NationStates Jolt Archive

In recent months, people have noticed a change in me. Some have called me controversial. Others have said stupid. A few even say I’m crazy. I welcome those comments, because they foster debate. This is a condensation of what I believe. I want people to know that I’m not some selfish, jingoistic prep who is also a right-wing gun nut. There’s a philosophy behind it.
What is it, may you ask. Let me explain. Global politics is a relatively new phenomenon, perhaps about three hundred years old. In its first two hundred years, some good things happened, like the British bringing India out of the Middle Ages. However, no one can deny that oodles of bad happened. Tribes were separated, wealth was mismanaged, and wars became deadlier. In WWII, the imperial world reached its death in extreme violence, having the world plunged into a hideous war. The ruins of it became battlefields for the bipolar world: the US, and the USSR. Horrible things happened, for at least in WWII, the majority of the world was behind the Allies. Here, it was a series of proxy wars that devastated Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. The Soviet Union has fallen, and now, there’s nothing left for these ideologues to fight, except for one thing: one of their two old enemies, the US.
The US did make grave mistakes during the Cold War, even if it was for a good fight. Still, despite US support for dictatorships and such, it propped up the global structure. It maintained a sense of global order, and each power propped the other by considering its opposite as the enemy. Sounds Orwelian, but it was true. However, with the Soviet Union gone, two things have happened. First, as I’ve said, they’re fighting the US. But secondly, the world has become a global village. In this, there are catastrophic problems: overpopulation, AIDS, several financial crises, just to name a few. It wouldn’t affect the US at all if it weren’t as easy to travel and communicate across the globe. Any one of these problems has the same potential to be like the Middle East, that is, a hotbed of terror. And no matter what the US does to help or hinder these areas, the haves will always strike at the have-nots. It’s time for the haves to fight back.
The Middle East should serve as a lesson. The conditions in those countries, and their political, economic, and cultural situations, are identical in many areas throughout the globe. That is why the Middle East should be a lesson: if we let these complex problems play themselves out, it’ll become dangerous to our national security. I see Iraq as a noble, if belated attempt to change that. Assuming that Iraq works out, it’s possible we’ll have a free-market democracy in the Middle East that will spread to other nations in the region. The signs are promising, judging the US’s past record on reconstruction, and the large, liberal-minded middle class in that country.
In other regions, like Africa and the Caribbean, some of the same advantages aren’t there. That’s why it’s important to work with them before they get out of control, and threaten the US. This, however, is about more than a show of force. I believe that if the US takes such a proactive policy in foreign affairs, it can enrich the world. While the foreign investment and attention to reconstruction will improve the lives of these citizens, investors will have many business opportunities for these new free markets. It also helps to prevent terror, so this is a win-win.
How do we accomplish this? We need to radicalize region by region. The example in the Middle East is a good start, and assuming that Iraq can be successful a decade from now, it has the ability to change the region for the better. This should serve as a model for future US policy throughout the globe. Instead of containing a problem, as was our policy before Sept. 11, we should combat it. Dictators like Saddam Hussein, a threat to his own people and a powder keg in the region, must be destroyed, and the institutions must be reformed. However, this doesn’t give the US a green light for pure aggression. If a nation pursues reform peacefully, the US should send investment and aid, not bullets. Of course, if they are being regressive, stones should be given instead of carrot sticks. My expectation is that some form of an agreement between the US (and allies) and these nations should form, to make our nations closer economically, militarily, maybe even politically. Some of these developing nations are dependent on the developed already, and as they transition, I’m sure they’d have a very hard time transitioning entirely on their own.
I’m sure many of you are reading this and thinking this is pure fantasy bordering on insanity. It’s not, I can assure you. The US has the resources to do basically anything it wants in a short time, except conquer Heaven. There are too many safeguards, like the media and the free market that make this experiment go the way of the British Empire. Most importantly, perhaps, I believe that since American society is complex but with liberal and democratic institutions, a lunatic can’t be elected into power. It’s in the vested interests of the American people not to appoint a dictator for life, and I believe that we are smart enough to detect one. Since so much of the world is cowering away from either ideas like this or US foreign policy, this, and the democratic society, add to justify a unipolar world, lead by the US. It’d be great if Europe, China, and others could make a multipolar partnership, but for the moment, that doesn’t look like it is happening.
This policy could lead to arrogance, but there is another safeguard for that. Traditionally, America has been cosmopolitan, and while it was the first culture to actively build from other cultures, it has become a culture in itself. As many Europeans and anti-globalizationalists can attest to, we are the first, and possibly the only culture, that seeks to actively include rather than exclude. As evidenced by China, Japan, Europe, and Russia, the American culture is accepted with open arms. Culture has often counterweighted arrogance, and if it can’t stop it in some Americans, it will stop it from advancing too far in the minds of American intellectuals and politicians.
Call this idea the work of an imperialist, a neo-con, whatever you want. But this is what I believe. Take it, leave it, debate it. I’m not an academic, so I’m expecting that this philosophy will be picked apart left and right. However, I just wanted those who were willing to read this to know that this is where I stand in the extremely big picture.

