The Project For a New American Century [Archive]

Stephistan

30-07-2004, 23:46

This is a bit old and I've posted it before.. but worth a second look.

The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, is a Washington-based think tank created in 1997. Above all else, PNAC desires and demands one thing: The establishment of a global American empire to bend the will of all nations. They chafe at the idea that the United States, the last remaining superpower, does not do more by way of economic and military force to bring the rest of the world under the umbrella of a new socio-economic Pax Americana.

The fundamental essence of PNAC's ideology can be found in a White Paper produced in September of 2000 entitled "Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategy, Forces and Resources for a New Century." In it, PNAC outlines what is required of America to create the global empire they envision. According to PNAC, America must:

* Reposition permanently based forces to Southern Europe, Southeast Asia and the Middle East;
* Modernize U.S. forces, including enhancing our fighter aircraft, submarine and surface fleet capabilities;
* Develop and deploy a global missile defense system, and develop a strategic dominance of space;
* Control the "International Commons" of cyberspace;
* Increase defense spending to a minimum of 3.8 percent of gross domestic product, up from the 3 percent currently spent.

Most ominously, this PNAC document described four "Core Missions" for the American military. The two central requirements are for American forces to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars," and to "perform the 'constabulary' duties associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions." Note well that PNAC does not want America to be prepared to fight simultaneous major wars. That is old school. In order to bring this plan to fruition, the military must fight these warsone way or the other to establish American dominance for all to see.

Why is this important? After all, wacky think tanks are a cottage industry in Washington, DC. They are a dime a dozen. In what way does PNAC stand above the other groups that would set American foreign policy if they could?

Two events brought PNAC into the mainstream of American government: the disputed election of George W. Bush, and the attacks of September 11th. When Bush assumed the Presidency, the men who created and nurtured the imperial dreams of PNAC became the men who run the Pentagon, the Defense Department and the White House. When the Towers came down, these men saw, at long last, their chance to turn their White Papers into substantive policy.

Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Defense Policy Board chairman Richard Perle. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group. Bruce Jackson, a PNAC director, served as a Pentagon official for Ronald Reagan before leaving government service to take a leading position with the weapons manufacturer Lockheed Martin.

PNAC is staffed by men who previously served with groups like Friends of the Democratic Center in Central America, which supported America's bloody gamesmanship in Nicaragua and El Salvador, and with groups like The Committee for the Present Danger, which spent years advocating that a nuclear war with the Soviet Union was "winnable."

PNAC has recently given birth to a new group, The Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which met with National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice in order to formulate a plan to "educate" the American populace about the need for war in Iraq. CLI has funneled millions of taxpayer dollars to support the Iraqi National Congress and the Iraqi heir presumptive, Ahmed Chalabi. Chalabi was sentenced in absentia by a Jordanian court in 1992 to 22 years in prison for bank fraud after the collapse of Petra Bank, which he founded in 1977. Chalabi has not set foot in Iraq since 1956, but his Enron-like business credentials apparently make him a good match for the Bush administration's plans.

PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report is the institutionalization of plans and ideologies that have been formulated for decades by the men currently running American government. The PNAC Statement of Principles is signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well as by Eliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, and many others. William Kristol, famed conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, is also a co-founder of the group. The Weekly Standard is owned by Ruppert Murdoch, who also owns international media giant Fox News.

The desire for these freshly empowered PNAC men to extend American hegemony by force of arms across the globe has been there since day one of the Bush administration, and is in no small part a central reason for the Florida electoral battle in 2000. Note that while many have said that Gore and Bush are ideologically identical, Mr. Gore had no ties whatsoever to the fellows at PNAC. George W. Bush had to win that election by any means necessary, and PNAC signatory Jeb Bush was in the perfect position to ensure the rise to prominence of his fellow imperialists. Desire for such action, however, is by no means translatable into workable policy. Americans enjoy their comforts, but don't cotton to the idea of being some sort of Neo-Rome.

On September 11th, the fellows from PNAC saw a door of opportunity open wide before them, and stormed right through it.

Bush released on September 20th 2001 the "National Security Strategy of the United States of America." It is an ideological match to PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report issued a year earlier. In many places, it uses exactly the same language to describe America's new place in the world.

Recall that PNAC demanded an increase in defense spending to at least 3.8% of GDP. Bush's proposed budget for next year asks for $379 billion in defense spending, almost exactly 3.8% of GDP.

In August of 2002, Defense Policy Board chairman and PNAC member Richard Perle heard a policy briefing from a think tank associated with the Rand Corporation. According to the Washington Post and The Nation, the final slide of this presentation described "Iraq as the tactical pivot, Saudi Arabia as the strategic pivot, and Egypt as the prize" in a war that would purportedly be about ridding the world of Saddam Hussein's weapons. Bush has deployed massive forces into the Mideast region, while simultaneously engaging American forces in the Philippines and playing nuclear chicken with North Korea. Somewhere in all this lurks at least one of the "major-theater wars" desired by the September 2000 PNAC report.

Iraq is but the beginning, a pretense for a wider conflict. Donald Kagan, a central member of PNAC, sees America establishing permanent military bases in Iraq after the war. This is purportedly a measure to defend the peace in the Middle East, and to make sure the oil flows. The nations in that region, however, will see this for what it is: a jump-off point for American forces to invade any nation in that region they choose to. The American people, anxiously awaiting some sort of exit plan after America defeats Iraq, will see too late that no exit is planned.

All of the horses are traveling together at speed here. The defense contractors who sup on American tax revenue will be handsomely paid for arming this new American empire. The corporations that own the news media will sell this eternal war at a profit, as viewership goes through the stratosphere when there is combat to be shown. Those within the administration who believe that the defense of Israel is contingent upon laying waste to every possible aggressor in the region will have their dreams fulfilled. The PNAC men who wish for a global Pax Americana at gunpoint will see their plans unfold. Through it all, the bankrollers from the WTO and the IMF will be able to dictate financial terms to the entire planet. This last aspect of the plan is pivotal, and is best described in the newly revised version of Greg Palast's masterpiece, "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy."

There will be adverse side effects. The siege mentality average Americans are suffering as they smother behind yards of plastic sheeting and duct tape will increase by orders of magnitude as aggressions bring forth new terrorist attacks against the U.S.A. These attacks will require the implementation of the newly drafted Patriot Act II, an augmentation of the previous Act that has profoundly sharper teeth. The sun will set on the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The American economy will be ravaged by the need for increased defense spending, and by the aforementioned "constabulary" duties in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. Former allies will turn on the Americans. Germany, France and the other nations resisting this Iraq war are fully aware of this game plan. They are not acting out of cowardice or because they love Saddam Hussein, but because they mean to resist this rising American empire, lest they face economic and military serfdom at the hands of George W. Bush. Richard Perle has already stated that France is no longer an American ally.

As the eagle spreads its wings, American rhetoric and their resistance will become more agitated and dangerous.

Many people, of course, will die. They will die from war and from want, from famine and disease. In America, the social fabric will be torn in ways that make the Reagan nightmares of crack addiction, homelessness and AIDS seem tame by comparison.

This is the price to be paid for empire, and the men of PNAC who now control the fate and future of America are more than willing to pay it. For them, the benefits far outweigh the liabilities.

The plan was running smoothly until those two icebergs collided. Millions and millions of ordinary people are making it very difficult for Bush's international allies to keep to the script. PNAC may have designs for the control of the "International Commons" of the Internet, but for now it is the staging ground for a movement that would see empire take a back seat to a wise peace, human rights, equal protection under the law, and the preponderance of a justice that will, if properly applied, do away forever with the anger and hatred that gives birth to terrorism in the first place. Tommaso Palladini of Milan perhaps said it best as he marched with his countrymen in Rome. "You fight terrorism," he said, "by creating more justice in the world."

"The People versus the Powerful is the oldest story in human history. At no point in history have the Powerful wielded so much control. At no point in history has the active and informed involvement of the People, all of them, been more absolutely required. The tide can be stopped, and the men who desire empire by the sword can be thwarted. It has already begun, but it must not cease. These are men of will, and they do not intend to fail."

Incertonia

31-07-2004, 00:08

Well, there is one thing we can take heart in as far as the PNAC is concerned. They've been in control for almost 4 years now, and they've been an unmitigated failure as far as foreign policy is concerned. They'll never be able to argue that they didn't have a chance to make it work.

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 00:37

I've heard of this group, and I'd have to agree with their philosophy. Ever since the fall of the Soviet Union, the US has been the only superpower left, exposing most of the world to radical change. Some, like Asia and Latin America, thrived in the New World Order, as Bush Sr. called it. Others, like the Middle East, Africa, and parts of Asia, crumbled. Conditions to make them bad, like despots, a poor economy, and a medeival culture, always existed, but as the two superpowers battled eachother, it was a perfect excuse to keep these problems from growing out of control. As soon as the Soviets fell, it all fell apart. Now, quite a bit of the world is in a tailspin, and as we've seen in the Middle East and Central Asia, it's reached the flashpoint.
It was fine for the US to prop up dictatorships during the Cold War, but as we've seen, that is extremely counterproductive now, and it was a mistake. It's time to try something new. Like PNAC, I'm a firm believer in John Locke, but I believe that a few bad apples spoil everything for the rest of society. Therefore, I can sum up my philosophy: with US guidance, liberal institutions, like a free market and democracy, can thrive. Among a myriad of benefits, it also creates less reason for terrorism.
Now, do I think it is a sucess? On the whole, yes. No one in the world wants our experiment in Iraq to fail, and I feel that quite a bit of the world is helping out, but especially the US. With US money, aid, and protection, democracy is becoming a reality. Domestic security is still very bad, but I have faith in Iraq's new security forces. After all, many of them are being retrained, and so far, they've led raids with US troops, and even on their own. The security situation will improve, Iraq will succeed, and in the next fifteen years or so, terrorism won't be the threat it is today.

Von Witzleben

31-07-2004, 00:40

Like the world is waiting to get under US control. More then it is already that is. And then Americans wonder why they are so "popular".

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 00:47

Like the world is waiting to get under US control. More then it is already that is. And then Americans wonder why they are so "popular".
I'm sure quite a few Americans would be happy if the EU or Japan acted like we do at this point, but they don't seem to be up to the challenge. The US government does, although I sometimes wonder if the American people are. After all, we have a tall order to carry out for a nation only 228 years old.

Von Witzleben

31-07-2004, 00:55

I'm sure quite a few Americans would be happy if the EU or Japan acted like we do at this point, but they don't seem to be up to the challenge. The US government does, although I sometimes wonder if the American people are. After all, we have a tall order to carry out for a nation only 228 years old.
American leadership is good both for America and for the world
This is what pisses me off the most in their statement of principles. Fucking arrogant sob's. This is also my main reason to want NATO see smashed. NATO is just an American tool to keep it's minions on a leash. And what order are you talking about? I don't recall anyone asking the US to push it's principles onto them.

Von Witzleben

31-07-2004, 00:59

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraq-20030131.htm
Oh yeah. And here they praise the leaders of the Coalition of the lapdogs.
Well, Aznar is gone. Unlike what the author thought and hoped for. :D And I have a feeling Blair is gonna be next.

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 01:02

American leadership is good both for America and for the world
This is what pisses me off the most in their statement of principles. Fucking arrogant sob's. This is also my main reason to want NATO see smashed. NATO is just an American tool to keep it's minions on a leash. And what order are you talking about? I don't recall anyone asking the US to push it's principles onto them.
If we don't act, their values will be pushed on us. The world is reaching a flashpoint, and most of it is our fault. However, none of the world seems to care, so we need to intervene, so that the monster we created doesn't get out of hand. It is why Paul Wolfowitz proposed deploying massive amounts of troops to Russia, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia in 1992: he wanted them to confiscate their WMDs before they got into the hands of terrorists, who were inevitably forming at that time.
Besides, as I see it, America doesn't need to be right. It doesn't even have to be right in order for the world to get back into shape, because the US is wealthy and strong enough for many possibilities. You will see our success in about five years or so, when a democratic Iraq has a booming economy, and the effect of liberalization spreads throughout the Middle East. As another sign of progress, this same wave is making initial impacts in Africa, and even the Carribean.

Von Witzleben

31-07-2004, 01:11

If we don't act, their values will be pushed on us.
And that is bad how? Since your doing exactly the same.

The world is reaching a flashpoint, and most of it is our fault.
Word.
However, none of the world seems to care, so we need to intervene, so that the monster we created doesn't get out of hand.
And create new ones while your at it.

Besides, as I see it, America doesn't need to be right. It doesn't even have to be right in order for the world to get back into shape, because the US is wealthy and strong enough for many possibilities. You will see our success in about five years or so, when a democratic Iraq has a booming economy, and the effect of liberalization spreads throughout the Middle East. As another sign of progress, this same wave is making initial impacts in Africa, and even the Carribean.
Considering it's the US's fault Iraq is in this shape, and I don't just mean the last war, you better pray it does. Cause there's also a good chance you created a new Radical Islamic state. Cause Iraq is everything but stable.

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 01:18

Considering it's the US's fault Iraq is in this shape, and I don't just mean the last war, you better pray it does. Cause there's also a good chance you created a new Radical Islamic state. Cause Iraq is everything but stable.
At the moment, yes. However, it shows signs of stabilizing, with Iyad Allawi at the helm, and quality police offiicers at the front line. It's really a gamble for the US, I will admit that. But if we create a liberal democracy, the consequences are terrific. They will show that the cost and risk of the war were far outweighed by the benefits, or since this is in the formulative stages, the potential benefits. Do you agree with me on this?

Von Witzleben

31-07-2004, 01:25

At the moment, yes. However, it shows signs of stabilizing, with Iyad Allawi at the helm, and quality police offiicers at the front line. It's really a gamble for the US, I will admit that. But if we create a liberal democracy, the consequences are terrific. They will show that the cost and risk of the war were far outweighed by the benefits, or since this is in the formulative stages, the potential benefits. Do you agree with me on this?
Yes. Partially. But since it was the US that helped Saddam into the saddle in the first place, and help keep him there for a long time, they shouldn't thump their chests to much. (which is impossible for Americans)
Too bad the French are the only ones so far that had the brains to pull their troops out of NATO. :(

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 01:28

Yes. Partially. But since it was the US that helped Saddam into the saddle in the first place, and help keep him there for a long time, they shouldn't thump their chests to much. (which is impossible for Americans)
Too bad the French are the only ones so far that had the brains to pull their troops out of NATO. :(
If the Europeans wish to pull out of NATO, so be it. However, there must be some form of a security arrangement to replace it, or else otherwise, Europe is militarily on its own.

