27-01-2005 02:12									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Very short answer - most non-Americans dont like Bush.

It's gone a lot further than that.

	27-01-2005 02:13									#32
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Agathon quote: When the gulf between us and the US is seen as unbridgeable, Bush will have won. And the US will be isolated and eventually Gulliverized. Which means we win.

talk about dreaming.

	27-01-2005 02:13									#33
	Put an end to popups!

I always tend to be amused by those who REALLY, REALLY hope for the fall of the US .

	27-01-2005 02:15									#34
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by St Leo quote: Originally posted by Agathon And the US will be isolated and eventually Gulliverized. Which means we win. Who's we? We are in the same basket as America. Her demise takes something from us.

But its nice revenge for 1989, I suppose.

	27-01-2005 02:17									#35
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark But its nice revenge for 1989, I suppose.

The fall of the Berlin wall was a good thing. So was the disbanding of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics two years later. It brought liberty to those opressed by a stifling hierarchical society.

	27-01-2005 02:18									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

How's my "analysis"? Nobody ever replies to my posts.

	27-01-2005 02:18									#37
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by St Leo This level of polarization is unwise. We are reacting to the US extremists, not the US Jane Sixpacks. When the gulf between us and the US is seen as unbridgeable, Bush will have won.

dont worry leo, we dont group all euro, canadians etc with folks like Aggie. Even neocons dont.

	27-01-2005 02:21									#38
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The only thing the world looked to the US about is prosperity. Still happening. The world has always looked at the US as imperialistic, and have sometimes courted US favor (but more often not).

This whole "threat to world peace" is nonsense. These are the same fools (the Commies' "useful idiots") who thought the US was a threat to world peace when we were holding the line against the Soviets while they sent their troops into Hungary, Poland and Afghanistan.

I suppose some people just never learn. Their loss.

	27-01-2005 02:22									#39
	Tired of ads?

quote: It brought liberty to those opressed by a stifling hierarchical society.

So will the end of the US.

Who said we wanted the US destroyed. We just want it reduced in influence so that we can deal with the world's problems without idiots wrecking it.

	27-01-2005 02:25									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Robert Kagan, neocon, in the WaPo on Europe