I don't oppose pre-emption, regime change or even spreading western values across the world. I oppose all these things as doctrines, as things that we must do every time. I like that you can go to different parts of the world and see different cultures, I don't think it's fair that we hold back technological advances to these cultures in the interests of preserving them. Overall, I'd like a other cultures to change with regards towards providing greater human and civil rights and the freedom to learn, live and choose in all parts of the world, but in a manner that still allows and encourages cultures to develop diversely, rather than homogenising the world towards a western view.

I don't oppose pre-emption, regime change or even spreading western values across the world. I oppose all these things as doctrines, as things that we must do every time. I like that you can go to different parts of the world and see different cultures, I don't think it's fair that we hold back technological advances to these cultures in the interests of preserving them. Overall, I'd like a other cultures to change with regards towards providing greater human and civil rights and the freedom to learn, live and choose in all parts of the world, but in a manner that still allows and encourages cultures to develop diversely, rather than homogenising the world towards a western view.
*Notes the similarities between Spoffin and neo-cons*
Assimilation has been a part of every successful culture since the dawn of time. It's an ongoing process that I doubt will end simply because of a proactive foreign policy. Indeed, if one wants to see the cultural engine of this country, go to New York. Every ethnic group there has a resturant, a grocery store, and of course, a souvenier shop. Over our history, influences from around the world reach cities like these, and the best parts of them make it into the American mainstream. Port cities like New York and LA are our cultural engines, and they're always hungry for fuel.
BTW, I don't think that pre-emption and such should be doctrine forever, and in all situations. I do, however, think that American foreign policy has been to ad hoc, and it's bitting us in the rearend. Sept. 11 was the first time in decades the US mainland was attacked, and it should serve as a wake-up call.

*Notes the similarities between Spoffin and neo-cons*Raises fist warningly
Assimilation has been a part of every successful culture since the dawn of time. It's an ongoing process that I doubt will end simply because of a proactive foreign policy. Indeed, if one wants to see the cultural engine of this country, go to New York. Every ethnic group there has a resturant, a grocery store, and of course, a souvenier shop. Over our history, influences from around the world reach cities like these, and the best parts of them make it into the American mainstream. Port cities like New York and LA are our cultural engines, and they're always hungry for fuel.
Erm, yeah.

In WWII, the imperial world reached its death in extreme violence, having the world plunged into a hideous war.
No she didn't. The imperial world merely shifted from Europe and Japan to the US and the Soviet Union.
a lunatic can’t be elected into power.
No? I'snt Bush is the current loony in charge.


This policy could lead to arrogance
And arrogance is what the US excells at.

As many Europeans and anti-globalizationalists can attest to, we are the first, and possibly the only culture, that seeks to actively include rather than exclude.
Don't you mean assimilate? We are the Borg. You will be assimilated.

As evidenced by China, Japan, Europe, and Russia, the American culture is accepted with open arms.
You haven't been paying much attention lately.


Call this idea the work of an imperialist, a neo-con, whatever you want. But this is what I believe. Take it, leave it, debate it. I’m not an academic, so I’m expecting that this philosophy will be picked apart left and right. However, I just wanted those who were willing to read this to know that this is where I stand in the extremely big picture.
Yes. It is the work of Imperialists. It's the strategy of the New Democrats and their front runner John Kerry.
John Kerry's version of PNAC (http://www.counterpunch.org/hand02182004.html)

Raises fist warningly


Both you and neo-cons do have similarities, though. You both want to see the world better than we found it. You also think that preemption and regime change is sometimes necessary, like neo-cons. However, neo-cons see this as a vehicle for American power, and as far as I can tell, you wish this wasn't so.

No she didn't. The imperial world merely shifted from Europe and Japan to the US and the Soviet Union.

No? I'snt Bush is the current loony in charge.


And arrogance is what the US excells at.


Don't you mean assimilate? We are the Borg. You will be assimilated.


You haven't been paying much attention lately.


Yes. It is the work of Imperialists. It's the strategy of the New Democrats and their front runner John Kerry.
http://www.counterpunch.org/hand02182004.html
I'm glad you like it. Would you like to hear more of my ideas?
BTW, Kerry's no longer the Democratic front-runner. He's now officially the Democrat's presidential nominee.

Don't you mean assimilate? We are the Borg. You will be assimilated.
I'm pretty sure he didn't mean that. He's talking about the melting pot, how other cultures can come together without it necessarily leading to conflict.

I'm glad you like it.
I know this is sarcasm.

Would you like to hear more of my ideas?
Why not.

I've already figured out your view on foreign policy Purly Euclid, as long as it serves the rich in America, fuck the rest, I give you credit for researching very biased information, but when push comes to shove, you're a neo-con. Perhaps you're proud of that, whatever works for you...

I'm pretty sure he didn't mean that. He's talking about the melting pot, how other cultures can come together without it necessarily leading to conflict.
It sounded alot like he's advocating active Americanisation globally to me.

Both you and neo-cons do have similarities, though. You both want to see the world better than we found it. You also think that preemption and regime change is sometimes necessary, like neo-cons. However, neo-cons see this as a vehicle for American power, and as far as I can tell, you wish this wasn't so.
We also both like beef.

There are still some fairly significant differences. And who doesn't want to see the world better than we found it? As for pre-emption, that's only for cases where a threat is real, and regime change... I'll grant you that one, but I see it as only being for the purpose of helping people who are suffering under oppressive regimes (as you implied in your last point), and as a swift alternative to slowly nibbling around the edges of the regime, undermining it and hoping you can pursuade the people to topple it themselves.