Von Witzleben

31-07-2004, 01:38

If the Europeans wish to pull out of NATO, so be it. However, there must be some form of a security arrangement to replace it, or else otherwise, Europe is militarily on its own.
Thats the idea.
I want a European defense initiative without meddeling Americans. The first steps were taken with the WEU, the west european union. But that was still to close under NATO, and therefor US, control. The next steps were taken with the euro corps and now with the rapid intervention force, only after asuring the US it wouldn't mess with NATO. This force is a good start. But it needs more then the pityfull 60.000 troops it currently has. Therefor all of us need to pull out of NATO so we can focus our combined resources on this.
Plus we need to get rid of the US occupation forces.

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 01:39

Thats the idea.
I want a European defense initiative without meddeling Americans. The first steps were taken with the WEU, the west european union. But that was still to close under NATO, and therefor US, control. The next steps were taken with the euro corps and now with the rapid intervention force, only after asuring the US it wouldn't mess with NATO. This force is a good start. But it needs more then the pityfull 60.000 troops it currently has. Therefor all of us need to pull out of NATO so we can focus our combined resources on this.
Plus we need to get rid of the US occupation forces.
And what makes you think the US has such tight control over Europe?

Custodes Rana

31-07-2004, 01:39

Yes. Partially. But since it was the US that helped Saddam into the saddle in the first place, and help keep him there for a long time.........

I'd like to see your proof of how the US put "Saddam in the saddle".

From YOUR wikipedia.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Rise_in_the_Ba.27ath_party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein#Consolidation_of_power
No mention of the US.....

The US helped keep him there for a long time?? LOL

In early 1979, Iraq built the first factory to produce insecticides with the help of Italian engineers. The factory was built in the region of Akashat at a cost of $50 million. A security system was also built to protect the factory that cost another $60 million. The building of this factory experienced many problems, such as espionage attempts by the Mosad, the Israeli intelligence service. The western companies that dealt with the defunct regime -- for instance Australian and Dutch firms -- exported a lot of materials related to this field of production. For instance, the Dutch firm KBS sold Iraq large quantities of Thiodilyco (name as transliterated), a material that is essential in the production of mustard gas, at a cost of 1.5 million Marks. Multinational Italian firms also supplied Iraq with 60 tons of Oxycklorure (name as transliterated), a phosphoric material that is also used in chemical industries that can be put to dual-use. As for the French companies, they exported to Iraq large quantities of a gas (not further identified) that can be used in warfare. This gas was exported across the borders from Italy and Turkey. This transaction was concluded through the mediation of the German Company Karl Kolb. A confidential report issued on 21 August 1990 by Helmut Hossman (name as transliterated), the Economy Minister of then West Germany, confirmed that the German companies had the lion's share in these transactions. The report said that since 1983, West German companies have exported to Iraq huge quantities of raw materials, equipment, and small industrial factories to produce poison gases. The report also said that these companies participated directly in building the Sa'd Project, the Iraqi chemical project, and the construction of the military complex in Al-Taji.

The German Company Karl Kolb that is specialized in equipping chemical laboratories played a crucial role in supplying the defunct regime over the past 30 years with toxic chemical materials through a middleman who helped Dr Amir al-Sa'di. Al-Sa'di prepared for his doctorate in chemistry in this institution and married a German woman. He worked in the Iraqi chemical project and was in charge of coordinating the defunct regime's transactions and requirements with the management of the Karl Kolb company. In October 1985, the operations of this company ceased by order of the German judiciary after it sold Iraq two electronic systems that test toxic gas inhalation levels. These are used in closed gas chambers where they measure toxic gas reactions with biological tissues. They also measure the level of their effect on animals, such as dogs, donkeys, and mules as well as humans. These gases were tested on prisoners that opposed the Iraqi regime.

France sold/built a nuclear reactor for the Iraqi's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osiraq

Iraq built the Osiraq 40 megawatt light-water nuclear reactor at the Al Tuwaitha Nuclear Center near Baghdad with French assistance. Approximately 27.5 pounds of 93% U-235 was supplied to Iraq by France for use in the Osiraq research reactor.

And I wonder just WHO sold Iraq those Migs, Mirages, T-72s, AK-47s......

Von Witzleben

31-07-2004, 01:46

And what makes you think the US has such tight control over Europe?
We are beeing swamped with American "culture". You can't go anywhere and there isn't a Mc Donlads. You can't turn on any music channel without seeing P-Diddy, 90 cents&co bitch and ho their way across the screen. Turn on any channel and your bound to run into American movies and series. Our "leaders" had to assure washington that the new army wouldn't influence our commitment to NATO. The US can't go to war without most of their lapdogs jump up to chip in. (even Germany would have if it wasn't during an election)

Siljhouettes

31-07-2004, 01:49

As another sign of progress, this same wave is making initial impacts in Africa, and even the Carribean.
The Carribean? Are you talking about the recent coup and subsequent installation of a military dictatorship in Haiti? Do you know that the US gov't is doing everything it can to prop up this dictatorship?

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 01:51

We are beeing swamped with American "culture". You can't go anywhere and there isn't a Mc Donlads. You can't turn on any music channel without seeing P-Diddy, 90 cents&co bitch and ho their way across the screen. Turn on any channel and your bound to run into American movies and series. Our "leaders" had to assure washington that the new army wouldn't influence our commitment to NATO. The US can't go to war without most of their lapdogs jump up to chip in. (even Germany would have if it wasn't during an election)
Culture is something completely different. Do we have a significant troop presence in China? If so, why are the Chinese embracing what you're describing?
By using this reasoning, you hardly answered my question. My question was why is NATO a.) US controlled, and b.) controlling of Europe? Many nations in NATO didn't support Iraq, nor our plan to redeploy from Germany to Hungary and Romania. In fact, they showed only nominal support for either Iraq or Afghanistan at the Istanbul summit, far less than what the US would want. An occupation would emply that Europe does exactly what we want, all the time. Politically and militarily speaking, how does NATO do that?

Custodes Rana

31-07-2004, 01:53

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 01:54

The Carribean? Are you talking about the recent coup and subsequent installation of a military dictatorship in Haiti? Do you know that the US gov't is doing everything it can to prop up this dictatorship?
So is the UN. But from my understanding, Aristide should've left. He was extremely corrupt, inefficient, and undemocratic. The only reason he was restored by the UN in 1994 was because he was better than the juanta.
I suspect this new government will slip into chaos a few years down the road, and the UN will have to bail them out again. The best thing for them would be a foreign power, prefferably industrialized, to manage their finances, and build from the ground up their institutions. They do, after all, have a future in sugar and spice farming.

Von Witzleben

31-07-2004, 01:56

I'd like to see your proof of how the US put "Saddam in the saddle".
http://bushflash.com/thanks.html

Von Witzleben

31-07-2004, 01:57

Yeah, but do they have a McDonald's there, and can they get MTV??
sarcasm
:rolleyes: I wasn't talking bout the Carribean. :rolleyes:

Von Witzleben

31-07-2004, 02:05

Culture is something completely different. Do we have a significant troop presence in China? If so, why are the Chinese embracing what you're describing?
Cause after decades of communism it's a welcome change. Then again,
there were also many Chinese who chuckled when a couple of planes crashed into a few buildings. Shortly after 9/11 a German reporter team was in China and asked mainly students and people from the middle class what they thought of this. Most of the ones that were asked thought the US had it coming.

By using this reasoning, you hardly answered my question. My question was why is NATO a.) US controlled, and b.) controlling of Europe?
Would NATO do anything without US permission? No.
Like I already mentioned, Washington only gave their permission on the EU army after reassurence that it won't compromise NATO.

An occupation would emply that Europe does exactly what we want, all the time.
It's not an official occupation. But if needed their troops are inplace.

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 02:19

Cause after decades of communism it's a welcome change. Then again,
there were also many Chinese who chuckled when a couple of planes crashed into a few buildings. Shortly after 9/11 a German reporter team was in China and asked mainly students and people from the middle class what they thought of this. Most of the ones that were asked thought the US had it coming.
The Chinese have always had a love-hate relationship with the US. They love our money and our culture, but they hate our politics and people (the stereotype in Asia is that Americans are lazy). Besides, the opening of a McDonald's in Shanghai was preceded by nearly a decade of market policies.

Would NATO do anything without US permission? No.
Like I already mentioned, Washington only gave their permission on the EU army after reassurence that it won't compromise NATO.
NATO is not the all incompassing umbrella, as you like to think. The UK acted unilaterally during the Falkland Island War. That being said, NATO has rarely gone through an operation without US support simply because the US hasn't turned down the chance to cooperate with NATO. Besides, what would NATO do if the US weren't a member?

It's not an official occupation. But if needed their troops are inplace.[/QUOTE]

Von Witzleben

31-07-2004, 02:22

Besides, what would NATO do if the US weren't a member?
The thing I want. Cease to exist.

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 02:27

The thing I want. Cease to exist.
With the exception of Canada and Iceland, however, NATO is made mostly of European countries. What type of operations would they carry out if the US, Canada, and Iceland withdrew from NATO?

Von Witzleben

31-07-2004, 02:36

With the exception of Canada and Iceland, however, NATO is made mostly of European countries. What type of operations would they carry out if the US, Canada, and Iceland withdrew from NATO?
The defence of Europe. (since Iceland doesn't have an army that wouldn't be such a tragic lost.)

Custodes Rana

31-07-2004, 02:37

http://bushflash.com/thanks.html

Wow. An anti-Bush site that spews half-truths and lies......

It would have looked more original if they hadn't included the current war, that just shows their personal hatred of Bush. Try again.

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 02:38

The defence of Europe. (since Iceland doesn't have an army that wouldn't be such a tragic lost.)
And NATO doesn't fullfill that role?

Custodes Rana

31-07-2004, 02:40

Von Witzleben

31-07-2004, 02:41

And NATO doesn't fullfill that role?
But sadly the US is in it.

Roach-Busters

31-07-2004, 02:50

I haven't seen this think-tank mentioned at all on these forums. This is surprising since they have shaped US foreign policy for 4 years.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

These people are a group of neo-conservatives who believe in a, well frankly imperialistic US foreign policy. They set up in 1997. They have a great influence over the current administration. See their Satement of Principles.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Look at the signatories after you read it.

I particularly think that Bush supporters who believe that the Iraq war was part of the war on terror should read it. PNAC has always wanted a US invasion of Iraq. On 26th January 1998 they sent a letter to Bill Clinton with this request.

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

see also the Iraq section of

http://www.newamericancentury.org/Bushletter.htm

Now for my opinion. It is sinister that the people in the administration had a plan of this kind before they got into power, before the 9/11 attacks.

Of course, the main think-tank behind our foreign policy is the Council on Foreign Relations. I'll give a list of some of its members over the years:

President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, President Nixon, President Ford, President Carter, the first President Bush, President Clinton; Presidential nominees Tom Dewey, Adlai Stevenson, Hubert Humphrey, George McGovern, Walter Mondale, John Kerry

Almost every Secretary of State we've had since the 50's has been a member: George Marshall, Dean Acheson, John Foster Dulles, Dean Rusk, Henry Kissinger, Cyrus Vance, George Schulz, Warren Christopher, Madalaine Albright (I probably spelled her first name wrong), Collin Powell, among others

Candidates Joe Lieberman, Richard Gephardt, and Wesley Clark all are members

Newt Gingrich, William F. Buckley, Tom Brokaw, Dan Rather, Jim Lehrer, Barbara Walters, Jesse Jackson, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the president of ACLU, Disney CEO Michael Eisner, Robert McNamara, Caspar Weinberger, Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Condoleeza Rice, Alan Greenspan, EVERY CIA DIRECTOR WE HAVE EVER HAD, C. Douglas Dillon, John McCloy, McGeorge Bundy, William Bundy, Henry Cabot Lodge Jr., W. Averell Harriman, George Frost Kennan, Alger Hiss, William Westmoreland, Andrew Goodpaster, Lyman Lemnitzer, Maxwell Taylor, John McCain, Donald Rumsfeld (former member), Sol Linowitz, Winston Lord, Elliott Richardson, Melvin Laird, the CEOs and presidents of many big-name companies, dozens of journalists from virtually every major newspaper, Mort Halperin, Anthony Lake, Strobe Talbott, Ellsworth Bunker, David Rockefeller, Nelson Rockefeller, Matthew B. Ridgway, etc.

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 02:54

But sadly the US is in it.
You are dodging me. You are saying that the US is holding Europe on a short leash, but you're saying little of what it'd do differently. You did say it'd defend Europe, but NATO has that role. In fact, it is at the core of NATO's existence.

Von Witzleben

31-07-2004, 03:01

You are dodging me. You are saying that the US is holding Europe on a short leash, but you're saying little of what it'd do differently. You did say it'd defend Europe, but NATO has that role. In fact, it is at the core of NATO's existence.
I'm not dodging you. I already said I want a purley European defense initiative. Without any ties to the US. Alright, maybe I didn't say it this clearly. But I thought that was obviouse. NATO needs to be dissolved as it has close ties to the US. The US is dominating NATO. Therefor the EU needs to cut it's ties with this organisation and focus it's resources on the creation of a new defence initiative which purpose would be to defend the EU and it's citizens. And not the US. Clear?

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 03:02

I'm not dodging you. I already said I want a purley European defense initiative. Without any ties to the US. Alright, maybe I didn't say it this clearly. But I thought that was obviouse. NATO needs to be dissolved as it has close ties to the US. The US is dominating NATO. Therefor the EU needs to cut it's ties with this organisation and focus it's resources on the creation of a new defence initiative which purpose would be to defend the EU and it's citizens. And not the US. Clear?
Yes, it is clear. So you're saying that NATO is putting too much emphasis on defending America. If the answer is yes, then how is it doing that?

Von Witzleben

31-07-2004, 03:08

Yes, it is clear. So you're saying that NATO is putting too much emphasis on defending America. If the answer is yes, then how is it doing that?
Didn't I already mention the new EU army? For which we needed to assure the US it wouldn't affect NATO?

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 03:12

Didn't I already mention the new EU army? For which we needed to assure the US it wouldn't affect NATO?
Ok, we'll pursue this point. How does an EU army threaten NATO?

Stephistan

31-07-2004, 03:17

With the exception of Canada and Iceland, however, NATO is made mostly of European countries. What type of operations would they carry out if the US, Canada, and Iceland withdrew from NATO?