quote: "Embraceable E.U. By Robert Kagan Sunday, December 5, 2004; Page B07 In the unfolding drama of Ukraine, the Bush administration and the European Union have committed a flagrant act of transatlantic cooperation. If Ukrainians eventually vote in a free and fair election and thereby thwart the reemergence of an authoritarian Russian empire along the borders of democratic Europe, it will be one of those rare hinges of history where looming disaster was turned into glittering opportunity. And it would not have happened without the joint efforts of the United States and the European Union using -- dare one say it? -- "soft power" to compel Vladimir Putin and his would-be quislings to retreat from their botched coup d'etat. Maybe this is the real future for transatlantic cooperation. In recent years thinkers and diplomats on both sides of the Atlantic have earnestly tried to restore the old Cold War strategic partnership, albeit aimed at a different set of enemies. We have squeezed European troops into Afghanistan, where they are growing weary, and tried to squeeze them into Iraq, where they do not want to go. "Out of area or out of business" was the Clinton administration's mantra for NATO in the 1990s. But consider the possibility that this old formula won't work for the new "postmodern" entity Europe has become. Except in matters of trade, Europe is not a global player in the traditional geopolitical sense of projecting power and influence far beyond its borders. Few Europeans even aspire to such a role. This means Americans should bury once and for all absurd worries about the rise of a hostile E.U. superpower -- Europe will be neither hostile nor a superpower in the traditional sense. It also means Americans should stop looking to Europe to shoulder much of the global strategic burden beyond its environs. But the crisis in Ukraine shows what an enormous and vital role Europe can play, and is playing, in shaping the politics and economies of nations and peoples along its ever-expanding border. This is no small matter. On the contrary, it is a task of monumental strategic importance for the United States as well as for Europeans. By accident of history and geography, the European paradise is surrounded on three sides by an unruly tangle of potentially catastrophic problems, from North Africa to Turkey and the Balkans to the increasingly contested borders of the former Soviet Union. This is an arc of crisis if ever there was one, and especially now with Putin's play for a restoration of the old Russian empire. In confronting these dangers, Europe brings a unique kind of power, not coercive military power but the power of attraction. The European Union has become a gigantic political and economic magnet whose greatest strength is the attractive pull it exerts on its neighbors. Europe's foreign policy today is enlargement; its most potent foreign policy tool is what the E.U.'s Robert Cooper calls "the lure of membership." Cooper describes the E.U. as a liberal, democratic, voluntary empire expanding continuously outward as others seek to join it. This expanding Europe absorbs problems and conflicts rather than directly confronting them in the American style. The lure of membership, he notes, has helped stabilize the Balkans and influenced the political course of Turkey. The Turkish people's desire to join the European Union has led them to modify Turkey's legal code and expand rights to conform to European standards. The expansive and attractive force of the European Union has also played its part in the Ukraine crisis. Had Europe not expanded to include Poland and other Eastern European countries, it would have neither the interest nor the influence in Ukraine's domestic affairs that it does. Cooper, unlike many Europeans, acknowledges the vital role of U.S. power in providing the strategic environment within which Europe's soft expansionism can proceed. Employing America's "military muscle" to "clear the way for a political solution involving a kind of imperial penumbra around the European Union," he suggests, may be the way to deal with "the area of the greatest threat in the Middle East." In the Balkans, Europe's magnetic attraction would have been feeble had Slobodan Milosevic not been defeated militarily. And undoubtedly American power provides a useful backdrop in the current diplomatic confrontation over Ukraine. Cooper is not alone in his expansive European vision. Among leading European policymakers, Germany's Joschka Fischer seems the most dedicated to using enlargement and the E.U.'s attractive power for strategic purposes. Before Sept. 11, 2001, Fischer was suspicious of bringing Turkey into the European Union and inheriting such nightmarish neighbors as Iraq and Syria. But now he regards Turkey's membership as a strategic necessity. "To modernize an Islamic country based on the shared values of Europe would be almost a D-Day for Europe in the war against terror," he argues, because it "would provide real proof that Islam and modernity, Islam and the rule of law . . . [and] this great cultural tradition and human rights are after all compatible." This "would be the greatest positive challenge for these totalitarian and terrorist ideas." Americans could hardly disagree. Unfortunately, Cooper's and Fischer's vision of an expanding E.U. empire is not shared across Europe. It finds most support in Tony Blair's Britain, as well as in Poland and other Eastern European countries, and among the current German leadership (though not among the German population). It has least support in France, where even the recent inclusion of Poland and other nations to the east is regarded as something of a disaster for French foreign policy and where the admission of Turkey is considered anathema. Modern, secular, forward-looking France still insists that Europe must remain, in the words of Valery Giscard d'Estaing, a Christian civilization. In this and other respects, France is part of what one might call "red-state Europe," a pre-modern bastion on a postmodern continent. Americans are generally skeptical of or indifferent to the European Union. They shouldn't be. The United States has an important interest in the direction the E.U. takes in coming years. It may actually matter, for instance, whether Britain votes to support the E.U. constitution, as Blair wants. A Britain with real influence inside the E.U. is more likely to steer it in the liberal imperial direction that the E.U.'s Cooper, a former Blair adviser, proposes. That could prove a far more important strategic boon to the United States than a few thousand European troops in Iraq. Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

	27-01-2005 02:30									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Kagan is an idiot.

	27-01-2005 02:32									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark My understanding that higher rates of infant mortality in the US are associated with drug use, teen pregnancies in communities without structure, etc. Which arguably are caused by social policies, but not health care. in any case so what. Maybe higher infant mortality IS caused by the lack of national health insurance. Tossing in something lack longer lifespans in France just takes away credibility. Dont you see GePap = theres no ARGUMENT here. Its like somebody when through his files to find negative things to say about the US, and tossed them altogether. Perfect for a poly poster, but one expects more from Newsweek. So whats the point, we shouldnt invade middle eastern countries without UNSC approval until we pass national health insurance, but then its OK? If not, whats the point? The US is unlikely to change domestic policies to win greater leeway overseas, much though Id like to see both results - and honestly, no foreign country is going to alter its opinion of specific US actions based on US domestic policy. And the folks in nondemocratic countries ARE going to aspire to demos, whatever the US is like - if US lack of healthcare means theyre more likely to pick parliamentary system vs Presidential system, who the hell cares? This is politics at the Ted Striker level (Euro US Blue State US Bush ) not analysis.

No its not. Honestly, do you think "lifestyle" is enough for a 4 year difference in lifespans? I am sorry, but it seems a cheap and convinient answer. And besides, do you have any evidence to points to lifestyle? Both the quality of care AND the lifestyle are valid possible explinations for the significant difference in life spans- unless you can show definitive proof is cause they eat less, then you have no right to say its an invalid arguement.