I've already figured out your view on foreign policy Purly Euclid, as long as it serves the rich in America, fuck the rest, I give you credit for researching very biased information, but when push comes to shove, you're a neo-con. Perhaps you're proud of that, whatever works for you...
It's not simply serving the rich in America. It's serving anyone who invests in the US, and those in these reconstructed areas.
Now, am I a neo-con? I don't know. I have the same methodology, but I prefer to work for different reasons. I think you see, however, that this idea is rather imperial, and from what I can tell, you don't like that. However, why is this a bad thing?
And btw, was it sarcasm that you suggested that I researched this?

We also both like beef.

There are still some fairly significant differences. And who doesn't want to see the world better than we found it? As for pre-emption, that's only for cases where a threat is real, and regime change... I'll grant you that one, but I see it as only being for the purpose of helping people who are suffering under oppressive regimes (as you implied in your last point), and as a swift alternative to slowly nibbling around the edges of the regime, undermining it and hoping you can pursuade the people to topple it themselves.
Well, that was a rumor floating a couple years ago on Iraq, that the preffered method of regime change was the Afghanistan model: with some US support, local resistence can defeat the regime itself. However, that was discredited, for the lack of armed resistence against his regime. The only choice, at least in their mind, was invasion. I don't feel that neo-cons are necessarily trigger-happy, but if anything, not hesitant to use force. I feel I'm too willing to use force, but then again, some of these regimes out there are asking to be toppled.

It sounded alot like he's advocating active Americanisation globally to me.
I don't know quite how you use that... if you mean spreading consumerism and corporate power, then obviously I'm opposed. If you mean by spreading American values like liberty, democracy and apple pie, and allowing the free flow of things like medicine, education and literature to all the corners of the world, then I'm in favour. I don't even necessarly mean that you have to push these values upon other people and cultures, its enough that they know what they are and have opportunities to choose.

I'm pretty sure he didn't mean that. He's talking about the melting pot, how other cultures can come together without it necessarily leading to conflict.
I did. I wouldn't mind a melting pot at all. However, as far as I'm concerned, whatever happens to cultures of the world is like a natural selection. They assimilate, transform, or blend on their own accord and strength.

I don't know quite how you use that... if you mean spreading consumerism and corporate power, then obviously I'm opposed. If you mean by spreading American values like liberty, democracy and apple pie, and allowing the free flow of things like medicine, education and literature to all the corners of the world, then I'm in favour. I don't even necessarly mean that you have to push these values upon other people and cultures, its enough that they know what they are and have opportunities to choose.
For the record, I'm advocating both.

I don't know quite how you use that... if you mean spreading consumerism and corporate power, then obviously I'm opposed. If you mean by spreading American values like liberty, democracy and apple pie, and allowing the free flow of things like medicine, education and literature to all the corners of the world, then I'm in favour. I don't even necessarly mean that you have to push these values upon other people and cultures, its enough that they know what they are and have opportunities to choose.
What I meant was the assimilation of the rest of the world. Shaping it into a version of the US. Which means the destruction of their own indiginouse cultures, customs and traditions. And everything else what goes along with it.

EDIT: Read his 2 posts above this one. Sounds like I was right.

Why not.
I think that in order to carry this out on a large scale, it utterly impossible without a large resource base. The US has the largest, but it probably won't be large enough for the rapid advancement of the globe. My personal suggestions to alieviate this problem is a renewable (and cheap) energy source, and a space program. The alternative energy source, perhaps fusion, is needed in order to supply the world with cheap, clean fuel. There's simply not enough oil or coal for everyone in the world. The space program is needed because of both the prospects of colonization and mining, bringing an influx of resources back to earth. I see it as a recreation of the Columbian exchange, though on a smaller scale.

Well, that was a rumor floating a couple years ago on Iraq, that the preffered method of regime change was the Afghanistan model: with some US support, local resistence can defeat the regime itself. However, that was discredited, for the lack of armed resistence against his regime. The only choice, at least in their mind, was invasion. I don't feel that neo-cons are necessarily trigger-happy, but if anything, not hesitant to use force. I feel I'm too willing to use force, but then again, some of these regimes out there are asking to be toppled.I really am split on the use fo force. I'd like it if we could use force more often than we do, and prevent things like internal genocides (like in Sudan). I also like the soundbite of force only as a last resort... I just don't know what our other weapons are.

I want oppression and suffering stopped quickly. And I don't think the life of a western soldier is intrinsicly more valuable than the life of a Sudanese civillian. Immediate. Escalating. These are words when describing world events that make me want to send in tank divisions. Words that suggest to me that withholding NGO aid and imposing sanctions aren't what I want to be doing.

What I meant was the assimilation of the rest of the world. Shaping it into a version of the US. Which means the destruction of their own indiginouse cultures, customs and traditions. And everything else what goes along with it.

EDIT: Read his 2 posts above this one. Sounds like I was right.
It'd have always been a backwards world if all cultures continued to exist. For example, in India, the British outlawed the practice of Sati due to its murderous nature. Aztec culture was destroyed for the same reason. And of course, once education increases, simple cultures that exist among many people simply won't do anymore.