You're clearly under some sort of delusion if you think Canada will leave NATO or our friends in Europe. It's just not going to happen.

Von Witzleben

31-07-2004, 03:17

Ok, we'll pursue this point. How does an EU army threaten NATO?
For the specifics you'll need to ask Rumsfeld or Bush. But my assumption is that they feared that the EU NATO members would be not so willing with an army of their own to follow the US. Or grant them the use of their airspace and bases in the respective countries. Or perhaps they fear a competitor on the stage of super power in the future? Since a strong EU army would give the union a stronger diplomatic stance. (Diplomacy without power is like an orchestra without notes - Frederick II the Great) I dunno.

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 03:19

You're clearly under some sort of delusion if you think Canada will leave NATO or our friends in Europe. It's just not going to happen.
I'm not. I'm just saying that Canada, the US, and Iceland are the only three NATO members that aren't European. They'd all need to leave if NATO were to truely be a European organization.

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 03:22

For the specifics you'll need to ask Rumsfeld or Bush. But my assumption is that they feared that the EU NATO members would be not so willing with an army of their own to follow the US. Or grant them the use of their airspace and bases in the respective countries. Or perhaps they fear a competitor on the stage of super power in the future? Since a strong EU army would give the union a stronger diplomatic stance. (Diplomacy without power is like an orchestra without notes - Frederick II the Great) I dunno.
It wouldn't have mattered about diplomatic power. As it is, Europe is pretty strong, but the strenght is in individual nations. In the mean time, since we have boiled the issue down to a pulp, I feel that I can ask this question again, and feel you can give me a good answer. Why is it in Europe's best interests that the US withdraws from NATO?

Von Witzleben

31-07-2004, 03:25

It wouldn't have mattered about diplomatic power. As it is, Europe is pretty strong, but the strenght is in individual nations. In the mean time, since we have boiled the issue down to a pulp, I feel that I can ask this question again, and feel you can give me a good answer. Why is it in Europe's best interests that the US withdraws from NATO?

So the EU can have a foreign policy of it's own without having to consider US interests.

And yeah. It's in individual nations. Which the US exploits. Like in the Iraq war. Divide and rule.
And Iceland, geographical, is European btw.

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 03:28

So the EU can have a foreign policy of it's own without having to consider US interests.
Thank you. We've gotten back to the heart of the issue. Now let's start debating on the issue.
Could you tell me a recent example of NATO, and not just individual nations, are a tool of US foreign policy?

Von Witzleben

31-07-2004, 03:39

Thank you. We've gotten back to the heart of the issue. Now let's start debating on the issue.
Could you tell me a recent example of NATO, and not just individual nations, are a tool of US foreign policy?
Preventing the EU of getting to independend from the US is also in the best interest of their foreign policy. Using NATO to keep the EU divided, like on the Iraq matter does. Chancellor Schroeder, despite him claiming neutrality, granted the US overflight rights and the use of German bases to transport troops and equipment. And why? Cause it was their duty as a NATO member. He said this on 27. 11. 2002 during a press conference.

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 03:44

Preventing the EU of getting to independend from the US is also in the best interest of their foreign policy. Using NATO to keep the EU divided, like on the Iraq matter does. Chancellor Schroeder, despite him claiming neutrality, granted the US overflight rights and the use of German bases to transport troops and equipment. And why? Cause it was their duty as a NATO member. He said this on 27. 11. 2002 during a press conference.
The EU was also split on the Iraq issue. BTW, allowing the US to use German air space was because of a US presence in Germany. That's pretty much gone, and it's unlikely that the US will ask for German airspace again (except maybe for Medivac flights). But you're saying that NATO divides, and the EU unites? If yes, then how?

Von Witzleben

31-07-2004, 03:53

BTW, allowing the US to use German air space was because of a US presence in Germany.
Presence or no presence. Before that Schroeder said Germany would under no circumstance participate in a war against Iraq. UN mandate or not. Yet then he did participate even if it was just in a passive way.

But you're saying that NATO divides, and the EU unites? If yes, then how?
It doesn't unite much yet. But it will in time.

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 03:56

Presence or no presence. Before that Schroeder said Germany would under no circumstance participate in a war against Iraq. UN mandate or not. Yet then he did participate even if it was just in a passive way.

It doesn't unite yet. But it will in time.
I'm going to sleep now, so don't expect me to reply until sometime tommarow. However, I have to ask what the basis is that you believe that the EU will unite.

Von Witzleben

31-07-2004, 04:08

I'm going to sleep now, so don't expect me to reply until sometime tommarow. However, I have to ask what the basis is that you believe that the EU will unite.
The United States of America.

Siljhouettes

31-07-2004, 18:14

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 18:37

The United States of America.
Why so?

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 18:38

You don't call Iceland a European country?
No, as they aren't affiliated much with Europe outside of NATO. Most importantly, they aren't even applying for EU membership. However, since they are far detached from the European continent, that's another reason why.

Revolutionsz

31-07-2004, 18:44

No one in the world wants our experiment in Iraq to fail.Purly Blind

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 18:48

Purly Blind
Well, okay. Maybe the Iranians and al-Qaeda.

Revolutionsz

31-07-2004, 18:51

Well, okay. Maybe the Iranians and al-Qaeda.and me.

Revolutionsz

31-07-2004, 19:00

and me.
and most of the World's population

Von Witzleben

31-07-2004, 19:38

Why so?
As a defense to counter the dangers of Americanisation of our countries.

Gigatron

31-07-2004, 19:44

As a defense to counter the dangers of Americanisation of our countries.
Exactly. I want the US to stick to their own continent, leave the EU alone in diplomatic issues, have Germany withdraw from NATO, have EU united with or without UK - though with would be better, but unfortunately being a US lapdog, this might be counterproductive for the EU. The EU is required to act as a balance to US domination attempts in the world. See the PNAC website why the EU needs to be at least as strong as the US.

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 20:02

As a defense to counter the dangers of Americanisation of our countries.
Good. We have satisfactorily answered why you dislike NATO, or at least, Gigatron has.
Now that we are done with this circular line of questioning, I'll need to ask you another line of questions. Why is it necessary for the world to have a counterweight to the US?

Von Witzleben

31-07-2004, 20:05

Good. We have satisfactorily answered why you dislike NATO, or at least, Gigatron has.
Now that we are done with this circular line of questioning, I'll need to ask you another line of questions. Why is it necessary for the world to have a counterweight to the US?
A single superpower who can pretty much do as it likes, and does so, without a counterweight? Who pushes it's culture and principles on everyone? Your kidding right?

Von Witzleben

31-07-2004, 20:06

Exactly. I want the US to stick to their own continent, leave the EU alone in diplomatic issues, have Germany withdraw from NATO, have EU united with or without UK - though with would be better, but unfortunately being a US lapdog, this might be counterproductive for the EU. The EU is required to act as a balance to US domination attempts in the world. See the PNAC website why the EU needs to be at least as strong as the US.
Amen.

Gigatron

31-07-2004, 20:07

Good. We have satisfactorily answered why you dislike NATO, or at least, Gigatron has.
Now that we are done with this circular line of questioning, I'll need to ask you another line of questions. Why is it necessary for the world to have a counterweight to the US?
Because no country would want its culture and language, history and traditions, its people and ideals, be "incorporated" into the huge US empire the world would become if the US were allowed to act unbalanced.

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 20:12

A single superpower who can pretty much do as it likes, and does so, without a counterweight? Who pushes it's culture and principles on everyone? Your kidding right?
No. It is a difference of opinion. I see the world best off as unipolar. I'm not as naive to think the US will be around forever, but if that does happen, China would be a likely replacement. I oppose a bipolar world, especially one where the two key powers oppose eachother, as you're suggesting the EU should do. This creates far more violence than in a unipolar world, as we've seen during the Cold War. The world was a battlefield not just between the two superpowers, but between every ideaology out there. If the EU, or even China, gains superpower status while the US is still one, the world would be far worse than it is today.

Von Witzleben

31-07-2004, 20:20

Because no country would want its culture and language, history and traditions, its people and ideals, be "incorporated" into the huge US empire the world would become if the US were allowed to act unbalanced.
And again I say, Amen!!!! :)

Gigatron

31-07-2004, 20:26

No. It is a difference of opinion. I see the world best off as unipolar. I'm not as naive to think the US will be around forever, but if that does happen, China would be a likely replacement. I oppose a bipolar world, especially one where the two key powers oppose eachother, as you're suggesting the EU should do. This creates far more violence than in a unipolar world, as we've seen during the Cold War. The world was a battlefield not just between the two superpowers, but between every ideaology out there. If the EU, or even China, gains superpower status while the US is still one, the world would be far worse than it is today.
Your claim is purely speculative. The EU is not a militaristic power. We value cultural diversity and we gain strength from the different people the EU is made of. While that is also reason for friction occassionally, the numerous viewpoints of the people in the EU make for good balanced decisions when it counts. Unfortunately much of the EU is run by the same bureaucrats and paperpushers who made the US what it is, a corporate state leaning towards imperialistic domination. We need to streamline that and give more power back to the people.

If China were the only superpower and acted like the US, we'd oppose that as much as we oppose the US today. Today however, China is rather moderate, not flaunting their superpower status, doing their own thing and generally doing not much to destablize the world, whereas the US has its dirty, greedy and slimy little fingers in every and each political disaster in the world.

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 20:32

Your claim is purely speculative. The EU is not a militaristic power. We value cultural diversity and we gain strength from the different people the EU is made of. While that is also reason for friction occassionally, the numerous viewpoints of the people in the EU make for good balanced decisions when it counts. Unfortunately much of the EU is run by the same bureaucrats and paperpushers who made the US what it is, a corporate state leaning towards imperialistic domination. We need to streamline that and give more power back to the people.

If China were the only superpower and acted like the US, we'd oppose that as much as we oppose the US today. Today however, China is rather moderate, not flaunting their superpower status, doing their own thing and generally doing not much to destablize the world, whereas the US has its dirty, greedy and slimy little fingers in every and each political disaster in the world.
It doesn't matter if the EU is a militaristic power or not. During the Cold War, the US was largely a financial power, which won us allies around the globe when the Soviets couldn't. I'm not saying that was right or wrong (though I'd personally say it backfired), but it shows that money has power, and the EU has it. Valuing cultural diversity only increases the violence in a bipolar world, as it brings more nations to your side. However, the US is also pretty diverse. That means that when two cosmopolitan powers fight eachother, we both have allies, and proxy wars for domination would spring throughout the world. As in the Cold War, there'd be no real winner in such a local conflict, because there'd always be some wackjob militia that'll try forcefull change.

Gigatron

31-07-2004, 20:34

It doesn't matter if the EU is a militaristic power or not. During the Cold War, the US was largely a financial power, which won us allies around the globe when the Soviets couldn't. I'm not saying that was right or wrong (though I'd personally say it backfired), but it shows that money has power, and the EU has it. Valuing cultural diversity only increases the violence in a bipolar world, as it brings more nations to your side. However, the US is also pretty diverse. That means that when two cosmopolitan powers fight eachother, we both have allies, and proxy wars for domination would spring throughout the world. As in the Cold War, there'd be no real winner in such a local conflict, because there'd always be some wackjob militia that'll try forcefull change.
The EU doesnt want to gain anything. The EU wants to keep the status quo in Europe. Unlike the US, who openly and aggressively practice imperialistic foreign policy, including illegal wars to dominate sovereign nations. I am just glad that the US/France/UK/USSR didnt erradicate Germany after WW2, because I'd not have the chance to oppose the US today, if that had happened. Thanks :)

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 20:35

The EU doesnt want to gain anything. The EU wants to keep the status quo in Europe. Unlike the US, who openly and aggressively practice imperialistic foreign policy, including illegal wars to dominate sovereign nations. I am just glad that the US/France/UK/USSR didnt erradicate Germany after WW2, because I'd not have the chance to oppose the US today, if that had happened. Thanks :)
If the EU simply wants to keep the status quo in Europe, how does it act as a counterweight?

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 20:50

bump

Von Witzleben

31-07-2004, 20:57

The EU doesnt want to gain anything. The EU wants to keep the status quo in Europe. Unlike the US, who openly and aggressively practice imperialistic foreign policy, including illegal wars to dominate sovereign nations. I am just glad that the US/France/UK/USSR didnt erradicate Germany after WW2, because I'd not have the chance to oppose the US today, if that had happened. Thanks :)
Well, they did give it a try at the Rheinwiesenlager.

Gigatron

31-07-2004, 21:05

If the EU simply wants to keep the status quo in Europe, how does it act as a counterweight?
If the US cannot get hold of Europe in its quest to become the sole hegemony of the world, it is a victory for the people of Europe. The more the US press their culture and economics on the world, the more I and others iwll reject it. May the people of the US go to Mc Donalds and eat until they burst in a big splattering of fat, it will incapacitate them from causing more harm than they already do.

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 21:06

If the US cannot get hold of Europe in its quest to become the sole hegemony of the world, it is a victory for the people of Europe. The more the US press their culture and economics on the world, the more I and others iwll reject it. May the people of the US go to Mc Donalds and eat until they burst in a big splattering of fat, it will incapacitate them from causing more harm than they already do.
So you're saying that the only reason the EU exists is to make sure that US influence in Europe is curtailed? Am I correct? If so, is this a global counterweight?

Gigatron

31-07-2004, 21:32

So you're saying that the only reason the EU exists is to make sure that US influence in Europe is curtailed? Am I correct? If so, is this a global counterweight?
The main reason of the EU is to prevent wars of the scale of WW1 and 2 to ever happen again in Europe. We've had enough bloodshed and suffering of our people here (thanks by the way for the mass bombings of German cities during WW2, great deeds indeed). That the EU is strong enough to be a counterbalance to the US in the west, is a good side effect. After all, someone needs to be the voice of reason if the US thinks arrogance and military are all that is needed to rule the world.

Purly Euclid

31-07-2004, 21:34

The main reason of the EU is to prevent wars of the scale of WW1 and 2 to ever happen again in Europe. We've had enough bloodshed and suffering of our people here (thanks by the way for the mass bombings of German cities during WW2, great deeds indeed). That the EU is strong enough to be a counterbalance to the US in the west, is a good side effect. After all, someone needs to be the voice of reason if the US thinks arrogance and military are all that is needed to rule the world.
You're dodging my question. How will the EU be a global counterweight, and not just a regional counterweight?

