more than the US, and we are much more self sufficient than most if not all of Europe and Asia. Are we not going to be able to get Playstations from Japan, cheap toys from China, or wine and cheese from France? Gasp! What ever shall we do?

Considering by that time, if your worst case scenario were to happen, North and South America will already be a Free Trade bloc, the impact would be minimal.

That is not to say that your exaggerrated radicalization of the current US viewpoint is correct. It is fundamentally incorrect - in that the US wants action on issues it considers to be of utmost importance to its own security and the security of its allies, nothing more nothing less. In the face of inaction and paralysis shown by Europe during the last ten years, the US cannot afford to wait for the Belgians to agree with the Polish to agree with the French to agree with the Italians etc etc etc. European countries continually become frustrated with each other over the inability to reach a consensus on a variety of issues, including foreign policy out of the European area and defense issues. As a result, each of the major powers in Europe have gone to extensive lengths to join in the US actions once it becomes obvious action is inevitable. That trend will continue.

Finally, the US position is simple. When the Europeans have the capability and will to act, the US will gladly act within a multilateral framework. Until then we won't sit on our thumbs and wait for New York to explode in a mushroom cloud.

This is from Judy Dempsey, who in all fairness does write of Euros displeasure with the current situation, in the Financial Times yesterday...it provides a good example of the problems inherent in searching for a consensus with Europe before acting...

"It is precisely in the area of defence that the Europeans believe they can re-balance their relationship with Washington and end the traditional divisions of labour. The Europeans are now trying to give real teeth to their fledgling European Security and Defence Policy, using the Balkans as the testing ground where they will replace Nato.

But it has been a slow and frustrating process. Few of the 15 capitals are willing to increase their military budgets. Public opinion supports the ESDP but it is loath to see more money being spent on weapons.

Indeed, this week, the member states even argued over a shortfall of Euros 10m (Pounds 6.1m) to pay for the small police force the EU will send to Bosnia at the beginning of next year. And they are still haggling over how to finance the Rapid Reaction Force, supposed to be up and running by mid-2003. The EU plan is to deploy 60,000 troops within 60 days and keep them on the ground for up to a year. In reality, this would require 180,000 soldiers, as troops are rotated every four months.

"It's not the . . . 60,000 troops that are the problem. It's how to transport them. And what about intelligence, logistics, airlift - all the things the Europeans lack," says Klaus Becher, security expert at the London-based International Institute for Strategic Studies.

"The Europeans need new capabilities. That's the bottom line. Once that is met then we can talk about a new relationship between the Europeans and the Americans. The ball is in the court of the Europeans if they really want to end the old divisions of labour. Until then, they should lower their expectations."

 

1) I'm no fan of Europe's armchair-quarterbacking of our foreign policy, but I'm surprised at the number of outright anti-Europe posts I'm seeing in this thread.

As an analogy, I'm going to disagree with one of Jeff's takes in my next point. If I were to do so in the manner of many of the posts in this thread, I'd say "Who gives a crap about what that idiot Jeff thinks anyway?"

I take European criticism of our foreign policy with a grain of salt, of course, but they are our allies.

2) Jeff, I'm well aware that Europeans found our reaction to President Clinton's affair (and subsequent perjury) humorous. The ideas of marital fidelity and honesty under oath are out of fashion overseas. Frankly, that is more of a commentary on their misguided sense of what consitutes political sophistication than it is evidence of an objective examination of Clinton's behavior on their part.

It has nothing to do with the reaction to Reagan's "Evil Empire" speech.

The implication from the initial post was that no one took Reagan seriously after he made those remarks, and that he was widely derided for them. I don't know how else to respond to that other than to say it is entirely false. There were, as I think rimbaud pointed out, some people who jumped all over it-- as there always are.

Man, I can't concentrate when I'm on this damned Vicodin so I doubt I'll make my point clear here.

Some people didn't like Reagan, didn't like his foreign policy, didn't like the American military, and criticized anything that came out of his mouth. I think that the vast majority of critics of the Evil Empire remark can be categorized as "automatic opponents".

In the same way Rush Limbaugh's going to hear a remark by Bill Clinton and look for ways to use it as proof that Clinton supports a socialist state in America, the majority of the people offended by Reagan's Empire remark were simply opposed to any and every thing Reagan stood for. They didn't mock him because the remark was out of bounds or absurd. They mocked him because they despised him and look down at him.

And they represented a very small percentage of the world political community. That's my main issue here: Reagan's remarks were NOT widely mocked; they were vociferously attacked by groups that were permanently and automatically opposed to him.

 

You are joking, right? Nevermind what you and I do, according to studies, the majority of American men ARE unfaithful to their wives at least once, which, I'm sure, is part of the reason the divorce rate hovers around 52 percent.