It's not simply serving the rich in America. It's serving anyone who invests in the US, and those in these reconstructed areas.
Now, am I a neo-con? I don't know. I have the same methodology, but I prefer to work for different reasons. I think you see, however, that this idea is rather imperial, and from what I can tell, you don't like that. However, why is this a bad thing?
And btw, was it sarcasm that you suggested that I researched this?


You freely endorse PNAC.. PNAC = neo-con, so I would have to say yes.

You freely endorse PNAC.. PNAC = neo-con, so I would have to say yes.
Sounds more like he's endorsing the Democrats version of PNAC. Less agressive but way more sneaky.

EDIT: Read his 2 posts above this one. Sounds like I was right.
Pfutt. Shows what I know I guess.

It'd have always been a backwards world if all cultures continued to exist. For example, in India, the British outlawed the practice of Sati due to its murderous nature. Aztec culture was destroyed for the same reason. And of course, once education increases, simple cultures that exist among many people simply won't do anymore.
Thats your opinion. Not a fact.

It'd have always been a backwards world if all cultures continued to exist. For example, in India, the British outlawed the practice of Sati due to its murderous nature. Aztec culture was destroyed for the same reason. And of course, once education increases, simple cultures that exist among many people simply won't do anymore.
Sati? Suttee?

I really am split on the use fo force. I'd like it if we could use force more often than we do, and prevent things like internal genocides (like in Sudan). I also like the soundbite of force only as a last resort... I just don't know what our other weapons are.

I want oppression and suffering stopped quickly. And I don't think the life of a western soldier is intrinsicly more valuable than the life of a Sudanese civillian. Immediate. Escalating. These are words when describing world events that make me want to send in tank divisions. Words that suggest to me that withholding NGO aid and imposing sanctions aren't what I want to be doing.
I don't think anyone would be as wily to use force had it not been for the fact that, in the West at least, wars can be waged with relatively few casualties, thanks to smart bombs and such. We can send bombs down the chimneys of buildings with enemy forces inside, killing them. However, we don't need to drop incendiary bombs on the whole neighborhood to get a few people. Those big bombs, like Daisy Cutters and MOABs, only exist nowadays for their psychological impact. It's why the US hasn't used more nuclear bombs in war: they're only good for that purpose, too.

You freely endorse PNAC.. PNAC = neo-con, so I would have to say yes.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think that logical progression may need some work.

It's why the US hasn't used more nuclear bombs in war: they're only good for that purpose, too.
If your current lunatic gets his way they will be used in future conflicts.

Thats your opinion. Not a fact.
About Sutee? I find it barbaric that women are thrown on funeral pyres simply because they are viewed as inferior to men. I also find it barbaric that some in Indian society get a free ride because they're from a certain caste, whereas others aren't so lucky.

Sati? Suttee?t
I always thought it was Sati. It might be Suttee.

You freely endorse PNAC.. PNAC = neo-con, so I would have to say yes.
Well yes, I do. But neo-cons tend to see global advancement more as a side effect than the desired result. I see both as interconnected.

I also find it barbaric that some in Indian society get a free ride because they're from a certain caste, whereas others aren't so lucky.
And yet... you support americanisation?

Sounds more like he's endorsing the Democrats version of PNAC. Less agressive but way more sneaky.
Funny you should say that. I'm a Republican. The Democrats would never pursue this foreign policy.

About Sutee? I find it barbaric that women are thrown on funeral pyres simply because they are viewed as inferior to men. I also find it barbaric that some in Indian society get a free ride because they're from a certain caste, whereas others aren't so lucky.
I was actually reffering to your *simple cultures won't do anymore* comment. As for the caste thing, it has existed for thousands of years. What gives someone like you, from a country which existed shorter then my hometowns belltower, the right to say it's wrong?

Well yes, I do. But neo-cons tend to see global advancement more as a side effect than the desired result. I see both as interconnected.

Nothing more needs to be said....

And yet... you support americanisation?
I believe it has more supporters abroad than here, if that's what you mean. It's Darwinian, but it's the next chapter of the Culture Wars. It is inevitable that some cultures will thrive, and others die. If it's American, then great. But I at least want American influence in culture to be a trickle, and not necessarily a flood. Of course, when free markets are established, they will be the determant. And I'm confident those free markets will choose Americanization.

Funny you should say that. I'm a Republican. The Democrats would never pursue this foreign policy.
Sure they do. They just call it Progressive Internationalism.
Democrats and Reps aren't that much different. Both want an US empire.

It is inevitable that some cultures will thrive, and others die. If it's American, then great.
Finally we agree on something.

I was actually reffering to your *simple cultures won't do anymore* comment. As for the caste thing, it has existed for thousands of years. What gives someone like you, from a country which existed shorter then my hometowns belltower, the right to say it's wrong?
The Indian government agrees with me.
And yes, simple cultures just won't do. Take Arab culture, for example. That was once an assortment of cultures. Egypt was reasonably advanced, but not that of, say, the Hyksos. When the Arabs spread out to North Africa, nomads ceased to exist. Or take Roman culture. It was an assimilation machine. Cultures in Spain, Etruria, even Egypt were all but wiped out with the advent of a more complex culture.

Sure they do. They just call it Progressive Internationalism.
Democrats and Reps aren't that much different. Both want an US empire.
That's a lie, and you know it. The Democrats prefer a more reactive policy. That's not to say that they're afraid to apply force when absolutely necessary, but they aren't as willing to use it, or even by diplomatic means. At the very least, wait until a Democratic White House to formulate an opinion like this.