Kybernetia

31-07-2004, 21:38

Purly Euclid,

The EU (Former EC, before EEC) founded in 1957 in Rome by France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Luxemburg and Germany (6 countries) which grew to 25 since them was to promote cooperation between the countries which fought wars against each other shortly before. It´s aim was not only to establish a free market between them but to enshure controll and cooperation (like in the coal and stell industry). It was even considered to establish a common army. That by the way failed on France.
The foundation of the EEC was only possible due to the US and their protection of Western Europe from the USSR.

For France however it was pretty soon also an instrument of its foreign policy ambitions. And that was not to become junior partner of the US like pretty but remain a great power itself. Since that wasn´t possible on its own (due to the fact that France like Britain losts its colonies) the EEC was seen as an instrument to create in the long-run a power which ought to be able to negotiate with both super powers.
France also moved out of the military integration of Nato (without leaving it though) in order to underline this ambition.
Also the reconciliation with Germany and the Elysee-treaty (from the French perspective) followed that idea.
For Germany in contrast the EC was an instrument to reintegrate itself into the international community, to develop its economy and so forth. The partnership with France ended a rivalry which went on since almost 200 years (Napoleonic times).
However Germany was concerned that the partnership with France undermines Nato. Therefore the Elysee treaty states that it is secondary to Nato.

German foreign policy since them more or less stands between the US and France. In the defense policy the main partner was the US, in EC matters France.
After the end of the Cold War the complete dependancy of Germans security on the US has gone.

That even made such a policy possible that Schröder unwisely did.
Instead of keeping a balanced policy he sided completly with France.

The result is clear: Europe divided, the transatlantic relationship in its deepest crisis and continuing divisions in Europe and between european countries and the US. That is also a result of the wrong foreign policy of Germany which instead of trying to build a bridge between France and the US/Britain decided to side completly with France.

The concept of an anti-american Europe has failed. 13 states supported the US operation and only 4 openly and strongly opposed it.

The conclusion is very clear: the EU can only unite if it stand united with the US. European cooperation and transatlantic cooperation a two sides of one coin and depend on each other (as Adenauer already understood when he rejected disputes between the "Transatlantics" (favor for the US) and the "Gaullists" (supporters for a close alliance with France) who claimed that one needs to choose. We need both)..

Kybernetia

31-07-2004, 21:51

The EU doesnt want to gain anything. The EU wants to keep the status quo in Europe.

You are contradicting yourself. If you follow the French conception of an Europe as a counterweight to the US it means you want to change the status quo.
By the way: do I need to remember you that the EU has enlarged for ten members this year.
So the EU is changing and growing and it is going to continue to enlarge.
But that of course means a change of the status quo.

By the way: is the status quo that wonderful????
Just look to the reality of the balcans. The situation is still volatil and many issues are unresolved. Doing nothing there and remaining the status quo is going to cause more wars.
As a matter of fact: if the US wouldn´t stepped in the balcan would today be dominated by Milosevic and Serbian supremacy.
And the conflicts and the killing wouldn´t stopped.

Well, but lets ignore that the European powers were completly uncapable of stopping this events on their on continent and that the US stabilized this region and by doing so the whole of Europe.

Lets just blame the US for everything that goes wrong in the world.

Gigatron

31-07-2004, 21:54

Gigatron

31-07-2004, 21:58

You are contradicting yourself. If you follow the French conception of an Europe as a counterweight to the US it means you want to change the status quo.
By the way: do I need to remember you that the EU has enlarged for ten members this year.
So the EU is changing and growing and it is going to continue to enlarge.
But that of course means a change of the status quo.

By the way: is the status quo that wonderful????
Just look to the reality of the balcans. The situation is still volatil and many issues are unresolved. Doing nothing there and remaining the status quo is going to cause more wars.
As a matter of fact: if the US wouldn´t stepped in the balcan would today be dominated by Milosevic and Serbian supremacy.
And the conflicts and the killing wouldn´t stopped.

Well, but lets ignore that the European powers were completly uncapable of stopping this events on their on continent and that the US stabilized this region and by doing so the whole of Europe.

Lets just blame the US for everything that goes wrong in the world.
I'll not blame the US for *everything* that goes wrong in the world, but for a whole lot of things. Besides this, the EU can only be a counter balance to the US world domination plans, if it grows to a respectable economic and military size. This means that inevitably, we will need a European army and no matter what the US say, we are going to have it.

The status quo right now is, that the US do not attack Europe because we are not a threat. If we want to keep it like this, we need to adapt and grow in size, to keep the US from attacking us. In the future, this might increase to increasing our weapons capacities, possibly adding WMD aswell, since the US have them. This however depends on what the US does. Europe wont expand aggressively on its own, since we have no reason to do so. We wont however refuse other European nations who want to join in.

Von Witzleben

31-07-2004, 22:05

I'd rather have Germany side with France, than with the US.
Word. :cool:

Kybernetia

31-07-2004, 22:41

I'll not blame the US for *everything* that goes wrong in the world, but for a whole lot of things. Besides this, the EU can only be a counter balance to the US world domination plans, if it grows to a respectable economic and military size. This means that inevitably, we will need a European army and no matter what the US say, we are going to have it.
The status quo right now is, that the US do not attack Europe because we are not a threat. If we want to keep it like this, we need to adapt and grow in size, to keep the US from attacking us. In the future, this might increase to increasing our weapons capacities, possibly adding WMD aswell, since the US have them. This however depends on what the US does. Europe wont expand aggressively on its own, since we have no reason to do so. We wont however refuse other European nations who want to join in.

We are not a thread to the US because we are not a significant power - as you point out. But I agree with Purly Euclid here:
"That means that when two cosmopolitan powers fight eachother, we both have allies, and proxy wars for domination would spring throughout the world. As in the Cold War, there'd be no real winner in such a local conflict, because there'd always be some wackjob militia that'll try forcefull change."

What you are suggesting is something like balance of power. That is the concept by the way of 19 th century Europe (after Napoleon). Didn´t work, didn´t prevent World War I. Just think about the development.
At the end of this "balance of power"- policy Europe fall into two blocks: The medium powers (Germany, Austria-Hungaria, Osman Empire (Turkey) on the one side and France, Britain and Russia on the other.
This concept was based on divisions and didn´t work. In the begining there were five great powers (Britain, France, Prussia, Austria, Russia) who ought to balance each other and in the end two blocks.

You suggest to repeat that concept again: so two blocks like EU on the on side and a US-led block on the other. That is a dangerous concept because it increases the likelihood of conflict. It could mean a new cold or even hot war.
Instead of following this "old thinking" of balance of power which after all leads to rivalry and conflict between the great powers we should instead form a more cooperative approach.
I agree with Blair who says that Balance of power in the world of today where we face common dangers is a very dangerous idea. America is the strongest and we - Europe - should cooperate with it as a junior partner. By doing so we would decrease tensions in the world which would rise if we claim to be a counter-weight. Furthernmore: we could concentrate on our economy.
Your counter-weight ambitions are highly costly: It would mean to spend more on the military which is underfunded in our country. Germany is not ready to that. That´s a fact. And that is a difference to France which spends more (although it has a smaller population and economy).

And if you speak about "evil" imperialism: Have you thought were our energy comes from, heh????
So everybody has an interest in secure energy supplies: Europe as well as the US. So, don´t make a "moral" question out of it: our economy would collapse without it.
So I ask you: is the protection of our economy, our security and also of the energy we need for it evil????? Do we have a choice not to care about it????
Or do you want to build more Nuclear power plants like France?? But even with them we need imports of oil and gas.

By the way: what do you mean with European countries??? Is Turkey one????
One thing for shure: Turkey is very important for our energy surplies since the pipelines go over there. And Russia of course: But we don´t want to become completly dependent on Russia, do we????
I guess not.
And that you are at least that honest that you admitt that being a great power means having WMD I remind you that Germany has not only signed the non-proliferation treaty but the 2 + 4 treaty in which it limits its armed forces to a number below 370.000 (which was done: the numer of today is even below 300.000 actually) and not to accuire any WMD.
So it would be a breach of international law if Germany accuires them. But of course if the US breaches it, it is evil, if we may do it it would be o.k., right????

And by way: you again blame the US for everything: How did we come to this situation of today???
It was the terrorists which attacked the US on 9/11. The biggest attack.
What did President Bush do in your view to cause that if you blame him or the US for everything???? Or the attack in 1993 on the WTC when Clinton was in office???? Or the latter attacks in Kenya??? Oh, yeah Clinton tried to intervene in the Middle East in the negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Evil Clinto, he should not involve in Middle East politics.
So I got: Clintons mistake was that he involved himself to much in the region.
What was Bushs mistake?? Did he forced Palestinians and Israelis to negotiations before 9/11?? No, he didn´t. So I got it: his mistake was not to force the two parties to talk.
Obviously the US can´t get it wright. Regardless of what it does it is wrong. You convinced me.

Now, seriously: The terrorists attacked and it was clear that the US had to react to that. If you are attacked you don´t say hit me again please either, do you?? So you strike back and you have to and you have any right to do so and to defend yourself. I´m not going to criticize the US for that.

"if Schroeder sucks in national politics, his foreign politics so far were acceptable for me."
For me it is almost the opposite. The reforms don´t go far enough but in the right direction. However they work in the long-run (2-5 years needs alone the unemployment support reform to be completly implemented).
It is unlikely that he sees the harvest of this difficult reform policy because he failed to begin it in his first term (instead he withdrew the few reforms already passed by the Kohl administration).
So: it is unlikely he can benefit from the positive results of the reforms.

Well: probably the CDU/CSU-FDP can wait till 2006 and let him continue with the difficult and unpopular reforms. They only thing which they have to be concerned about is that they show positive results earlier than it is and can be expected (2-5 years from now). Well: that´s politics.

Purly Euclid

01-08-2004, 01:09

We are not a thread to the US because we are not a significant power - as you point out. But I agree with Purly Euclid here:
"That means that when two cosmopolitan powers fight eachother, we both have allies, and proxy wars for domination would spring throughout the world. As in the Cold War, there'd be no real winner in such a local conflict, because there'd always be some wackjob militia that'll try forcefull change."

What you are suggesting is something like balance of power. That is the concept by the way of 19 th century Europe (after Napoleon). Didn´t work, didn´t prevent World War I. Just think about the development.
At the end of this "balance of power"- policy Europe fall into two blocks: The medium powers (Germany, Austria-Hungaria, Osman Empire (Turkey) on the one side and France, Britain and Russia on the other.
This concept was based on divisions and didn´t work. In the begining there were five great powers (Britain, France, Prussia, Austria, Russia) who ought to balance each other and in the end two blocks.

You suggest to repeat that concept again: so two blocks like EU on the on side and a US-led block on the other. That is a dangerous concept because it increases the likelihood of conflict. It could mean a new cold or even hot war.
Instead of following this "old thinking" of balance of power which after all leads to rivalry and conflict between the great powers we should instead form a more cooperative approach.
I agree with Blair who says that Balance of power in the world of today where we face common dangers is a very dangerous idea. America is the strongest and we - Europe - should cooperate with it as a junior partner. By doing so we would decrease tensions in the world which would rise if we claim to be a counter-weight. Furthernmore: we could concentrate on our economy.
Your counter-weight ambitions are highly costly: It would mean to spend more on the military which is underfunded in our country. Germany is not ready to that. That´s a fact. And that is a difference to France which spends more (although it has a smaller population and economy).

And if you speak about "evil" imperialism: Have you thought were our energy comes from, heh????
So everybody has an interest in secure energy supplies: Europe as well as the US. So, don´t make a "moral" question out of it: our economy would collapse without it.
So I ask you: is the protection of our economy, our security and also of the energy we need for it evil????? Do we have a choice not to care about it????
Or do you want to build more Nuclear power plants like France?? But even with them we need imports of oil and gas.

By the way: what do you mean with European countries??? Is Turkey one????
One thing for shure: Turkey is very important for our energy surplies since the pipelines go over there. And Russia of course: But we don´t want to become completly dependent on Russia, do we????
I guess not.
And that you are at least that honest that you admitt that being a great power means having WMD I remind you that Germany has not only signed the non-proliferation treaty but the 2 + 4 treaty in which it limits its armed forces to a number below 370.000 (which was done: the numer of today is even below 300.000 actually) and not to accuire any WMD.
So it would be a breach of international law if Germany accuires them. But of course if the US breaches it, it is evil, if we may do it it would be o.k., right????

And by way: you again blame the US for everything: How did we come to this situation of today???
It was the terrorists which attacked the US on 9/11. The biggest attack.
What did President Bush do in your view to cause that if you blame him or the US for everything???? Or the attack in 1993 on the WTC when Clinton was in office???? Or the latter attacks in Kenya??? Oh, yeah Clinton tried to intervene in the Middle East in the negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. Evil Clinto, he should not involve in Middle East politics.
So I got: Clintons mistake was that he involved himself to much in the region.
What was Bushs mistake?? Did he forced Palestinians and Israelis to negotiations before 9/11?? No, he didn´t. So I got it: his mistake was not to force the two parties to talk.
Obviously the US can´t get it wright. Regardless of what it does it is wrong. You convinced me.

Now, seriously: The terrorists attacked and it was clear that the US had to react to that. If you are attacked you don´t say hit me again please either, do you?? So you strike back and you have to and you have any right to do so and to defend yourself. I´m not going to criticize the US for that.

"if Schroeder sucks in national politics, his foreign politics so far were acceptable for me."
For me it is almost the opposite. The reforms don´t go far enough but in the right direction. However they work in the long-run (2-5 years needs alone the unemployment support reform to be completly implemented).
It is unlikely that he sees the harvest of this difficult reform policy because he failed to begin it in his first term (instead he withdrew the few reforms already passed by the Kohl administration).
So: it is unlikely he can benefit from the positive results of the reforms.

Well: probably the CDU/CSU-FDP can wait till 2006 and let him continue with the difficult and unpopular reforms. They only thing which they have to be concerned about is that they show positive results earlier than it is and can be expected (2-5 years from now). Well: that´s politics.
Do you live in Europe? I'm just sort of wondering, because you put it more eloquently than I did.
We've had unipolar worlds before, like the Mongols. It made the world a better place before they appeared, and since the US is in that same position, that's what I hope to accomplish. However, the world would be detrimentally impacted if a bipolar world existed. The EU, it can be argued, is as powerful today because its lead members, France, Germany, and sometimes the UK, try to undermine the US. That is counterproductive. It'd be better if they worked with us, and occaisonally disagree with us. They don't just disagree, they quarrel with us, refusing to help the US, even though, it can be argued, the US has helped Europe. If the EU becomes a true counterweight to the US, God help us all, as it'll start many proxy wars, trade wars, and rampant espionage.