The Kinsey Institute reports that 60 percent of married males and 40 percent of married females in America will have an extramarrital affair. The survey notes that those are conservative estimates and that the figure is likely somewhat higher than that on both counts.

My point was that there is greed, corruption and sexual infidelity everywhere. It isn't limited to the "amoral elite" of Europe and we moral, God-fearing Americans have no business throwing stones in our big glass house.

 

BK: That's cool. I wasn't really talking about Regan. I don't really know one way or the other on his "evil empire" comment. I was just responding to that specific comment.

 

I told you the Vicodin would mess me up. I had a whole third point I wanted to address and I forgot.

Amen. There are different ways of being an amoral scuzzball. Clinton thought with his pecker. Lay thought with his wallet-- and other people's wallets, too. Frankly I think that (yes I am assuming guilt here) Lay's done more damage to people's lives than Clinton did.

 

Not kidding at all

Which of Jack Kennedy's mistresses marched in his funeral as Mitterand's did? Or Frank Sinatra's? None of course.

Yes, there is infidelity everywhere. Human beings are weak, but STILL IN AMERICA we do not accept and or embrace it as widely as the Europeans do. They have just about incorporated it into their culture. Nothing good can come of that... unless you are a philanderer and proud of it!

That is a really important difference. That is the perspective form which you supportively cited the Europeans mocking American prudishness.

 

I don't want to speak for Grizzled, and he probably already addressed this somewhere else, but I'm reading from law firm job, so I'm minimizing all the time and can't read too thoroughly. Anyway, I don't think that this was the implication of his post. I think he implicated that people didn't like the comment because of what the comment could have resulted in. Now, granted I was only 7 at the time (if it was stated in 1983), I'm sure that many people simply believed a comment like that could spark some sort of nuclear tension ala The Cuban Missle Crisis just like some people today may fear that all of the "Axis of Evil" talk may just make our "enemies" more resolvent to developing WMD and, in fact, using them. Now, I'm not saying I necessarily agree with any of this, but I think that's the reasoning behind the criticisms.

Also, I love it when people say "give me examples, just not these examples". That's like me saying, explain to me why you think Clinton is immoral, just don't tell me anything about his affairs.

 

You have been around 2 months...I don't think I have ever participated in a thread with you. Does this mean that you really are RichRocket like Manny has said?

Anyway, I understood your position and already answered your response, that my comments were not directed to who is better or who wants to be like whom. They were only about not completely dismissing ideas from other countries, a whole continent, etc. BK basically said the same thing I was trying to point out...why don't you jump on him in a similar manner?

In any event, if you are speaking of power most countries I am sure would like to have as much as the US...but for most it is simply impossible. If you are speaking of culture, internal politics, etc, then I would say that Europe does not want to be like the US and the US does not want to be like Europe.

DaDa,

The UK has always been different...I guess that, because they are not really part of continental Europe, they think they are special. Seriously, though, they have always been more independent/stubborn.

 

That is what he said, and that is what I'm addressing. The "evil empire" remark was unpopular among people who opposed Reagan's foreign policy, but it didn't "make a mockery" of him.

If nothing else, that's the wrong word to use. When George Bush promised not to introduce any new taxes and then signed legislation that did exactly that, he was mocked-- he had lost all credibility by saying one thing and then doing another. When Clinton stated unequivocally that he hadn't given Lewinsky the hot beef injection, and then was forced to admit that he'd lied about it, he was mocked for it.

Al Gore was mocked for "inventing the Internet". Dan Quayle was mocked for being born. Etc, etc.

When Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire" in order to justify escalating the military budget along with the Cold War rhetoric, the reaction was not "mocking" (aside from, as I said, the very small percentage of people who automatically mocked everything Reagan ever said or did).

Perhaps this is semantics. I'm not saying Reagan's remark was universally popular, just that the reaction to it was not mockery in the sense that we're accustomed to.

 

I'm guessing you're right, it probably is just a semantics argument.

 

Treeman said: Excellent article, Buck. I hope everyone takes the time to read it.

I agree, surprisingly.

My comments above were without reading Kennedy's piece. I have read and/or am familiar with Kennedy's the Rise and Fall of Great Nations. The confusion is that there is another promintent book. with more or less the same theme, that came out about the same time. Many articles were written about them both.

Hayes, very good argumentation. I will do a response later.

 

Vicodin.........A rule I learned in kindergarden: If you don't have enough for everyone, shut up.

 

Don't believe that what you read in The Guardian, The Observer, Le Monde & the other leftist, anti-American, anti-Israeli media outlets of Europe is indicative of the totality of foreign opinion re: our President and the war.