BUt the deeper question is one of what the US standing in the world will be about- the US is the unquestioned superpower because people saw it as relatively benevolent, as opposed to a less benevolent USSR- the US remains paramount militarily, but is loosing ground as a share of economics, and if people do NOT look up to the US, do not try to emulate our system, then as the Share of the world economy the US has declined, our leadership and relevance will too.

This is a question of the US's place in the world, and of course, Americans are NOT blind, and as stubborn as we are, it does not mean we are not going to even emulate what is going on in the world around- and if the entire world moves to a couple of systems other than the American system, it is impossible to think the US will itself not change.

	27-01-2005 02:37									#43
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap This is a question of the US's place in the world, and of course, Americans are NOT blind, and as stubborn as we are, it does not mean we are not going to even emulate what is going on in the world around- and if the entire world moves to a couple of systems other than the American system, it is impossible to think the US will itself not change.

Its not impossible that the US will emulate social democracy ( I would vote for that) but i hardly think that the world in 2005 is more friendly to social democracy than the world in 1965 was, nor do i think the world in 2040 will be much closer. But if it is, thats kewl.

It has nothing to do with Aggies 2 minute hate.

	27-01-2005 02:38									#44
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Straybow This whole "threat to world peace" is nonsense. These are the same fools (the Commies' "useful idiots") who thought the US was a threat to world peace when we were holding the line against the Soviets while they sent their troops into Hungary, Poland and Afghanistan

Bush is a threat to world peace. America is just a tool at his disposal.

As a feminist and an advocate of human rights, I would have rather seen the USSR take over Afghanistan. USSR's record in that category is spotty, but far better than that of the subsequent Taliban regime.

	27-01-2005 02:38									#45
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Kagan is an idiot.

	27-01-2005 02:39									#46
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by St Leo quote: Originally posted by Straybow This whole "threat to world peace" is nonsense. These are the same fools (the Commies' "useful idiots") who thought the US was a threat to world peace when we were holding the line against the Soviets while they sent their troops into Hungary, Poland and Afghanistan Bush is a threat to world peace. America is just a tool at his disposal. As a feminist and an advocate of human rights, I would have rather seen the USSR take over Afghanistan. USSR's record in that category is spotty, but far better than that of the subsequent Taliban regime.

without the Soviet takeover, the Taliban would probably never have emerged. You are aware of the chronology, arent you?

	27-01-2005 02:40									#47
	Inflate your Upload Space

Two divergent views of what a Democracy should be - America chose captalistic, Europe chose socialistic, along with America's model came militalarism, and "rugged individualism", which devoled into egotism, and selfishness. Additionally, Europe's model has created more prosperity.

It looks like the more humane model is also more viable, and is becoming the accepted one. This is the silver lining in the neocons agenda: they've bungled things so badly, they've given aggression a bad name!

	27-01-2005 02:40									#48
	Tired of ads?

Kagan and his ilk make me laugh: they're geeks who get hard ons for military power and cannot but see everything in terms of physical force, despite being weedy little losers themselves.

You know the type, the skinny dork at your school who collected knives and worshipped the SAS.

"America protects Europe"

From who?

Iran?

Russia?

The Russians have better things to do now. The lesson of the 20th century is that large scale wars are over. The world is simply too informationally and economically integrated to let this happen. Moreover democracy is spreading quite rapidly in a way that doesn't depend on anything America does. In fact the real source of democratic change comes from Iran of all places, where people power overthrew a tyrannical regime (but folk didn't get quite what they bargained for).

This happened again in the Phillippines and unsuccessfully in China and then successfully in Eastern Europe. Since then, video of mobs overturning authoritarian governments have become increasingly frequent.

None of this has anything to do with the US. It's only American hubris that makes them believe so.

	27-01-2005 02:45									#49
	Got spare money?

So Europe could have dealt with Milosevic by itself with it's soft diplomacy? The hard diplomacy of the US merges well with the soft diplomacy of the EU to produce a strong Western power. It worked best during the Clinton Administration.

Kagan is more right in his assessment than Moravcsik. By far.

	27-01-2005 02:52									#50
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark Its not impossible that the US will emulate social democracy ( I would vote for that) but i hardly think that the world in 2005 is more friendly to social democracy than the world in 1965 was, nor do i think the world in 2040 will be much closer. But if it is, thats kewl. It has nothing to do with Aggies 2 minute hate.

I have not commented, nor do I care to comment on Aggies statements- this is about the Newsweek piece and the point of it:

Iraq has shown the weakness of American Military power- being able to unseat some tinpoint dictator is fine and dandy, but our inability to then control the area puts the whole militarist enterprise into deep question.