Siljhouettes

01-08-2004, 01:18

No, as they aren't affiliated much with Europe outside of NATO. Most importantly, they aren't even applying for EU membership. However, since they are far detached from the European continent, that's another reason why.
I don't think lack of interest in the EU excludes a country from being in the continent. Iceland is a member of several less famous European agreements. It is also historically and culturally Scandinavian.

Purly Euclid

01-08-2004, 01:32

I don't think lack of interest in the EU excludes a country from being in the continent. Iceland is a member of several less famous European agreements. It is also historically and culturally Scandinavian.
Perhaps one day, they will be a member of the European Union. But I don't see them as being European. Culturally, the US and Canada are largely European, too.
Anyhow, despite what the Icelandic people may want, Iceland is more politically dependent on the US now than it is on a European nation. For one, Iceland has no standing military, so they rely on US forces stationed there to provide their security.

Siljhouettes

01-08-2004, 01:32

Von Witzleben

01-08-2004, 01:59

Von Witziberg
Try to type my name right, ok?

Purly Euclid

01-08-2004, 02:02

The EU is an ally of the US, and always should be. It is not a new USSR.

Gigatron, Von Witziberg, you seem to hope for emnity between the EU and US. I think that Gigatron's praise of China is unwise. China is the world's #1 Corporate Police State. It has fingers in several places, we just don't hear about it so much. China abuses and persecutes its people far more than America does.

I also disagree with Purly Euclid's idea of a unipolar world. This is a bad idea for the same reason a single-party government is. Power should not go unchecked. That leads to arrogance and tyranny.
The idea of a unipolar world I've spent an entire thread arguing on, so I don't want to do it on here, and create a run on arguement. However, I'll see if I can pull up my thread on this.
And I do agree with you that the EU shouldn't be a new USSR. If it becomes a superpower that works closely with the US, the world is a better place. But from what I've seen happen in the past twenty years, most Europeans don't want cooperation of any sort. I've seen pictures of flag burning in the 1980s, and it reminds me that anti-Americanism in Europe is nothing new, and it probably won't go away, either.

Von Witzleben

01-08-2004, 02:06

anti-Americanism in Europe is nothing new, and it probably won't go away, either.
You got that right. :cool:

Purly Euclid

01-08-2004, 02:19

You got that right. :cool:
So I'm guessing that, even if we become completely isolationalist, and we became peace-loving hippies, you guys would still dislike us, right?

Purly Euclid

01-08-2004, 02:22

Von Witzleben

01-08-2004, 02:49

So I'm guessing that, even if we become completely isolationalist, and we became peace-loving hippies, you guys would still dislike us, right?
No. But since that isn't going to happen it's an irrelevant question.

Custodes Rana

01-08-2004, 03:28

Well, they did give it a try at the Rheinwiesenlager.

How many died at Rheinwiesenlager?? 5,000? 10,000?

How many were exterminated in Auschwitz? Bergen-Belsen? Buchenwald? Dachau? Treblinka?

Interesting how you can bring up past wrongs of my country, yet condescendingly brush off the wrongs done by your country......

I guess that's what happens when your hatred blinds you.

Purly Euclid

01-08-2004, 03:29

No. But since that isn't going to happen it's an irrelevant question.
One never knows. In politics, we have to be prepared for all possibilities.

Stephistan

01-08-2004, 03:42

Some more info on PNAC (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/faith/american.html)

Although the strategy was secret, details leaked out. Dame Pauline Neville Jones was a senior civil servant in the British Foreign Office at the time.

"It sent a shiver down my back. I just said to myself, no country, however powerful, can operate on the world in this way by itself and hope to have friends and ultimately succeed."

Von Witzleben

01-08-2004, 03:50

Some more info on PNAC (http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/faith/american.html)
Hmmm, 911 made Bush embrace the PNAC's global conquest scheme eh?
I wonder....

Purly Euclid

01-08-2004, 03:52

Hmmm, 911 made Bush embrace the PNAC's global conquest scheme eh?
I wonder....
You just look for more excuses for your anti Americanism, don't you?

Von Witzleben

01-08-2004, 03:53

You just look for more excuses for your anti Americanism, don't you?
I don't need more. I have plenty. But a few more never hurt.

Purly Euclid

01-08-2004, 04:09

I don't need more. I have plenty. But a few more never hurt.
Well, I'm glad most of Europe isn't filled with people like you. Otherwise, Europe would be a burden on the world. Developement in the world would have to lug Europe around like a sandfilled weight.

Stephistan

01-08-2004, 04:17

You just look for more excuses for your anti Americanism, don't you?

Actually it's true.. he was commenting on my link.. did you read it?

Purly Euclid

01-08-2004, 04:31

Actually it's true.. he was commenting on my link.. did you read it?
Yes. I'm actually composing a thread on why I don't mind, though.
Anyhow, I'm just frustrated at Von Witzberlin's statement (or at least implied statement) that the US made this happen.

Kybernetia

01-08-2004, 12:53

Do you live in Europe? I'm just sort of wondering, because you put it more eloquently than I did.
We've had unipolar worlds before, like the Mongols. It made the world a better place before they appeared, and since the US is in that same position, that's what I hope to accomplish. However, the world would be detrimentally impacted if a bipolar world existed. The EU, it can be argued, is as powerful today because its lead members, France, Germany, and sometimes the UK, try to undermine the US. That is counterproductive. It'd be better if they worked with us, and occaisonally disagree with us. They don't just disagree, they quarrel with us, refusing to help the US, even though, it can be argued, the US has helped Europe. If the EU becomes a true counterweight to the US, God help us all, as it'll start many proxy wars, trade wars, and rampant espionage.
.

Yes, I´m from Europe, from Germany actually.
And the concept of multi-polarism is actually a British concept of the 19 th century (balance of power).
In other parts of the world there were unipolar power systems, like in East Asia.
If you compare the history of Europe in - lets say the last 400 years and the one of East Asia you actually see that the latter had much less wars and was much more stable.
Europe had only in that time the devasting 30 year-war (1618-48), several wars between its great powers in the 18 th century, the revolutionary wars after the French revolution (1790s), the Napoleonic wars (several one between 1802 till 1815) and afterwards World War I and II. The concept of balance of power established by Britain in 1815 didn´t work. The balance of the five European powers (Britain, France (Which was spared in 1815 because it was needed as a counter-balance to Prussia and Austria according to the British view), Austria, Russia and Prussia) was very, very instable. At the end Europe fall apart into two blocks (bipolar): Germany, Austrian-Hungarian Empire and Turkey versus the larger Entente France, Britain and Russia.
In the 1930s finally three blocks developed: the democratic countries around the Entente (Britain and France) the nationalist and fascist countries (the axis powers around Germany and Italy) and the Soviet Union. Well: and after World War II just two blocks were left.

East Asia in comparison had a much more stable development due to the dominance of China. It was only the fall of China which led to destability in that region (colonial powers, rise of Japan). But still: much more stable than the European development.
Europe had also a time of one leading or hegemonic power: the time of the Roman Empire. That wasn´t the worst time in European history. On the conterary. It was a very stable period for the continent and a lot of todays Europe (and the US as well) is based on the Romans. The legal system in continental Europe is based on Roman law,for example.
But since that time there is more or less a system of rivalry of powers in Europe. And that lead to all European wars. A system of multi-powers is inevitably leading to war IF it is not based on COOPERATION.
The EU is - with all its weaknesses - actually an example how an order with several great powers (great on an European level - not on a world level though) can work, because it is based on cooperation.
But on a world level that doesn´t work. The European powers (Britain, France, Germany) draw the conclusion from a history of balance of power which led to desasters to form a modell of cooperation of powers between them. That isn´t acutally a "multi-polar" concept like in the 19 th century. On the conterary: It is the concept of forming one united centre to avoid that we see again Europe falling apart into several rivalring centres.
Other powers in this world haven´t done that. It is naive to assume that a despotic regimes would be reliable partners or that we could form an united centre with them around the UN for example. The UN is simply incapable to do so. Two of the permanent members of the security council (with Veto power: Russia and China) and most of its non-permanent members are authoritarian regimes or dictatorships. Therefore the UN is incapable to take any effective decisions against regional dictators who try to expand their power, repress its peoples and repress minorities and threaten regional and global stability. It can´t do that simply two of its veto powers are conducting a domestic policy which also repressed minorities and freedom. The UN is only good as a debatting society and for organising aid but not for keeping world security.
The other option would of course be to have a simple system of balance of power like in the 19 th century in Europe (without UN or with an irrelevant UN - which it actully is since it is founded anyway). That however led to the desasters in Europe. And a new bipolar or multipolar world would always inclue the danger of wars between the powers. That´s a dangerous idea.
Given the world of today the only concept is to have one leading power: the United States. It is the only one which can push for freedom and democracy and which can lead the fight against islamic terrorism and islamism which threatens freedom.
In the long-run democracy and freedom may spread more around the world and a system of cooperating powers may be possible. But that is not the situation of today. So we need not a rivalry between the US and Europe. That would only weaken us both in the face of common threads - Islamism after all ispotentially much more dangerous to Europe as the Broader Middle East is our direct neighouring regions and Europe has a growing muslim community. We need more than ever a transatlantic Europe as a partner of the US.
I actually quite agree with Blair who - in difference to British politics in the 19 th century - declared that the idea of a multi-polar world of rivaling powers and that Europe should form a counter-weight to the US (the French modell)as a dangerous idea.
13 countries in the EU have this position (including Britain). Only 4 (including France) follow France. And even that may decrease if we have a "regime change" in Germany in 2006. The chair woman of the conservative opposition Dr. Angela Merkel supported the US decision. She may become chancellor in 2006.

Texastambul

01-08-2004, 13:25

Hmmm, 911 made Bush embrace the PNAC's global conquest scheme eh?
I wonder....

Page 63 of the PNAC document titled "Rebuilding America's Defenses," published in 2000, calls for a "Pearl Harbor - type event" to push their agenda through. http://www.newamericancentury.org/publicationsreports.htm

Dragons Bay

01-08-2004, 13:35

*yawns*

let's face it, chaps. the united states of america is much weaker than it really appears. outside, it has a strong, expansionist policy backed by the most powerful military in the world, but inside, the country is riddled with numbers of serious problems. for example, how long will the government hold out with the gigantic deficit tugging at their purse?

the american 20th century is over. the 21st century will be dominated by China, just like the 6th century, the 11th century, and the 15th century...

Custodes Rana

01-08-2004, 14:34

the american 20th century is over. the 21st century will be dominated by China, just like the 6th century, the 11th century, and the 15th century...

good, the chinese have an extensive culture and better food!

Dragons Bay

01-08-2004, 14:47

good, the chinese have an extensive culture and better food!

course we do...

Urazria

01-08-2004, 15:04

Gigatron

01-08-2004, 16:10

I'd have to agree with Dragons' statement about China. The Chinese people as a whole are more willing to work extremely hard to push their economy to the dizzying heights it should reach. There seems to be a great sense of contiguity in China, which the US may at some stage come to lack. A lot of people slate the chinese writing system cos it's hard to learn, but it's the thing that held the whole country together, because of its very nature. As Michael Hestletine said, (i don't know the exact quote) the next century will not be the American century or the European century, but China's century and there is nothing that can be done about it "nor should we do so" (or something). The China/India thing is also an example of how democracy is not necessarily the way to go. India has been democratic and was in more or less the same position as China at the end of the war, but China has been arguably more successful.
I can live with China being a superpower. They have great culture and interesting food. And the only fat people in China afaik are Sumos, while the US is almost completely fat people :p

Von Witzleben is not alone with his anti-americanism. I joined him a few days ago when I read more about the US and read a lot of posts from americans on this forum and others. One can only dislike the americans as a whole with their point of view on the world and historic developments aswell as recent events in the world. I would go so far as to say that I agree with parts of Osama bin Laden's speeches - not all of it, like the faith in his god, but he has a lot of issues with the US that I am complaining about aswell.

Jeldred

01-08-2004, 16:41

I can live with China being a superpower. They have great culture and interesting food. And the only fat people in China afaik are Sumos, while the US is almost completely fat people :p

Von Witzleben is not alone with his anti-americanism. I joined him a few days ago when I read more about the US and read a lot of posts from americans on this forum and others. One can only dislike the americans as a whole with their point of view on the world and historic developments aswell as recent events in the world. I would go so far as to say that I agree with parts of Osama bin Laden's speeches - not all of it, like the faith in his god, but he has a lot of issues with the US that I am complaining about aswell.

Sumo wrestlers are Japanese. It seems Americans are not alone in being ignorant of other countries and cultures.

The vast majority of Americans, like the vast majority of people all over the world, are decent, kind and compassionate people. Tragically the world is beset by pop-eyed demagogues that do not distinguish between the actions of governments and the opinions and mores of the people they supposedly represent. If you are finding yourself in agreement with somebody who can blame each and every citizen of a nation for the actions of that nation's government and corporations, to the extend of declaring them all to be "legitimate targets", I would suggest that it's high time you re-evaluated your position.

America is no different to any other nation on earth, in that it's hard to get people anywhere to actively care about what's happening to other people thousands of miles away. It's possible that this common human tendency is exacerbated by several other factors, including:

a) the size of America. It's a continent, mostly, not a nation. China, on the same scale, has historically exhibited the same tendency to regard the rest of the planet as peripheral and of no real importance.

b) the commercial nature of America's media. Driven by raings and the desire to capture as big an audience as possible for its advertisers, American news tends to be even more parochial than, say, European networks and newspapers do -- although European networks and newspapers are pretty bloody parochial, too.

c) the enormous political, economic and military power of America. It stands head and shoulders (and probably much of the torso) above the rest of the world, and its influence is felt in practically every nation on earth. when bad things happen, there will undoubtedly be American influence there somewhere -- even if it's only the negative "why doesn't the US step in and do something?"

d) the Cold War. Since WWII America has been running a war economy. For nearly 60 years vast sums of money, and huge amounts of political power, have been channeled into the military and the military-industrial complex. They are currently locked into an aggressive militaristic stance which is ill-suited for a world without the threat of global thermonuclear war. It is to be hoped that, over time, this hyped-up paranoid posture might ease off a little -- although it has to be said that religious maniacs both at home and abroad are doing little to help in this regard.

There are no easy solutions to these problems. Those who pretend that there are -- usually involving violence and death -- are invariably dangerous lunatics and enemies of the human race.