Andrew Sullivan, in The Sunday Times of London, 2/10/02

"...The more interesting question is: what should the United States do about resentment of its dominance? Sure, it can and should consult its allies more widely. But when those allies (with the exception of Britain) have very little substantive to contribute in, say, waging the war in Afghanistan, those consultations can end up being exercises in condescension or phoniness. Sure, the U.S. can and should take a more active role in many international institutions. But it cannot be expected to provide the bulk of the funding for bodies (like the U.N.) whose main task seems, at times, to be attacking the United States and its allies. Nor should a great power be expected consistently to subordinate its own interests to those of other states, especially when its actions actually protect those other states from harm. If Europeans resent America's power, they need to ask themselves: would they like to confront global terrorism without it? Imagine al Qaeda intact today, entering into close contact with Iraq or Iran to get nuclear, biological or chemical weapons to detonate in the middle of London. Feel better about American hegemony now?

"Then of course when it appears that the United States might actually take its allies' advice and retreat into ambivalence, there is a chorus of disapproval and widespread fears of a new 'isolationism.' America, when you look at it, is damned if she does, and damned if she doesn't. Which is why Americans, at some point, just get on with it and ignore the chorus of whining from around the world.

"That's the underlying reality, and we might as well acknowledge it. That's why the IOC gave in to American demands that its WTC flag be a part of the opening ceremony in Salt Lake City. That's why, in the end, the United States will eventually ignore allies who refuse to cooperate in the war against terrorism and terrorist states. Real power always finds a way. And the only corrective to American dominance is not an attempt to weaken America or poison the world by fomenting hatred of her. At the moment, when America is the firmest bulwark against a terrorist network that aims to destroy every free country, that would be a particularly foolish venture. No, the only corrective to American hegemony is for other countries to emulate the free markets, free thought and free institutions that undergird the United States and make American economic and military power possible. But that's so much harder than the panacea of envy, isn't it?"

Also, I'll repost this link, some of the statistics quoted within are simply amazing (especially re: our defense budget as % of GDP):
http://news.ft.com/ft/gx.cgi/ftc?pagename=View&c=Article&cid=FT3ARHXB6XC

 

So, essentially the difference between Europe and America when it comes to infidelity is that they choose to accept that it exists rather than pretending it doesn't. And, rather than, as a society, ridiculing people for their choices, when, in reality, the majority of people actually participate in what is being ridiculed, they allow them to freely express themselves as they see fit and accept it without judgement.

Sounds very unhealthy to me.

 

I disagree. Reagan scared the Soviets because he was ideologically committed (he scared Canadians & Americans because he fell asleep at meetings - that didn't scare the Soviet leadership, they were falling asleep at meetings too and dying every other day of pneumonia). That ideological resolve emerged with the 'evil empire' comparison, with his vision of a 600 ship Navy, his vision of SDI, the MX missle - all decisions based on his ideology. The reason Reagan (or his administration - whatever) was so effective in his policy toward the Soviets was the very fact that he wasn't considered a brilliant thinker, rather someone who refered to his ideology for each policy decision. Does this fit my ideology? Yes, then ok. No, then no. The Soviets believed that HE believed it, rather than believing he was calculating to force concessions.

Grizzled, as the article from the FT I posted earlier proves, European opinion of Reagan is hardly what you represent it to be. Maybe Canadians made fun of Reagan (as they do most things American), hell, maybe others did too. But don't mistake that for something it wasn't, and assume they didn't take Reagan seriously.

Its relevance for us now is that Bush is comparable to Reagan. Personally, I believe he uses Reagan as a model, rather than a real politico like his father or Clinton, who carefully weighed out each decision and had no problem with reversal if the situation demanded it. Bush is not a brilliant thinker (understatement). Bush has his own ideology that he uses to measure each decision by. He BELIEVES the governments of Iraq, Iran, and North Korea ARE evildoers. And he is correct. He didn't stumble into calling these regimes 'evil.' He purposely used the term to purposely draw attention to his ideological resolve. Those countries now have a choice, as the Soviets did. They can defiantly march down the path to confrontation, which they will lose, or they can change what they are doing.

 

Hayestreet said: Interesting. That is, to put it mildly the point you've been missing in this argument about how to respond to Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.
-------
The point in this thread was that the Europeans disagree that we have to invade Iraq asap and do an “axis of evil” number with perhaps blockades, invasions whatever with the other two countries. They still see these problems being handled with containment and diplomacy and, shockingly to conservatives, greater attempts at international economic justice to make them less radical and more friendly.

B]We have the military power to ensure our security. We will use it in the absence of a better solution. [/B]

Diplomacy alone has failed. To continue to depend on it is a recipe for a disaster unseen on the planet. A rogue state with nuclear weapons.