The Indian government agrees with me.
And yes, simple cultures just won't do. Take Arab culture, for example. That was once an assortment of cultures. Egypt was reasonably advanced, but not that of, say, the Hyksos. When the Arabs spread out to North Africa, nomads ceased to exist.
Then what do you call the Tuareg? City dwellers?
Or take Roman culture. It was an assimilation machine. Cultures in Spain, Etruria, even Egypt were all but wiped out with the advent of a more complex culture.
A more complex culture? How was Roman culture more complex then any of the others? Your an expert on cultures suddenly?
And they didn't just cease to exist cause there suddenly was Roman culture. They were activly assimilated. Like the US does.

That's a lie, and you know it.
I saw a piece of one of Kerry's speach some time ago. In this he was yapping about how the world looks up to America for leadership. To me these are the words of an imperialist. Cause I bet he never bothered to ask the world if they realy jern for US leadership. And you might wanna read my link.

Then what do you call the Tuareg? City dwellers?

A more complex culture? How was Roman culture more complex then any of the others? Your an expert on cultures suddenly?
And they didn't just cease to exist cause there suddenly was Roman culture. They were activly assimilated. Like the US does.
I'm not a cultural expert, but I do know that Rome's was rather complex. They borrowed Greek art, but had architecture and engineering even the Greeks couldn't match. They also refined Latin, and their system of government was more complex and beneficial to society than even that of Egypt's.
However, I see culture as a natural progression. In every strong culture, the best aspects of the weaker culture are taken and sent to the mainstream.
Of course, I'm not surprised that you got a respect for cultures that don't have cardinal numbers, live in thatched huts, and don't have a perfect passive participle. You have an ideaology shared by some intellectuals in Europe and the US called multiculturalism, asserting that every single culture is equal, and needs to be preserved. Of course, I find this to be a rascist ideaology, asserting that those who are primitive can remain primitive, and if not educating them means preservation of their culture, so be it.

I saw a piece of one of Kerry's speach some time ago. In this he was yapping about how the world looks up to America for leadership. To me these are the words of an imperialist. Cause I bet he never bothered to ask the world if they realy jern for US leadership. And you might wanna read my link.
He's saying that simply to win votes, as they all do. Besides, the world has historically looked to America to take the lead, especially in the past sixty years.

However, I see culture as a natural progression. In every strong culture, the best aspects of the weaker culture are taken and sent to the mainstream.
Of course, I'm not surprised that you got a respect for cultures that don't have cardinal numbers, live in thatched huts, and don't have a perfect passive participle. You have an ideaology shared by some intellectuals in Europe and the US called multiculturalism, asserting that every single culture is equal, and needs to be preserved. Of course, I find this to be a rascist ideaology, asserting that those who are primitive can remain primitive, and if not educating them means preservation of their culture, so be it.
This is the first time I see someone calling the idea of multiculturalism racist. :D
Even funnier coming from someone who advocates the eradication of all cultures to service the American.

He's saying that simply to win votes, as they all do.
You still haven't read the link huh?

You still haven't read the link huh?
You never posted one.

I saw a piece of one of Kerry's speach some time ago. In this he was yapping about how the world looks up to America for leadership. To me these are the words of an imperialist. Cause I bet he never bothered to ask the world if they realy jern for US leadership. And you might wanna read my link.
I don't think that leadership is the same as ownership. I think that looking up to america as a beacon of freedom (which even at its lowest ebb, compared to most places, it is), isn't a bad thing.

This is the first time I see someone calling the idea of multiculturalism racist. :D
Even funnier coming from someone who advocates the eradication of all cultures to service the American.
Not only that, but it's reverse rascism. Look at San Fransico, a city that my uncle lived in, and has told me what sounds eerily like multiculturalism, or at least what some here have turned it into. They feel that it's impossible to be rascist, unless you're a white male. Then you're automatically one.

VERY well put, Euclid.
New to the board here.
I thought your views were extremly well thought out and valid.
Seeing as though I'm wearing my keyboard (and my fingers) out on another website regarding politics, I will leave this one to you.

I agree with most, if not all, of your original post.

Keep it up.

I read the link, btw. What is wrong with the US working with others to advance our goals?

If your current lunatic gets his way they will be used in future conflicts.

They said that about Reagan, too.
:rolleyes:

Even funnier coming from someone who advocates the eradication of all cultures to service the American.

You're intentionally twisting and oversimplifying his ideas. He's not saying the US is trying to suck up other countries and pave over their land with Mcdonalds. All he's saying is that in a global society, eventually some cultural ideas die out because they are overtaken by better ones, and that each culture assimilated puts the best elements of its culture towards the greater whole. The US is a patchwork of those cultures it assimilates, vying for a better and more harmonic society.