As for China representing "the way forward", as some other posters have suggested, I would urge you to consider the history of chairman Mao's "Great Leap Forward" and the carnage of the Cultural Revolution, and reconsider.

Custodes Rana

01-08-2004, 18:50

Sumo wrestlers are Japanese. It seems Americans are not alone in being ignorant of other countries and cultures.

That is amusing....Sumo wrestlers/China....

Well, maybe China AND Japan will "take over".....excellent culture AND good food from both!!

Gigatron

01-08-2004, 21:29

"why doesn't the US step in and do something?"
You'll never hear that from me. I will say "Why doesnt the UN step in and do something?" Because they are the only valid international political power in my opinion. Imo, the US can stick themselves to Mars or somewhere outside of the solar system and I'd not give a flying rats ass. The US - if anything - have their dirty and fat greedy little fingers in way too much which does not concern them in any way. Your self-imposed "world police" role is unwelcome and unneeded. Of course you keep telling yourself that you are needed... talk yourself into more self-importance. The world does NOT want the US to unilaterally do whatever it wants. You make more terrorists and ideological enemies (like me) that way. Act if you are asked to by the world community (UN) and restraint yourself from abusing your "super power" in the world to dominate it. It will not be for the good of the US, but for the bad of the entire world and the ultimate destruction of the US.

Kybernetia

01-08-2004, 21:41

I much more prefere the US to dominate the world than Russia or China.
China may be a regional power dominating east Asia but it is not going to dominate the world.

Kybernetia

01-08-2004, 21:46

You'll never hear that from me. I will say "Why doesnt the UN step in and do something?" Because they are the only valid international political power in my opinion.
Who is the UN??? The UN is dominated by the security council and its five veto powers. Against them no action is possible. Two of its permanent members (Russia and China) are authoritarian regimes and dictatorships. You can´t expect them to push for action against dictatorships. The UN didn´t take action against Milosevic. All UN missions failed (Somalia, Bosnia, e.g.) It was Nato who succesfully stepped in under the leadership of the US.
Without the US that wouldn´t have worked. Thats a fact.
Without the US involvement the world and Europe would be a much more dangerous place.

Kybernetia

01-08-2004, 23:03

I´m rather liking to see the US bringing a new order in the dangerous Middle East which is the worlds breeding ground to terrorism than to watch the thread rising without doing anything about it.
If we Europeans have nothing to contribute to that - and that seems to be the case - we should at least shut up and letting the US doing the job.

Purly Euclid

02-08-2004, 02:30

Yes, I´m from Europe, from Germany actually.
And the concept of multi-polarism is actually a British concept of the 19 th century (balance of power).
In other parts of the world there were unipolar power systems, like in East Asia.
If you compare the history of Europe in - lets say the last 400 years and the one of East Asia you actually see that the latter had much less wars and was much more stable.
Europe had only in that time the devasting 30 year-war (1618-48), several wars between its great powers in the 18 th century, the revolutionary wars after the French revolution (1790s), the Napoleonic wars (several one between 1802 till 1815) and afterwards World War I and II. The concept of balance of power established by Britain in 1815 didn´t work. The balance of the five European powers (Britain, France (Which was spared in 1815 because it was needed as a counter-balance to Prussia and Austria according to the British view), Austria, Russia and Prussia) was very, very instable. At the end Europe fall apart into two blocks (bipolar): Germany, Austrian-Hungarian Empire and Turkey versus the larger Entente France, Britain and Russia.
In the 1930s finally three blocks developed: the democratic countries around the Entente (Britain and France) the nationalist and fascist countries (the axis powers around Germany and Italy) and the Soviet Union. Well: and after World War II just two blocks were left.
Multipolarism wasn't actually a bad thing in Europe, but that's only because of its geography. Small city states (which later became nations) were fertile for farming and excellent for trade, but were isolated from eachother. As a result, the institution of liberty got its main boost. If one town wanted to be prudish and uptight, another may welcome change. Case in point: when Constantinople fell in 1453, scholars fled to Italy. However, they scattered between the city-states, and each advanced at its own pace. Geography is also part of the reason why Protestantism stayed mostly in Germany, East Europe, and France: Spain and Italy were protected by mountains.
However, in any other part of the world, multipolarism was a disaster. Most of the world is plains, separated by huge mountain chains every so often. It was easily conquered, and the area turned unipolar sooner or later, like China, or Mongolia.

East Asia in comparison had a much more stable development due to the dominance of China. It was only the fall of China which led to destability in that region (colonial powers, rise of Japan). But still: much more stable than the European development.
Europe had also a time of one leading or hegemonic power: the time of the Roman Empire. That wasn´t the worst time in European history. On the conterary. It was a very stable period for the continent and a lot of todays Europe (and the US as well) is based on the Romans. The legal system in continental Europe is based on Roman law,for example.
But since that time there is more or less a system of rivalry of powers in Europe. And that lead to all European wars. A system of multi-powers is inevitably leading to war IF it is not based on COOPERATION.
That I agree with. But hey, which of the major powers enjoy total cooperation anymore?
The EU is - with all its weaknesses - actually an example how an order with several great powers (great on an European level - not on a world level though) can work, because it is based on cooperation.
But on a world level that doesn´t work. The European powers (Britain, France, Germany) draw the conclusion from a history of balance of power which led to desasters to form a model of cooperation of powers between them. That isn´t acutally a "multi-polar" concept like in the 19 th century. On the conterary: It is the concept of forming one united centre to avoid that we see again Europe falling apart into several rivalring centres.
Other powers in this world haven´t done that. It is naive to assume that a despotic regimes would be reliable partners or that we could form an united centre with them around the UN for example. The UN is simply incapable to do so. Two of the permanent members of the security council (with Veto power: Russia and China) and most of its non-permanent members are authoritarian regimes or dictatorships. Therefore the UN is incapable to take any effective decisions against regional dictators who try to expand their power, repress its peoples and repress minorities and threaten regional and global stability. It can´t do that simply two of its veto powers are conducting a domestic policy which also repressed minorities and freedom. The UN is only good as a debatting society and for organising aid but not for keeping world security.
I also agree with that. Today, Europe is pretty stable, and most of it is relatviely prosperous. Besides, as cultural and geographical barriers in Europe are crumbling, like it or not, it leads to unity.
The other option would of course be to have a simple system of balance of power like in the 19 th century in Europe (without UN or with an irrelevant UN - which it actully is since it is founded anyway). That however led to the desasters in Europe. And a new bipolar or multipolar world would always inclue the danger of wars between the powers. That´s a dangerous idea.
Given the world of today the only concept is to have one leading power: the United States. It is the only one which can push for freedom and democracy and which can lead the fight against islamic terrorism and islamism which threatens freedom.
In the long-run democracy and freedom may spread more around the world and a system of cooperating powers may be possible. But that is not the situation of today. So we need not a rivalry between the US and Europe. That would only weaken us both in the face of common threads - Islamism after all ispotentially much more dangerous to Europe as the Broader Middle East is our direct neighouring regions and Europe has a growing muslim community. We need more than ever a transatlantic Europe as a partner of the US.
Agree again. Like you said, cooperation would work, but that's only what the UK wants. If France gets its way in the EU (and Chirac is not a political anomily in foreign policy), then like you said, it'd be counterproductive. However, I worry that Blair is an anomily. He may want an EU that compliments the US, but does the rest of the UK? He was never liked that much, and once he leaves office, someone cozier with France may want to replace him. Then again, Britain is one of Europe's best economy, and they want to keep the pound for that reason. It's a nice hedge, until the British economy takes a downswing.
I actually quite agree with Blair who - in difference to British politics in the 19 th century - declared that the idea of a multi-polar world of rivaling powers and that Europe should form a counter-weight to the US (the French modell)as a dangerous idea.
13 countries in the EU have this position (including Britain). Only 4 (including France) follow France. And even that may decrease if we have a "regime change" in Germany in 2006. The chair woman of the conservative opposition Dr. Angela Merkel supported the US decision. She may become chancellor in 2006.
I have to admit that this is rare: an American and a European (no less a German) who have the same way of looking at the world. France would loose a tremendous ally if they "defected" in this manner. I'm guessing the other two that follow France are Belgium and Spain. I don't know about Belgium, but Spain only chose its leader thanks to al-Qaeda. It could've been the only election al-Qaeda has won. But the Spanish will get bored of this new prime minister pretty quickly, I bet. France would be diplomatically isolated. However, if they are, they may be a maverick state, much like they were in the sixties. Last time when France tried to go it alone, NATO was weakened. This time, the consequences may not be as grave, but it'd do a lot to damage the EU.

Purly Euclid

02-08-2004, 02:37

*yawns*

let's face it, chaps. the united states of america is much weaker than it really appears.
Yes, we are just like the Soviet Union. Strong military, shitty economy and political system, right?
outside, it has a strong, expansionist policy backed by the most powerful military in the world, but inside, the country is riddled with numbers of serious problems. for example, how long will the government hold out with the gigantic deficit tugging at their purse?
China experienced some of its greatest growth ever in the 1980s, no? The US deficit was 6% of the GDP. Today, it's 3.8%, and arguably, China is now on the verge of a big recession. This century will be yours, but I'd say it's at least thirty years down the road. And the US will still be a pretty big player, even if China is more powerful.

Purly Euclid

02-08-2004, 02:41

I'd have to agree with Dragons' statement about China. The Chinese people as a whole are more willing to work extremely hard to push their economy to the dizzying heights it should reach. There seems to be a great sense of contiguity in China, which the US may at some stage come to lack. A lot of people slate the chinese writing system cos it's hard to learn, but it's the thing that held the whole country together, because of its very nature. As Michael Hestletine said, (i don't know the exact quote) the next century will not be the American century or the European century, but China's century and there is nothing that can be done about it "nor should we do so" (or something). The China/India thing is also an example of how democracy is not necessarily the way to go. India has been democratic and was in more or less the same position as China at the end of the war, but China has been arguably more successful.
I just want to say that, while you're probably right, I think you're falling on the stereotype that many in Asia have had on the US: we are a lazy people. We're not. We do have too many lazy people, but if everyone was lazy, how are we the most powerful nation in the world today? On the contrary, we're a nation of workaholics, where Americans toil longer than any industrialized country on earth (with the exception of maybe Kuwait and Japan).

Von Witzleben

02-08-2004, 02:50

Geography is also part of the reason why Protestantism stayed mostly in Germany, East Europe, and France: Spain and Italy were protected by mountains.

Skandinavia is mostly protestant. Most of South Germany is Catholic. And where in Eastern Europe are they mostly Protestant? Poland is mostly Catholic. Romania is mostly Orthodox. Croatia is mostly Catholic. And France had a pretty large numbers of Protestants. The Hugenotts. But they were driven out during the Hugenot wars and fled to Germany(namely Brandenburg), the Americas etc..leaving France mostly Catholic.

Purly Euclid

02-08-2004, 02:55

Skandinavia is mostly protestant. Most of South Germany is Catholic. And where in Eastern Europe are they mostly Protestant? Poland is mostly Catholic. Romania is mostly Orthodox. Croatia is mostly Catholic. And France had a pretty large numbers of Protestants. The Hugenotts. But they were driven out during the Hugenot wars and fled to Germany(namely Brandenburg), the Americas etc..leaving France mostly Catholic.
Of course they were driven out, but they came. They didn't need a war in Spain to drive them out. All they needed to do was have an Inquisition for the few that got through.
Scandanavia became Protestant mostly because no one lived there at the time. Southern Germany remained Catholic because of the Peace of Westphalia (geography wasn't the only factor, but a big one). And the plain-filled Poland (and especially Prussia) had large Protestant communities.

Von Witzleben

02-08-2004, 03:36

Of course they were driven out, but they came.
Eeeh...what??? :confused:

They didn't need a war in Spain to drive them out. All they needed to do was have an Inquisition for the few that got through.
Scandanavia became Protestant mostly because no one lived there at the time. Southern Germany remained Catholic because of the Peace of Westphalia (geography wasn't the only factor, but a big one). And the plain-filled Poland (and especially Prussia) had large Protestant communities.
Not so sure on Poland, I believe they had rather large communities of Orthodoxians rather then Protestants. Prussia however was mostly Protestant. With a couple of Catholics here and there. The reformation was carried out in 1526 I think. By the last master of the German Order. Who converted to the teachings of Luther and became a worldy Duke under the Polish king. There was hardly any opposition to the reformation.

Purly Euclid

02-08-2004, 04:12

Eeeh...what??? :confused: They came to France easily. In Spain, the Pyranees helped slow traffic, unlike the lowlands of the Netherlands.

Not so sure on Poland, I believe they had rather large communities of Orthodoxians rather then Protestants. Prussia however was mostly Protestant. With a couple of Catholics here and there. The reformation was carried out in 1526 I think. By the last master of the German Order. Who converted to the teachings of Luther and became a worldy Duke under the Polish king. There was hardly any opposition to the reformation.
Do you mean the Reformation in Prussia, or the whole Reformation?

Dragons Bay

02-08-2004, 04:23

That is amusing....Sumo wrestlers/China....

Well, maybe China AND Japan will "take over".....excellent culture AND good food from both!!

as you may understand china and japan are archrivals. were, and still are. mixing japan and china together is an insult.

Von Witzleben

02-08-2004, 04:36

They came to France easily. In Spain, the Pyranees helped slow traffic, unlike the lowlands of the Netherlands.
Not according to your previouse post. :p

Do you mean the Reformation in Prussia, or the whole Reformation?
I meant in Prussia.

New Auburnland

02-08-2004, 04:41

While I was reading through your uninformed comments and views against PNAC, I realize many of you probably have never looked at what they stood for. The PNAC people have been pushing for a shift in our military and national defense since the end of the cold war. The first sign of this was in 1991 when Paul Wolfowitz wrote the original draft of the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance. That was the first time the word "pre-emption" was used as a strategy for national defense. News of this was leaked to the media in 1992, and because of it being an election year, along with the liberal, fore-sight-lacking media blowing it out of the water, pre-emption was dropped from the 1992 DPG. The original 1992 DPG outlined possible hotspots that could become dangeous in the future. Some of those areas of intrest named were: Russian involvent in the Baltics or Caucasus region, North Korean invasion of the south, Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia or Kuwait (again), and smaller-scale interventions in Panama or the Philippines.

This document was written in 1992, and look what has happened in the world since then. Chechnya has revolted against Russia and Russia has moved a large part of their military into Chechnya. Chechnya boarders Georgia and with Georgia currently in a civil war, it is possible they could throw support toward the rebels. A very dangerous situation there. PNAC got it right.