You declare an absence of a better solution. Again approximately 12% of Americans and the Europeans disagree. You declare diplomacy has failed. Your assertion is unproven. For about 50 years our enemies have had nuclear and other WMD. Diplomacy and containment worked. But oh no, now we have “rogue states” therefore attack and or “axis of evil” type stuff is the only answer. I guess the “axis of evil” is even more evil than the “evil empire”. You can assert this till the cows come home 12% of us and the Europeans don’t buy it.

You, on the other hand, seem to oppose all military interventions. So I hardly think that YOUR position would lead to harmony within the UN and between the US and Europe.

I have been in favor of most UN interventions that I know of. I’m a big supporter of the UN. That is what this thread is about. Having allies and international bodies rather than US unilateralism, We need to drastically cut the US military budget and drastically increase the UN military budget. Would you join me on this? BTW I supported US intervention in Haiti, Somalia and probably the Balkans. I supported going after bin Laden, but my support for the way the US did it is very limited.

Articles from the Independent and the Guardian are hardly representative of European governmental opinion. If you want to know what the policymakers read, the Financial Times is much closer to the 'truth.'

Hard to say, the Financial Times is a conservative business paper like the WSJ. This is a sudden development and we’ll see how it develops

Still bitter about Vietnam I see. Considering the R & D for the modern military is mainly directed towards information technology, I hardly think it will be a drain on the economy. But of course I'm sure you think the R & D from the Cold War is useless. You know, silly stuff like THE INTERNET, lol.

Yep, still bitter. You I assume are all warm, fuzzy and cocky after the duck shoots, in Grenada,Panama, Iraq and Afghanistan-- eager for more.

Good point on the internet. If your arguing that defense R & D is as good for the economy as non defense R & D. I don’t think you’ve made your point. Still maintain that the over deployment of tech talent to defense explains why the Japanese still kick out buts in autos, consumer electronics etc. and the Euros or Asians may very well do so in the huge consumer profits that will come from info technology and the internet itself.

Very similar to the predictions of our early demise at the hands of the Japanese in the 80s, no? The reports of our demise, to paraphrase Twain, have been greatly exaggerated...

Somewhat, but demise is an exageration,not what I’m saying. Would you not agree our economy hit the skids after Vietnam? 1972-1987. A needless cyclical decline of 15 to 20 years is nothing to sneeze at for the average person.

we are much more self sufficient than most if not all of Europe and Asia. Are we not going to be able to get Playstations from Japan, cheap toys from China, or wine and cheese from France? Gasp! What ever shall we do?

The clearest indication that you might have the exaggerated bravado of those with your position who only “hit over the head” arguments will work with.. I do think your fact on self suffciency is important in not exagerating possible US decline ala Gr. Britain.

That is not to say that your exaggerrated radicalization of the current US viewpoint is correct. It is fundamentally incorrect - in that the US wants action on issues it considers to be of utmost importance to its own security and the security of its allies, nothing more nothing less. …

Finally, the US position is simple. When the Europeans have the capability and will to act, the US will gladly act within a multilateral framework. Until then we won't sit on our thumbs and wait for New York to explode in a mushroom cloud.

An attempt at moderation. Then esentially "the US wants action on issues it considers to be of the utmost importance to its own security and the security of its allies." so if the allies disagree we'll do what we want because those Europeans, Russians, Chinese, Indians don't even know what is in their best interest..

Finally an emotional phrase “mushroom clouds” just like other buzz words “rogue nations” or “axis of evil” etc. to justify unilateralism that the world objects to.

Hayes, nevertheless good "argumenation". To quote, I believe, Haven. This has required way too much time, I assume you have better command of these quoting techniques and how to whip this out quickly than I do. Won't be doing this too often.

 

I don't know if it's the essential difference; it is a difference and an important one.

Mitterand's mistress marching in his funeral procession goes way beyond merely "accepting it." It is incorporating it in a state funeral procession.

The difference to me is this generalization: European men have long-term relationships outside of their marriage. For the most part, American men's affairs are often short-lived or even one-time occurrences.

I bet the European "per capita" infidelity incidence is very high compared to America's!

What other destructive behavioral choices shall we not ridicule?

Public nudity-- I mean everywhere!?
Playground bullies? Kids will be kids.
Public drunkenness? It's his/her business.
Consumption of illegal drugs? Just don't make me.

What's wrong with a little social discipline?

Accept infidelity without judgement? Is that what I should do if MY wife were to have an affair? Would you?

 

Buck Turgidson:

Don't believe that what you read in The Guardian, The Observer, Le Monde & the other leftist, anti-American, anti-Israeli media outlets of Europe is indicative of the totality of foreign opinion re: our President and the war.

Andrew Sullivan, in The Sunday Times of London, 2/10/02

Ehhhh. Dubious. Andrew Sullivan is really only nominally British. He's been here for twenty years, hasn't he? He's hardly known for his unbiased and objective reportage, either.

I love it when people imply that leftists are the only ones who are biased.