So if our military might is not the sound basis of American power, what wil. This goes directly to Bush's speach- if you honeslt yhtink when he says freedom and liberty 49 times he really doesn;t care if its a social democracy, or the American model, I think you are higly naive. Look at the US administration of Iraq under Bremmer- the monetary and labor policies instituted, the idea that Iraqis in the future would have a flat tax, or a top rate of 15% and other such things done by the US administrators show that the neocons don;t just care about spreading political liberty to chose whatever system the people want, but A particular model, the conservative economic US model. BUt in a world that refuses this model victory for the Bush team becomes harder and harder.

	27-01-2005 02:52									#51
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Agathon . The lesson of the 20th century is that large scale wars are over. The world is simply too informationally and economically integrated to let this happen. LOTM - the question is how to deal with the large parts of the world that arent integrated. Moreover democracy is spreading quite rapidly in a way that doesn't depend on anything America does. In fact the real source of democratic change comes from Iran of all places, where people power overthrew a tyrannical regime (but folk didn't get quite what they bargained for). This happened again in the Phillippines LOTM - the PI looked to Iran as a model, and not to Japan, which was democratized by the US? and unsuccessfully in China and then successfully in Eastern Europe. LOTM Funny how people like Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel have a higher opinion of the US than you do. Since then, video of mobs overturning authoritarian governments have become increasingly frequent. None of this has anything to do with the US. It's only American hubris that makes them believe so.

LOTM - So why didnt you join in the Ukraine threads, when Serb and Vagabond said everything thats happened in the Ukraine (and Georgia) was the result of US action?

LOTM - by the way, i agree that democracy has its own momentum - whether outside pushes can help is another question.

	27-01-2005 02:53									#52
	Suffering from ads?

I think its obvious that there are many more examples of successful democracies than the US. Its only normal and natural that people emulate the policies of those that better fit their own society.

I was unsuprised to see Americans think the US is much more positively viewed than it is. All pretty typical stuff.

	27-01-2005 03:01									#53
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by GePap I have not commented, nor do I care to comment on Aggies statements- this is about the Newsweek piece and the point of it: Iraq has shown the weakness of American Military power- being able to unseat some tinpoint dictator is fine and dandy, but our inability to then control the area puts the whole militarist enterprise into deep question. So if our military might is not the sound basis of American power, what wil LOTM - im not going to get dragged into a debate about the current situation in Iraq, or the mistakes that have been made. . This goes directly to Bush's speach- if you honeslt yhtink when he says freedom and liberty 49 times he really doesn;t care if its a social democracy, or the American model, I think you are higly naive. Look at the US administration of Iraq under Bremmer- the monetary and labor policies instituted, the idea that Iraqis in the future would have a flat tax, or a top rate of 15% and other such things done by the US administrators show that the neocons don;t just care about spreading political liberty to chose whatever system the people want, but A particular model, the conservative economic US model. BUt in a world that refuses this model victory for the Bush team becomes harder and harder.

1. They were trying (competently or not) to rebuild an economy. They COULDNT wait till an Iraqi govt was in place to print a currency, impose taxes, etc. Given the rot of the Saddam regime there was no reason to try to maintain the exact policies of that regime. Given that they therefore had to impose policies, its hardly surprising that they chose according to their own biases. I do note that they maintained govt healthcare provision, hardly consonant with their domestic model.

2. Do you honestly think Dubya doesnt insist on the full credit to the US for the liberation of Germany? Does he refuse to attend Dday celebrations? yet we all know Germany, Benelux are social democracies. Wanting to spread your own system is one thing - caring about it is another thing.

Do you think Bush and his pals dont think Israel is a democracy? Does Bush spare praise for Tony Blair?
Would Bush be pleased if Michael Howard won? Would he be displeased if the French Socialists won?

I honestly dont think Bush gives a damn what the marginal tax rates are anywhere outside the US.

	27-01-2005 03:13									#54
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by lord of the mark 1. They were trying (competently or not) to rebuild an economy. They COULDNT wait till an Iraqi govt was in place to print a currency, impose taxes, etc. Given the rot of the Saddam regime there was no reason to try to maintain the exact policies of that regime. Given that they therefore had to impose policies, its hardly surprising that they chose according to their own biases. I do note that they maintained govt healthcare provision, hardly consonant with their domestic model.

Yes, they did keep unioversal healthcrae, thought of course, the only healtcare system being public, there was not much they could do with that to privitize without causing riots, now couldn't they? As for the bias bit- when trying to run a state in disrepair, perhaps this is NOT the time to set up theoretical policies as opposed to tried and true and working policies? At the least it shows incompetence.

quote: 2. Do you honestly think Dubya doesnt insist on the full credit to the US for the liberation of Germany? Does he refuse to attend Dday celebrations? yet we all know Germany, Benelux are social democracies. Wanting to spread your own system is one thing - caring about it is another thing.