Since the document was written, North Korea has attained nuclear weapons, at least 12 holes under the DMZ into the south large enaugh for tanks and trucks to drive in have been discovered, and DPRK has shot long range missles over Japan. I guess PNAC got that one right also.

Since 1992, a Saddam led Iraq kicked out and hassled inspectors more times to count and continued to oppress the Shia and Kurds of that country. No Iraq invasion of his neighbors ever happened though, but it was only a matter of time.

Finally, PNAC forcasted a "small-scale intervention" in the Philippines. PNAC was correct with the US commiting Special Forces and Marines to combat terrorism in that country.

Out of the four scenerios invisioned by PNAC, three actually became reality. Not a bad track record. I wish I could see 10 years into the future. Also, the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance called for an increase in military spending from 3% to 3.6%.

Since all of you have probably never done any research on the 1992 Defense Planning Guidance, I suggest you check this out.

http://www.emjournal.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/may03101.html
Do not pay attention the the commentary of the article, just read the excerpts.

from the website above

In particular, the document raises the prospects of "a unilateral U.S. defense guarantee" to Eastern Europe, "preferably in cooperation with other NATO states," and contemplates use of American military power to preempt or punish use of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons, "even in conflicts that otherwise do not directly engage U.S. interests."

"While the U.S. cannot become the world's 'policeman,' by assuming responsibility for righting every wrong, we will retain the preeminent responsibility for addressing selectively those wrongs which threaten not only our interests, but those of our allies or friends, or which could seriously unsettle international relations."

The document's pledge, on its first page, is to "continue to support and protect those bilateral, multilateral, international or regionally based institutions, processes and relationships which afford us opportunities to share responsibility for global and regional security."

Like I said in my opening sentence, you may want to educate yourself before you bash PNAC.

Chikyota

02-08-2004, 05:00

as you may understand china and japan are archrivals. were, and still are. mixing japan and china together is an insult.

It's only an insult if you still buy into pettiness. I'm all for burying the hatchet and being friends.

New Auburnland

02-08-2004, 05:17

I would also like to post a statement made by a PNAC member

James Woolsey stated on 02 April 2003 during a speech at UCLA that the war on Iraq is the opening of a much-to-be-desired "Fourth World War" and that the governments of Iran and Syria are "America's enemies" in this war. Woolsey stated that "We are fighting "World War IV, a war that will last longer than World Wars I or II. As we move toward a new Middle East," Woolsey said, "we will make a lot of people very nervous," including Egypt and Saudi Arabia. "We want you nervous," said Woolsey. "We want you to realize that now, for the fourth time in 100 years, this country and its allies are on the march and that we are on the side of those whom you - the Mubaraks, the Saudi Royal family - most fear. We're on the side of your own people." A few days later, Woolsey suggested that "In World War IV, as was true in WW III, we must understand that different enemies require different tactics. South Korea in 1950 could only be saved by American military power, but Poland in the '80s required a very different touch. Freedom in Iran may well arrive in Polish guise."

Kybernetia

02-08-2004, 10:53

Multipolarism wasn't actually a bad thing in Europe, but that's only because of its geography. Small city states (which later became nations) were fertile for farming and excellent for trade, but were isolated from eachother. As a result, the institution of liberty got its main boost. If one town wanted to be prudish and uptight, another may welcome change. Case in point: when Constantinople fell in 1453, scholars fled to Italy. However, they scattered between the city-states, and each advanced at its own pace. Geography is also part of the reason why Protestantism stayed mostly in Germany, East Europe, and France: Spain and Italy were protected by mountains.
However, in any other part of the world, multipolarism was a disaster. Most of the world is plains, separated by huge mountain chains every so often. It was easily conquered, and the area turned unipolar sooner or later, like China, or Mongolia.
If you look to German and Italian history you see that this multi-polarism led to the rise of local powers and the decline of central power, creating an enormous number of mini-states. That in itself was actually hindering the development of the countries (aside of the religious and political wars of the 17 th century) and left the French to become the leading power on the European continent - rivaling with England though which was the main power on the sea and rival in colonialism.

That I agree with. But hey, which of the major powers enjoy total cooperation anymore?
Total cooperation is indead like saying 100%. That never exists. But France and Germany have a very high amount of cooperation since the 1950s and even more since the Elysee-treaty of 1963.

I also agree with that. Today, Europe is pretty stable, and most of it is relatviely prosperous. Besides, as cultural and geographical barriers in Europe are crumbling, like it or not, it leads to unity.
The question however is how far the EU should enlarge. In order to remain efficent it needs a common cultural basis and it can´t enlarge indefinetly. Besides of the fact: it is an European Union. So countries of Asia and Northern Africa are excluded of course.
The main disputed question is: Should Turkey become a member. The US is pushing for that. And here I agree with Chirac. The US has no right to stick its nose in that business. After all: we don´t tell you how you should make your relations with Mexiko. Membership of the EU doesn´t only mean freedom of capital and business (like NAFTA) but also freedom of labour. Besides the cultural aspect the economic underdevelopment of Turkey, its high unemployment rates, the high population growth e.g. would led according to estimates to 5-10 million immigrants only in a fist wave after its accession. So it is clear that Turkey can´t become a member any time soon.

Agree again. Like you said, cooperation would work, but that's only what the UK wants. If France gets its way in the EU (and Chirac is not a political anomily in foreign policy), then like you said, it'd be counterproductive. However, I worry that Blair is an anomily. He may want an EU that compliments the US, but does the rest of the UK? He was never liked that much, and once he leaves office, someone cozier with France may want to replace him. Then again, Britain is one of Europe's best economy, and they want to keep the pound for that reason. It's a nice hedge, until the British economy takes a downswing.
Well: if Europe followed the speed of British willingnes in increasing cooperation we wouldn´t be that far than we are today. The British intransigence towards "the continent" is an important factor which has historic reasons though. Britain had traditionally a politic of splendid isolation and non-interventionism on the continent which it only gave up in order to enshure the balance of powers. Otherwise it only cared about colonial endeveaurs overseas. Therefore Britain doesn´t defind itself as an European country ("We are not the continent"). Today Britain could get a lot of influence in Europe. The accession of 10 new members who rather follow the anglo-saxon model could led to huge changes in Europe, e.g. the replacement of the traditional Franco-German leading role to a triangle of Britain, France and Germany. However: Britain would need to involve itself more in European affairs. Standing aside - as Britain traditionally did - won´t led to change. Blair understood that. But the traditional British intrasigence may lead Britain to miss an important opportunity.

France would loose a tremendous ally if they "defected" in this manner. I'm guessing the other two that follow France are Belgium and Spain. I don't know about Belgium, but Spain only chose its leader thanks to al-Qaeda. It could've been the only election al-Qaeda has won. But the Spanish will get bored of this new prime minister pretty quickly, I bet. France would be diplomatically isolated. However, if they are, they may be a maverick state, much like they were in the sixties. Last time when France tried to go it alone, NATO was weakened. This time, the consequences may not be as grave, but it'd do a lot to damage the EU.

First of all: isolating France would lead to a lot of mischief. Interestingly Poland for example intervened by the US when Mrs. Rice said "We should punish France and we ignore Germany". Although of the disagreements in Europe Poland knows that it needs France and even more Germany - which is its biggest trading partner.
The Franco-German alliance is a strategic alliance. Germany is never going to leave it. It would be stupid to do so. The main wars between 1789 and 1945 were after all all with French and German involvement against each other and part of an arch-rivalry which was ended with this alliance.
However: a change in Germany would of course led to strengthening the transatlantics in France - and they do exist.
The suggestion to broaden the traditional cooperation between France and Germany and to include Britain is much favoured by the interior minister Sarkozy - which is a rival of Chirac and - although of that - a very likely successor of him in 2007. He did a good job in cracking down on Islamism and illegal immigration. And he pushed - in that field together with Chirac - the ban of the scarf in schools. So France is really doing a lot against Islamic extremism. More than other countries. I much the French policy in that field because it doesn´t give tolerance to the intolerance and limits the room of Islamists.

Stephistan

02-08-2004, 10:59

Like I said in my opening sentence, you may want to educate yourself before you bash PNAC.

Are you trying to imply I have not educated myself on PNAC? Listen up my dear friend, I know more about them then you do. You started singing their praises only recently.. I have been trying to expose them for years.

PNAC = EVIL!

Texastambul

02-08-2004, 11:43

Are you trying to imply I have not educated myself on PNAC? Listen up my dear friend, I know more about them then you do. You started singing their praises only recently.. I have been trying to expose them for years.

PNAC = EVIL!

page 63 of the 2000 report "Rebuilding America's Defenses" --- have you read the infamous "Pearl Harbor" line?

compare it to the language of the Northwoods Documents and draw your own conclusions!!

Jeldred

02-08-2004, 11:44

You'll never hear that from me. I will say "Why doesnt the UN step in and do something?" Because they are the only valid international political power in my opinion. Imo, the US can stick themselves to Mars or somewhere outside of the solar system and I'd not give a flying rats ass. The US - if anything - have their dirty and fat greedy little fingers in way too much which does not concern them in any way. Your self-imposed "world police" role is unwelcome and unneeded. Of course you keep telling yourself that you are needed... talk yourself into more self-importance. The world does NOT want the US to unilaterally do whatever it wants. You make more terrorists and ideological enemies (like me) that way. Act if you are asked to by the world community (UN) and restraint yourself from abusing your "super power" in the world to dominate it. It will not be for the good of the US, but for the bad of the entire world and the ultimate destruction of the US.

Who's this "you" you keep talking about? Jesus, first you think sumo wrestlers are Chinese, then you automatically assume that everyone who might disagree with you is American. How about engaging the gears before hitting the accelerator next time?

I do not want the US to blunder around the world unilaterally. I want the US people to restrain the excesses of their government and corporations. I agree that the US under Bush is running a real risk of becoming an overtly rogue corporate state, and I think that the PNAC is a club of twisted little creeps who think they own the planet. In the past, the commerically inspired US foreign interventions -- mostly in Central America -- have been quieter and less blatantly obvious. Europe, too, has been complicit in these, keeping quiet and accepting that the deaths of a few hundred thousand brown people here and there is probably worth the cheap coffee, sugar and bananas. Nauseating? Yes. Utterly the responsibility of the USA? No. Desired and demanded, or even just supported, by the vast bulk of American people? Hell no.

America is a very big, very complex factor in the modern world. I do NOT think the solution to the problem of US military, political and economic domination is to be found in the brain-damaged maunderings of Osama bin Laden, or with any of the host of thuggish little wannabes scattered around the globe. There are NO easy solutions. Anybody who tells you otherwise is lying, and anybody who is prepared to stick snide little labels onto half a continent's-worth of individual human beings needs to get out more.

In closing: a pox on all ideologies. A great big blistering scabby plague of boils, pustules and open, weeping sores. They are, all of them, nothing but crutches for feeble minds, excuses not to think, justifications for the most repellent acts and a chain of millstones around the neck of human hope.

Gigatron

02-08-2004, 11:54

Who's this "you" you keep talking about? Jesus, first you think sumo wrestlers are Chinese, then you automatically assume that everyone who might disagree with you is American. How about engaging the gears before hitting the accelerator next time?

I do not want the US to blunder around the world unilaterally. I want the US people to restrain the excesses of their government and corporations. I agree that the US under Bush is running a real risk of becoming an overtly rogue corporate state, and I think that the PNAC is a club of twisted little creeps who think they own the planet. In the past, the commerically inspired US foreign interventions -- mostly in Central America -- have been quieter and less blatantly obvious. Europe, too, has been complicit in these, keeping quiet and accepting that the deaths of a few hundred thousand brown people here and there is probably worth the cheap coffee, sugar and bananas. Nauseating? Yes. Utterly the responsibility of the USA? No. Desired and demanded, or even just supported, by the vast bulk of American people? Hell no.

America is a very big, very complex factor in the modern world. I do NOT think the solution to the problem of US military, political and economic domination is to be found in the brain-damaged maunderings of Osama bin Laden, or with any of the host of thuggish little wannabes scattered around the globe. There are NO easy solutions. Anybody who tells you otherwise is lying, and anybody who is prepared to stick snide little labels onto half a continent's-worth of individual human beings needs to get out more.

In closing: a pox on all ideologies. A great big blistering scabby plague of boils, pustules and open, weeping sores. They are, all of them, nothing but crutches for feeble minds, excuses not to think, justifications for the most repellent acts and a chain of millstones around the neck of human hope.
I agree. There are no easy solutions. The easiest however would probably be, nuking the US back to the stoneage. Then we all will probably have some peace here for a few hundred years :)

Custodes Rana

02-08-2004, 23:44

It's only an insult if you still buy into pettiness. I'm all for burying the hatchet and being friends.

Touche'

Bozzy

03-08-2004, 00:46

It's been mentioned in passing in a few places, and came up as the main topic in a thread on the old serer.

PNAC is really scary in my opinion. Whenever a group of the most powerful people in the country, and even in the world gets together to discuss their "plans" for the country, and even for the government, without ever having been elected and without consulting the people in any way, I get worried. The quote from Herman Goering that is attached to the picture from the thread "Do you agree with this picture" in conjunction with the actions of PNAC are utterly terrifying.

Apparently the right to assemble, discuss opinions, and develop strategies to accomplish them are only reserved for liberal organiztions??

Beware the thought police!

There is nothing threatening at all in this organization, it is a legitimate collective of people who share common opinions, much like many other organizations in the USA. That is one of the many benefits of freedom.

The downside is that people you don't agree with get the same rights as you - which liberals have always seemed to have a problem with.

Purly Euclid

03-08-2004, 02:48

The question however is how far the EU should enlarge. In order to remain efficent it needs a common cultural basis and it can´t enlarge indefinetly. Besides of the fact: it is an European Union. So countries of Asia and Northern Africa are excluded of course.
The main disputed question is: Should Turkey become a member. The US is pushing for that. And here I agree with Chirac. The US has no right to stick its nose in that business. After all: we don´t tell you how you should make your relations with Mexiko. Membership of the EU doesn´t only mean freedom of capital and business (like NAFTA) but also freedom of labour. Besides the cultural aspect the economic underdevelopment of Turkey, its high unemployment rates, the high population growth e.g. would led according to estimates to 5-10 million immigrants only in a fist wave after its accession. So it is clear that Turkey can´t become a member any time soon.