You're intentionally twisting and oversimplifying his ideas. He's not saying the US is trying to suck up other countries and pave over their land with Mcdonalds. All he's saying is that in a global society, eventually some cultural ideas die out because they are overtaken by better ones, and that each culture assimilated puts the best elements of its culture towards the greater whole. The US is a patchwork of those cultures it assimilates, vying for a better and more harmonic society.
Exactly. Some cultures thrive, others die. And that'll happen at a faster pace thanks to globalization. Right now, I'm talking to people from all four corners of the planet. The internet in particular is an engine for cultural change, no? I just think that, at this moment, American culture is in a position to triumph, even spinning varients. In Tokyo, for example, the street fashions are reminiscent of those found in American streets, but with a varient. Shorts on pants are becoming popular, and will make their way to Europe, eventually. This just shows that not only has American culture spun varients already, but because of this, it is in a position to suceed internationally. Like it or not, it's here. But I wouldn't worry about it. It's akin to the language destructions that took place in Europe with the invention of the Television. And because of that, Europeans have a better time understanding eachother.

bump

bump, again. And for the sake of arguement, I'd love to hear some liberal opinions. I've heard virtually none.

Bump again

Come on, doesn't anyone feel like ripping me apart?

In recent months, people have noticed a change in me. Some have called me controversial. Others have said stupid. A few even say I’m crazy. I welcome those comments, because they foster debate. This is a condensation of what I believe. I want people to know that I’m not some selfish, jingoistic prep who is also a right-wing gun nut. There’s a philosophy behind it.
What is it, may you ask. Let me explain. Global politics is a relatively new phenomenon, perhaps about three hundred years old. In its first two hundred years, some good things happened, like the British bringing India out of the Middle Ages. However, no one can deny that oodles of bad happened. Tribes were separated, wealth was mismanaged, and wars became deadlier. In WWII, the imperial world reached its death in extreme violence, having the world plunged into a hideous war. The ruins of it became battlefields for the bipolar world: the US, and the USSR. Horrible things happened, for at least in WWII, the majority of the world was behind the Allies. Here, it was a series of proxy wars that devastated Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. The Soviet Union has fallen, and now, there’s nothing left for these ideologues to fight, except for one thing: one of their two old enemies, the US.
The US did make grave mistakes during the Cold War, even if it was for a good fight. Still, despite US support for dictatorships and such, it propped up the global structure. It maintained a sense of global order, and each power propped the other by considering its opposite as the enemy. Sounds Orwelian, but it was true. However, with the Soviet Union gone, two things have happened. First, as I’ve said, they’re fighting the US. But secondly, the world has become a global village. In this, there are catastrophic problems: overpopulation, AIDS, several financial crises, just to name a few. It wouldn’t affect the US at all if it weren’t as easy to travel and communicate across the globe. Any one of these problems has the same potential to be like the Middle East, that is, a hotbed of terror. And no matter what the US does to help or hinder these areas, the haves will always strike at the have-nots. It’s time for the haves to fight back.
The Middle East should serve as a lesson. The conditions in those countries, and their political, economic, and cultural situations, are identical in many areas throughout the globe. That is why the Middle East should be a lesson: if we let these complex problems play themselves out, it’ll become dangerous to our national security. I see Iraq as a noble, if belated attempt to change that. Assuming that Iraq works out, it’s possible we’ll have a free-market democracy in the Middle East that will spread to other nations in the region. The signs are promising, judging the US’s past record on reconstruction, and the large, liberal-minded middle class in that country.
In other regions, like Africa and the Caribbean, some of the same advantages aren’t there. That’s why it’s important to work with them before they get out of control, and threaten the US. This, however, is about more than a show of force. I believe that if the US takes such a proactive policy in foreign affairs, it can enrich the world. While the foreign investment and attention to reconstruction will improve the lives of these citizens, investors will have many business opportunities for these new free markets. It also helps to prevent terror, so this is a win-win.
How do we accomplish this? We need to radicalize region by region. The example in the Middle East is a good start, and assuming that Iraq can be successful a decade from now, it has the ability to change the region for the better. This should serve as a model for future US policy throughout the globe. Instead of containing a problem, as was our policy before Sept. 11, we should combat it. Dictators like Saddam Hussein, a threat to his own people and a powder keg in the region, must be destroyed, and the institutions must be reformed. However, this doesn’t give the US a green light for pure aggression. If a nation pursues reform peacefully, the US should send investment and aid, not bullets. Of course, if they are being regressive, stones should be given instead of carrot sticks. My expectation is that some form of an agreement between the US (and allies) and these nations should form, to make our nations closer economically, militarily, maybe even politically. Some of these developing nations are dependent on the developed already, and as they transition, I’m sure they’d have a very hard time transitioning entirely on their own.
I’m sure many of you are reading this and thinking this is pure fantasy bordering on insanity. It’s not, I can assure you. The US has the resources to do basically anything it wants in a short time, except conquer Heaven. There are too many safeguards, like the media and the free market that make this experiment go the way of the British Empire. Most importantly, perhaps, I believe that since American society is complex but with liberal and democratic institutions, a lunatic can’t be elected into power. It’s in the vested interests of the American people not to appoint a dictator for life, and I believe that we are smart enough to detect one. Since so much of the world is cowering away from either ideas like this or US foreign policy, this, and the democratic society, add to justify a unipolar world, lead by the US. It’d be great if Europe, China, and others could make a multipolar partnership, but for the moment, that doesn’t look like it is happening.
This policy could lead to arrogance, but there is another safeguard for that. Traditionally, America has been cosmopolitan, and while it was the first culture to actively build from other cultures, it has become a culture in itself. As many Europeans and anti-globalizationalists can attest to, we are the first, and possibly the only culture, that seeks to actively include rather than exclude. As evidenced by China, Japan, Europe, and Russia, the American culture is accepted with open arms. Culture has often counterweighted arrogance, and if it can’t stop it in some Americans, it will stop it from advancing too far in the minds of American intellectuals and politicians.
Call this idea the work of an imperialist, a neo-con, whatever you want. But this is what I believe. Take it, leave it, debate it. I’m not an academic, so I’m expecting that this philosophy will be picked apart left and right. However, I just wanted those who were willing to read this to know that this is where I stand in the extremely big picture.
Applauds. Great speech. For the most part, I agree with you. I chose to stay out of this debate now.