Sorry, but this is a strawman if I ever saw one. Germany already had a long experience with parlimentary governance and a strong independent bureaucracy, so forth. Second, that Germany is a social democracy was a policy choice by Germans in the many decades AFTER the end of WW2, post 1950.

quote: Do you think Bush and his pals dont think Israel is a democracy? Does Bush spare praise for Tony Blair? Would Bush be pleased if Michael Howard won? Would he be displeased if the French Socialists won?

Well, yes, he would be displeased if the French socialists won, just as we were displeased when Chavez won in Venezuela. As for whether they think something is a democracy or not is irrelevant, because they are also trying to spread their economic ideals, hence the approval of the Netanyahu economic policies and increasing privatization of its economy, and constant talk about anemic Europe. Rummy's "old Europe" comment came from somewhere-don't kid yourself.

quote: I honestly dont think Bush gives a damn what the marginal tax rates are anywhere outside the US.

And i honestly think you are wrong. BUt then thats what this argument is about.

	27-01-2005 03:17									#55
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Atahualpa How's my "analysis"? Nobody ever replies to my posts.

It's your fault: you post well thought-out analyses in troll threads. Why would anybody reply?

	27-01-2005 03:19									#56
	Got spare money?

quote: Second, that Germany is a social democracy was a policy choice by Germans in the many decades AFTER the end of WW2, post 1950.

Not really. Germany also has a strong tradition of a large social safety net, at least comparitively to other Western countries. Before WW1, Social Democrats were a large force in the Reichstag (with Rosa Luxembourg) leading the charge.

	27-01-2005 03:24									#57
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by GePap quote: Do you think Bush and his pals dont think Israel is a democracy? Does Bush spare praise for Tony Blair? Would Bush be pleased if Michael Howard won? Would he be displeased if the French Socialists won? Well, yes, he would be displeased if the French socialists won LOTM given that it would be a humiliation to Chirac, I dont think so. , just as we were displeased when Chavez won in Venezuela. Cause of his anti-US foreign policy. and cause the US right has an obsession with leftism in Latin America, for deep historical reasons. The CIA worked quite well with social democrats in Europe during the cold war. LOTM As for whether they think something is a democracy or not is irrelevant, because they are also trying to spread their economic ideals, hence the approval of the Netanyahu economic policies and increasing privatization of its economy, Well, as a more successful Israeli economy could mean less need for US aid, thats a different matter. In any case the Israeli economy remains far more socialist than say, Britains. Or even Germany's I think. LOTM and constant talk about anemic Europe. Rummy's "old Europe" comment came from somewhere-don't kid yourself. Poland and Czecho dont follow Euro on social welfare? Rummy was just trying to shake off the accusation that his policy had no support in europe. Which doesnt mean he doesnt think social welfare leeds to anemia - why wouldnt he then want MORE socialism in europe - surely he doesnt want france and germany to be STRONGER, does he? And i honestly think you are wrong. BUt then thats what this argument is about.

	27-01-2005 03:25									#58
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Spiffor It's your fault: you post well thought-out analyses in troll threads. Why would anybody reply?

thanks for the kick in the pants - how foolish of me to let the troll get to me.

	27-01-2005 03:25									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: Second, that Germany is a social democracy was a policy choice by Germans in the many decades AFTER the end of WW2, post 1950. Not really. Germany also has a strong tradition of a large social safety net, at least comparitively to other Western countries. Before WW1, Social Democrats were a large force in the Reichstag (with Rosa Luxembourg) leading the charge.

Wow, so you just make LoTM's arguement even less relevant. Thanks.

	27-01-2005 03:29									#60
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by GePap The US is not only interested in democracy, but in spreading the US system- hence the endless dire talk about how Europe is going to fall apart economically because their welfare state.

I don't know any serious economist who thinks it will fall apart but what most of them do believe is that the high taxes and high regulation of that model will deliver lower average growth rates for those countries. That means their relative strength compared to more dynamic countries will continue to fall, their standard of living will slowly be passed by the more dynamic countries (or the countries which are already ahead of them will pull even further ahead), and slowly their national debt burden will become greater. Good management can minimize these impacts and luck can help greatly (Norway finding oil) as can avoiding unnecisary expenses like wars.

In the end it is a less dynamic model with slower average grow rates that means countries with more dynamic models will simply have the luxury of being able to afford higher margins of error to still reach the same goals.