Why do Europeans love the line about Turkey and Mexico? I'm actually a supporter of Turkey entering the EU, and I personally feel that the main fear comes from a lack of experience in immigration on Europe's part. In the US during the turn of the last century, one-fourth of every resident was either an immigrant, or an immigrant child. Then again, I don't feel we should argue this for long. I've argued it before, and it turns into a bitter conflict.

Well: if Europe followed the speed of British willingnes in increasing cooperation we wouldn´t be that far than we are today. The British intransigence towards "the continent" is an important factor which has historic reasons though. Britain had traditionally a politic of splendid isolation and non-interventionism on the continent which it only gave up in order to enshure the balance of powers. Otherwise it only cared about colonial endeveaurs overseas. Therefore Britain doesn´t defind itself as an European country ("We are not the continent"). Today Britain could get a lot of influence in Europe. The accession of 10 new members who rather follow the anglo-saxon model could led to huge changes in Europe, e.g. the replacement of the traditional Franco-German leading role to a triangle of Britain, France and Germany. However: Britain would need to involve itself more in European affairs. Standing aside - as Britain traditionally did - won´t led to change. Blair understood that. But the traditional British intrasigence may lead Britain to miss an important opportunity.
It's a possibility, but I don't think the UK is as mired in the past as it once was. It was a big leap for Britain to convert to the metric system about ten years ago. I have a feeling that even if they don't want to be fully part of the EU, they'll certainly be a big player.

First of all: isolating France would lead to a lot of mischief. Interestingly Poland for example intervened by the US when Mrs. Rice said "We should punish France and we ignore Germany". Although of the disagreements in Europe Poland knows that it needs France and even more Germany - which is its biggest trading partner.
The Franco-German alliance is a strategic alliance. Germany is never going to leave it. It would be stupid to do so. The main wars between 1789 and 1945 were after all all with French and German involvement against each other and part of an arch-rivalry which was ended with this alliance.
However: a change in Germany would of course led to strengthening the transatlantics in France - and they do exist.
The suggestion to broaden the traditional cooperation between France and Germany and to include Britain is much favoured by the interior minister Sarkozy - which is a rival of Chirac and - although of that - a very likely successor of him in 2007. He did a good job in cracking down on Islamism and illegal immigration. And he pushed - in that field together with Chirac - the ban of the scarf in schools. So France is really doing a lot against Islamic extremism. More than other countries. I much the French policy in that field because it doesn´t give tolerance to the intolerance and limits the room of Islamists.
That'd probably work best. Have Germany choose that candidate you're talking about, and a year later, Chirac would be gone. It'd do a lot to mend the idealogical rift that exists between the US and the EU.

Purly Euclid

03-08-2004, 02:51

I agree. There are no easy solutions. The easiest however would probably be, nuking the US back to the stoneage. Then we all will probably have some peace here for a few hundred years :)
Quite the opposite. The global economy would collapse, millions would die, and the US military, probably the thing between peace and WWIII, would collapse. It'd be a very scary world if the US was nuked to the stoneage.

Ian Smiths Rhodesia

03-08-2004, 02:55

PNAC is evil but harmless. It's merely a Republican debating society.

Ian Smiths Rhodesia

03-08-2004, 02:56

I agree. There are no easy solutions. The easiest however would probably be, nuking the US back to the stoneage. Then we all will probably have some peace here for a few hundred years :)

Screw you, too, you insidious, racist bastard. :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:
:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:

Fat Smelly Bastards

03-08-2004, 03:01

Screw you, too, you insidious, racist bastard. :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:
:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:

Just ignore him bro. No ofence but French people don't know what the hell there talkin about. :rolleyes:

Von Witzleben

03-08-2004, 05:40

PNAC is evil but harmless. It's merely a Republican debating society.
You did read the names at the bottom of their statement of ptincipals did you?

Texastambul

03-08-2004, 05:52

PNAC is evil but harmless. It's merely a Republican debating society.

Here are a few of the "harmless" members...

* Dick Cheney * Donald Rumsfeld * Paul Wolfowitz * Jeb Bush *

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm

Von Witzleben

03-08-2004, 06:00

Here are a few of the "harmless" members...

* Dick Cheney * Donald Rumsfeld * Paul Wolfowitz * Jeb Bush *

http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm
Yeah. They just sit down for a nice, friendly debate and a cup of tea. While Playing Risk. With real soldiers and nations.

Kybernetia

03-08-2004, 18:24

Why do Europeans love the line about Turkey and Mexico? I'm actually a supporter of Turkey entering the EU, and I personally feel that the main fear comes from a lack of experience in immigration on Europe's part. In the US during the turn of the last century, one-fourth of every resident was either an immigrant, or an immigrant child. Then again, I don't feel we should argue this for long. I've argued it before, and it turns into a bitter conflict..
Yes, it would. And I understand why you don´t want to argue about it. Or would you agree to allow unlimitted immigration from Mexico to the US???? And now, come on, be honest??????
And by the way, the US is a nation of migrants, we are not. No European nation is. And we have already 230 people per km². In EU-Europe it is still above 100. That´s really enough. Not like in the US with only 25 people per Km².
And just to make one thing clear: a conservative government in Germany would oppose Turkish membership at least for a very long time (20-30 years) unlike to the current left-wing government. With this position the German conservatives are not only representing the opinion of the majority of people in Germany but also the majority of people in Europe

It's a possibility, but I don't think the UK is as mired in the past as it once was. It was a big leap for Britain to convert to the metric system about ten years ago. I have a feeling that even if they don't want to be fully part of the EU, they'll certainly be a big player.
That'd probably work best. Have Germany choose that candidate you're talking about, and a year later, Chirac would be gone. It'd do a lot to mend the idealogical rift that exists between the US and the EU.
I think the UK remains in the EU because it makes economic sense to them. None the less the traditional intransigence is still alive. Not so much in the current government but in the population.
They very likely reject the EU constituition. So: that is going to make things more difficult. Britain has to make a choice till the end of the decade whether it wants to remain a member of the EU - though probably more on the side than the centre - or whether it wants to leave. I believe if rational arguments prevail it decides for remaining in the EU. After all: Britain at first didn´t participate in it (1957) and later begged France to be allowed in, which was rejected by de Gaulle in the late 1960s. They finally became member in 1973.
Regarding France: They are going to chose the candidate. Whoever is elected is of course taking into account the situation. And if Germany has a different government the French would certainly take a more cooperative approach. Though of course: conflicts remain. But it would be a bit easier.

Purly Euclid

04-08-2004, 01:06

Yes, it would. And I understand why you don´t want to argue about it. Or would you agree to allow unlimitted immigration from Mexico to the US???? And now, come on, be honest??????
And by the way, the US is a nation of migrants, we are not. No European nation is. And we have already 230 people per km². In EU-Europe it is still above 100. That´s really enough. Not like in the US with only 25 people per Km².
And just to make one thing clear: a conservative government in Germany would oppose Turkish membership at least for a very long time (20-30 years) unlike to the current left-wing government. With this position the German conservatives are not only representing the opinion of the majority of people in Germany but also the majority of people in Europe
You're right why I don't want to argue, because neither of us will concede on any points. However, I'm actually in favor of unlimited Mexican immigration, so long as they can get into the US legally. In fact, I find Bush's temporary worker plan a step in the right direction on this issue. However, I'm not for open borders, as too many terrorists can get in. I just want Mexicans to be screened for diseases and have a criminal backround check.

I think the UK remains in the EU because it makes economic sense to them. None the less the traditional intransigence is still alive. Not so much in the current government but in the population.
They very likely reject the EU constituition. So: that is going to make things more difficult. Britain has to make a choice till the end of the decade whether it wants to remain a member of the EU - though probably more on the side than the centre - or whether it wants to leave. I believe if rational arguments prevail it decides for remaining in the EU. After all: Britain at first didn´t participate in it (1957) and later begged France to be allowed in, which was rejected by de Gaulle in the late 1960s. They finally became member in 1973.
Regarding France: They are going to chose the candidate. Whoever is elected is of course taking into account the situation. And if Germany has a different government the French would certainly take a more cooperative approach. Though of course: conflicts remain. But it would be a bit easier.
I can sort of see your point on the UK. The EU members couldn't even agree if they wanted to mention God in the preamble, however. There's gonna be a lot of disagreement, but not just between the UK and France/Germany. It'll probably be every country trying to vie for a bigger peice of the governing pie. I know that's how it played out during our constitutional convention of 1787. There was originally gonna be one legislature elected by popular vote. This didn't sit well with smaller states, who felt they'd be overrun. So the Senate was created, and is one of the few upper houses that elects based on geograpy, not population. Every state gets two senators. Call it undemocratic, if you wish, but it protects smaller states' interests. I think an arguement like that will develope over the EU, and may overshadow what the UK does.

Bozzy

04-08-2004, 04:26

Yeah. They just sit down for a nice, friendly debate and a cup of tea. While Playing Risk. With real soldiers and nations.
So the right to gather, meet and share ideas is only good for people you agree with?

hypocrite.

Kybernetia

04-08-2004, 11:45

You're right why I don't want to argue, because neither of us will concede on any points. However, I'm actually in favor of unlimited Mexican immigration, so long as they can get into the US legally. In fact, I find Bush's temporary worker plan a step in the right direction on this issue. However, I'm not for open borders, as too many terrorists can get in. I just want Mexicans to be screened for diseases and have a criminal backround check..
I think with that position you are in pretty small majority in the US, though. You shouldn´t forget that we are going to open our borders completly to the 10 new members in 2011. So: that is already going to cause a lot of problems and it is a huge social challenge. Turkey alone has about the same number of people than those 10 countries who joined in 2004 and it is one average even less developed than those countries. So: let us first do that. You can´t do everything at the same time. In the long-run it may be considered. But first Turkey would need to become a real democracy and really a state based on the rule of law. Up until shortly the Kurdish language was still banned in Turkey and the situation of minorities is still difficult. Turkey also rejects to admitt that the commited a gonocide on the Armenians during World War I (about 2 million deaths). Turkey is far away from fulfilling even the minimum standards which are required for EU membership. The EU is not only an economic union. It is also based on common values and a common cultural background. Whether Turkey fits in that can be doubted. We have to see how the country develops.
By the way: The EU already gives Turkey major concessions in trade. And the alternative to full membership would be a "Privileged partnership" between the EU and Turkey which would include a free trade area (however no free movement of labour of course). Given the fact that Turkey is very reluctant to give up any national sovereignity (especially if it comes to the Kurd question) - and you have to give up some to be in the EU there is no way around it - it may even be a solution which Turkey itself is going to prefer in the future.

I can sort of see your point on the UK. The EU members couldn't even agree if they wanted to mention God in the preamble, however. There's gonna be a lot of disagreement, but not just between the UK and France/Germany. It'll probably be every country trying to vie for a bigger peice of the governing pie. I know that's how it played out during our constitutional convention of 1787. There was originally gonna be one legislature elected by popular vote. This didn't sit well with smaller states, who felt they'd be overrun. So the Senate was created, and is one of the few upper houses that elects based on geograpy, not population. Every state gets two senators. Call it undemocratic, if you wish, but it protects smaller states' interests. I think an arguement like that will develope over the EU, and may overshadow what the UK does.
You have a point with that: but in Europe the council of ministers (of the national government) is actually the most important instituition. Every EU law (which is suggested by the commission must pass this. Many EU laws - but not all - must pass parliament. The parliament is elected mainly due to the principle one man one vote. Thought the smallest states are overrepresent (well Luxemburg would only got 1 seat - they got six though) to allow that all political fractions of one country are represented. The bigger countries are somewhat underrepresent. Though: With the Nizza treaty it actually became better and respects more the differences of population (2004 (1999): Germany 99 (99), France, Britain, Italy each 71 (87), e.g. The reductions are mainly due to the enlargement since the EU parliament is already pretty big.

The council of ministers is as mentioned more important: Every law needs the approval of this council of national ministers. Some decisions need an unanimous approval (foreign and defense policy, tax), others a so called qualified majority (majority of countries and majority of "votes"). This majority of votes point was the main dispute in the discussions on the EU constituition, actually.
In the past the number of votes differed from 3 to 12 thus not reflecting the difference in the population in a one to one scheme but taking it into account. The four biggest countries (Britain, France, Italy and Germany) had 12 votes each. The discussions in Nice in 2000 were very controversial. They were actually designed to prepare for the enlargement and to reform the EU structure to enshure that it works even with more members (since many decisions still required unanimity and increase of qualified majority decisions was agreed to). The so-called double majority was only pushed by Germany (double majority means: majority of states and population) thus rejected by France and many others since it would of course given Germany - the country with the biggest population more weight and power. The compromise was a very complicated mechanism: Due to this compromise (which is still valid today) a decision in the council of ministers needs the majority of states and the majority of votes. Thereby the votes were newly distributed between the countries. The main winners were Poland and Spain. The four big countries received 29 votes each while Spain and Poland (who only have 40 million people) received almost as much (27 votes). So: the main dispute in respect to the EU constituition was not so much big versus small but rather between Spain- Poland versus more or less the rest. Thus a decision requires somewhere between 70-73% of the votes.
Additionally on request of one country it can be chequed whether this "qualified majority" comprises of 62%. Otherwise the majority is not considered to be reached.

Well: pretty complicated as you see. The constituition was designed to make the decison making more transparent and reduce the rules. Germany convinced France to agree to the so called double majority - which was a great step for France to acknowledge the fact that reunified Germany has a higher population and can therefore claim more weight in the EU. And that was also the solution in the draft constituiton.
The German-French proposal was: Majority of states (50%) who shall comprise of 60% of the population as only two criterias of voting. This of course reflects the dual nature of the EU as union of states and people.
The only opposition to that principal came from Spain and Poland. Though the had to give that up. The draft now says: 55% of the states (but at least 15) which comprise of 65% of the population of the EU shall be considered a qualified majority. Additional to that Spain and Poland were able to negotiate transitional periods and special veto rights who are however only limitted for the first five years the constituition is in place: There is on exception however. In the field of interior policy decisions are going to need the approval of states which comprise of 70% of the population. So: if this constituition is passed - some day hopefully till the end of this decade it would make the decision making more transparent and efficent as well.
By the way: The UK was no problem here since it actually benefits from many of the agreements. For example it was explicitly agreed to remain the areas of foreign, defense and tax policy on the unanimity principal.
None the less the traditional British anti-European sentiments may lead to a rejection of the constituition although Britain was pretty succesfull in pushing its agenda.

NationStates Jolt Archive

The Project For a New American Century