 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001 time: 00:20
|
|
Fairly interesting, but I'm not 100% sold on the conclusions the author reached in certain areas.
quote: 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. |
If we follow the author's logic all the way, then accepting the EU's way of doing things means that the EU will be in grave danger, simply because there will be no way to defend itself.
There is another danger, suppose, and this is hypothetical, that one of the EU states has a surge of nationalism, and elects a right wing leader, the whole EU system would crash like a house of cards should one of it's members turn aggressive (say a belligerent Germany or even France, and before the stupid French jokes begin, ol Boney did pretty well with them 2 centuries ago, don't forget) and there is no US ally willing to put a stop to it.
Rearmament wouldn't take nearly as long as the article's author suggests, Germany managed it in less then 20 years, including a great depression, imagine what an economic powerhouse like Germany could do in our modern world.
Some of his points I do agree with, and I don't agree with the "velvet glove" approach many here seem to prefer (this may be a by-product of my military service as well as being a historian, both tell me that appeasment in any form leads to disaster), even though it may well prove more effective in some areas of the world.
It was interesting reading about the European appeal to morals and scrupples, which seems a bit absurd considering that many nations (including the USA to some degree) show a total disreguard to both if it doesn't suite their aims (and Europe is guilty of this also).
Not many of the Euros here have commented on the article, but I would think they would view it in a hostile fashion and disagree with the bulk of it, as it basically says they are irrelivant and without the US they are doomed.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000 time: 06:20
|
|
This is like a satire. An Israeli posting a clearly pro-US article and calling anyone who'd not agree with it a "lightheaded troll" in advance, Americans like OzzyKP, who've been known to be totally dumb nationalists (in the common sense, racists in the Snapcase sense) agreeing with it completely for they agree with everything that is pro-US, Americans raising points such as "the German problem", Canadians thinking themselves as a superior nation that has always been what Europe tries to be and blah, blah, blah.
This thread, especially in connection tothe article, is a parody on anything that has ever happened on Apolyton, especially the fact that the actual debate has started before any European ever posted. It's worth more than a laugh that a bunch of American can on its own rate an article that is about Europe and Ameria as well, and especially their relation to each other.
This could be funny if it wasn't so horrible.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000 time: 06:20
|
|
Yeah, because it has that very "neutral" surface, but the points are expressed in such a bigoted way it's hardly readable. If you can't see how it's pro-US then I can't help you either.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000 time: 06:20
|
|
The title, "Power and weakness". As at least one of you has pointed out, Europe doesn't even wantto be powerful and kill innocent people in city bombings. The author, however, seems to rate military strength of a country as the highest of all possible goals.
The choice of words, as in "European timidity" when it could be "tendency to consideration", the comparison of the soviet union with Hitler Germany,"appeasement polciy" huh. It's like a) the Soviet Union had been expressing its wil to militarily expand into the west before, which would give a reason to that comparison and b) the terminology "But appeasement is never a dirty word to those whose genuine weakness offers few appealing alternatives. For them, it is a policy of sophistication. " What a bigot, we just called it diplomacy.
While pointing out Europe was a lot closer to the danger ofa hot war, he still presents the consequences as examples for European weakness, while it was just the will to live on and safe lives on both sides.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000 time: 06:20
|
|
DD, if St Marcus liked the article, he'd post it. Saying "great article" is pretty much an expression of indifference. Plus, I don't really give a damn what St Marcus thinks abou the article, or how you rate his statement.
I know many of you think I'm just the "lightheaded troll" or "lacking the mind" kind of person for this. But when I read through the article and this thread I see who actually lacks the mind for a halfway objective analysis of the situation.
"Ignore Europe." is basically the bestz example for that. Followed by the "German problem".
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000 time: 06:20
|
|
Is that your argument? I can counter it: I don't have a vagina. Thank you.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000 time: 06:20
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Saint Marcus
btw, I mainly liked the accurate analysis of European weakness, and not from a bigotted point of view. |
That's because you're west European. Anything realted to Soviet must be not only bad but truly Nazilike. Therefore, any forme of realistic diplomacy with them must be a sign of mental weakness.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
BeBro
|
 |
of the Krauts
Mar 2000 time: 06:20
|
|
Lazy German as I am, I only read Siro´s summary. Some thoughts:
quote: Europe’s military weakness has produced a perfectly understandable aversion to the exercise of military power. |
While it is true that Europe´s military is not as strong as the US military, I do not think that the second part of that quote is correct.
I´d rather say this aversion has not much to do with our military, but with Europe´s "warlike" history - Europeans had the most devastating wars on their own soil, Americans had not.
Especially Germany was rather "pacifistic" after WWII, first under pressure from the Allies, who did not want a new threat from Germany again, then because we accepted und understood our role in WWII, and so the post-WWII Germany tried to make sure that it would never become a threat for its neighbours again. Our "pacifism" was mainly self interest, the end of WWII teached us something...
But after the unification the will to use military is higher than ever after WWII. Amazingly the decisions to participate with military force on the Balkan, or in Afghanistan were made by our "left" Schroeder government - their political background is classically much more "pacifist" compared to our conservatives.
You can complain that most of the German troops do "only" peacekeeping, but also this is "exercise of military power" and a drastic change from Germany´s "no troops outside NATO territory"-policy before the 1990ies...
I think the main difference to Amerika is that we see the military option as the last option, not necessarily the best one, and not isolated from political or economical efforts. "Exercise of military power" as the author says does perhaps reduce or even take away certain threats (which is of course important, therefore you´ll not find a single whining from me about US troops in Afghanistan), but it rarely solves entire conflicts.
Perhaps the will to use military is higher when you have the stronger military like the US, I can´t answer that, but sometimes a use of military force can rather create new problems, so the question if Europe should do that more is a bit pointless for me - we will do it, when it serves our interests, and when it solves more problems than it creates, but not to appear simply as military giant...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000 time: 06:20
|
|
I'm not surprised at all about how noone actually replied to what I said. Once again, you guys stick to platitudes.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Ecthy
|
|
Zhonghuà Rénmín Gònghéguó
Mar 2000 time: 06:20
|
|
you said it's because I'm an Eastie... I'm talking about my analysis on the article.
each article has its tone. not its tones. I recognised the tone of this one, and reading more of it will only make me sicker.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20. Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|