Applauds. Great speech. For the most part, I agree with you. I chose to stay out of this debate now.
Ok. I guess I'm one of those selfish brats dying for attention.

Ok. I guess I'm one of those selfish brats dying for attention.
You probably are :wink:

In recent months, people have noticed a change in me. Some have called me controversial. Others have said stupid. A few even say I’m crazy. I welcome those comments, because they foster debate. This is a condensation of what I believe. I want people to know that I’m not some selfish, jingoistic prep who is also a right-wing gun nut. There’s a philosophy behind it.
What is it, may you ask. Let me explain. Global politics is a relatively new phenomenon, perhaps about three hundred years old. In its first two hundred years, some good things happened, like the British bringing India out of the Middle Ages. However, no one can deny that oodles of bad happened. Tribes were separated, wealth was mismanaged, and wars became deadlier. In WWII, the imperial world reached its death in extreme violence, having the world plunged into a hideous war. The ruins of it became battlefields for the bipolar world: the US, and the USSR. Horrible things happened, for at least in WWII, the majority of the world was behind the Allies. Here, it was a series of proxy wars that devastated Europe, the Middle East, Asia, and Africa. The Soviet Union has fallen, and now, there’s nothing left for these ideologues to fight, except for one thing: one of their two old enemies, the US.
The US did make grave mistakes during the Cold War, even if it was for a good fight. Still, despite US support for dictatorships and such, it propped up the global structure. It maintained a sense of global order, and each power propped the other by considering its opposite as the enemy. Sounds Orwelian, but it was true. However, with the Soviet Union gone, two things have happened. First, as I’ve said, they’re fighting the US. But secondly, the world has become a global village. In this, there are catastrophic problems: overpopulation, AIDS, several financial crises, just to name a few. It wouldn’t affect the US at all if it weren’t as easy to travel and communicate across the globe. Any one of these problems has the same potential to be like the Middle East, that is, a hotbed of terror. And no matter what the US does to help or hinder these areas, the haves will always strike at the have-nots. It’s time for the haves to fight back.
The Middle East should serve as a lesson. The conditions in those countries, and their political, economic, and cultural situations, are identical in many areas throughout the globe. That is why the Middle East should be a lesson: if we let these complex problems play themselves out, it’ll become dangerous to our national security. I see Iraq as a noble, if belated attempt to change that. Assuming that Iraq works out, it’s possible we’ll have a free-market democracy in the Middle East that will spread to other nations in the region. The signs are promising, judging the US’s past record on reconstruction, and the large, liberal-minded middle class in that country.
In other regions, like Africa and the Caribbean, some of the same advantages aren’t there. That’s why it’s important to work with them before they get out of control, and threaten the US. This, however, is about more than a show of force. I believe that if the US takes such a proactive policy in foreign affairs, it can enrich the world. While the foreign investment and attention to reconstruction will improve the lives of these citizens, investors will have many business opportunities for these new free markets. It also helps to prevent terror, so this is a win-win.
How do we accomplish this? We need to radicalize region by region. The example in the Middle East is a good start, and assuming that Iraq can be successful a decade from now, it has the ability to change the region for the better. This should serve as a model for future US policy throughout the globe. Instead of containing a problem, as was our policy before Sept. 11, we should combat it. Dictators like Saddam Hussein, a threat to his own people and a powder keg in the region, must be destroyed, and the institutions must be reformed. However, this doesn’t give the US a green light for pure aggression. If a nation pursues reform peacefully, the US should send investment and aid, not bullets. Of course, if they are being regressive, stones should be given instead of carrot sticks. My expectation is that some form of an agreement between the US (and allies) and these nations should form, to make our nations closer economically, militarily, maybe even politically. Some of these developing nations are dependent on the developed already, and as they transition, I’m sure they’d have a very hard time transitioning entirely on their own.
I’m sure many of you are reading this and thinking this is pure fantasy bordering on insanity. It’s not, I can assure you. The US has the resources to do basically anything it wants in a short time, except conquer Heaven. There are too many safeguards, like the media and the free market that make this experiment go the way of the British Empire. Most importantly, perhaps, I believe that since American society is complex but with liberal and democratic institutions, a lunatic can’t be elected into power. It’s in the vested interests of the American people not to appoint a dictator for life, and I believe that we are smart enough to detect one. Since so much of the world is cowering away from either ideas like this or US foreign policy, this, and the democratic society, add to justify a unipolar world, lead by the US. It’d be great if Europe, China, and others could make a multipolar partnership, but for the moment, that doesn’t look like it is happening.
This policy could lead to arrogance, but there is another safeguard for that. Traditionally, America has been cosmopolitan, and while it was the first culture to actively build from other cultures, it has become a culture in itself. As many Europeans and anti-globalizationalists can attest to, we are the first, and possibly the only culture, that seeks to actively include rather than exclude. As evidenced by China, Japan, Europe, and Russia, the American culture is accepted with open arms. Culture has often counterweighted arrogance, and if it can’t stop it in some Americans, it will stop it from advancing too far in the minds of American intellectuals and politicians.
Call this idea the work of an imperialist, a neo-con, whatever you want. But this is what I believe. Take it, leave it, debate it. I’m not an academic, so I’m expecting that this philosophy will be picked apart left and right. However, I just wanted those who were willing to read this to know that this is where I stand in the extremely big picture.

Sorry, but we are not the world's policeman. The world's problems are just that, not U.S. problems. A better solution would be to abolish foreign aid, bring back every troop from abroad, drastically strengthen our borders, pull out of every entangling alliance, break off diplomatic relations and trade with all our enemies, and seek reconciliation with allies we have shunned, abandoned, or offended (but of course, not intervene in their affairs).

Sorry, but we are not the world's policeman. The world's problems are just that, not U.S. problems. A better solution would be to abolish foreign aid, bring back every troop from abroad, drastically strengthen our borders, pull out of every entangling alliance, break off diplomatic relations and trade with all our enemies, and seek reconciliation with allies we have shunned, abandoned, or offended (but of course, not intervene in their affairs).
Unfortunatly, that won't work. This is a globalized world, and if we did that, we'd wither and die, first politically, then economically. Besides, terrorists would still try to attack us. It just won't work, nowadays.

Unfortunatly, that won't work. This is a globalized world, and if we did that, we'd wither and die, first politically, then economically. Besides, terrorists would still try to attack us. It just won't work, nowadays.

It'd still be worth a try. Those globalists out there can shove their New World Order up their (beep!).

It'd still be worth a try. Those globalists out there can shove their New World Order up their (beep!).
By and large, America is the beneficiary of this New World Order. I want a newer world order, and this will have a Midas touch: even though the world turns to gold, guess who one of the main investors are: we are. It'll make the world richer, and us a helluva lot richer. It's win-win in the long term. Isolationism, as you advocate for, will be loose-loose.

By and large, America is the beneficiary of this New World Order. I want a newer world order, and this will have a Midas touch: even though the world turns to gold, guess who one of the main investors are: we are. It'll make the world richer, and us a helluva lot richer. It's win-win in the long term. Isolationism, as you advocate for, will be loose-loose.

I don't advocate "isolationism." Isolationism means cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world. I simply advocate "non-interventionism," meaning we keep our nose out of other nations' business, be they friend or foe, no matter what.

I don't advocate "isolationism." Isolationism means cutting ourselves off from the rest of the world. I simply advocate "non-interventionism," meaning we keep our nose out of other nations' business, be they friend or foe, no matter what.
That has an isolationist ring to it, and I don't like it. We were only able to get away with non-interventionalism since we were separated by two oceans, and the main powers in Europe didn't need us. In the past 100 years, however, they found out that they need us. The world has shrank, and as we tried to insulate ourselves, our enemies attacked us even for minor offenses on our part. It can't work, because the nature of the world today won't allow it.

I find your theories and ideas very simplified, most capitalist/plutocrat rethorics are, I think ("the rich are generally better leaders because they were obviously able to make money").

Globalisation will not benefit anyone but the owners of the international corporations, and their benefit lies in the fact that the governments will have a harder time regulating them, and so they can exploit their workers more efficiently.

And win-win situations only exists between two parts with a surrounding world. A global win-win situation is impossible (economically).

I find your theories and ideas very simplified, most capitalist/plutocrat rethorics are, I think ("the rich are generally better leaders because they were obviously able to make money").

Globalisation will not benefit anyone but the owners of the international corporations, and their benefit lies in the fact that the governments will have a harder time regulating them, and so they can exploit their workers more efficiently.

And win-win situations only exists between two parts with a surrounding world. A global win-win situation is impossible (economically).
Globalization has worked well in East Asia, has it not? Let's try it in more volatile areas. The US needs to politically lead the way, and benefits are in store for it, should it pursue this policy.

Let's try it in more volatile areas. The US needs to politically lead the way, and benefits are in store for it, should it pursue this policy.
Also, alot of new enemies. Hmm..maybe I should reconsider my position. I haven't thought of this before.

Also, alot of new enemies. Hmm..maybe I should reconsider my position. I haven't thought of this before.
No, I have. I see them as temporary. I see Iraq as being a model. Should it work about a decade or so from now, terrorism may act more desparate, but it won't have new recruits, or even a base. I think the same thing will happen throughout the world. The good news is that any resistence will be unorganized for the first few years or so, and by then, indigeounous forces should be able to fight back.

No, I have. I see them as temporary. I see Iraq as being a model. Should it work about a decade or so from now, terrorism may act more desparate, but it won't have new recruits, or even a base. I think the same thing will happen throughout the world. The good news is that any resistence will be unorganized for the first few years or so, and by then, indigeounous forces should be able to fight back.
I think you missed my point completely.

I think you missed my point completely.
Oh, I see. Making Europeans our enemies. I don't see them as a threat.

Oh, I see. Making Europeans our enemies. I don't see them as a threat.
I was thinking of some more volitile people. And while you don't consider Europeans a threat, just so you know. We do consider America a threat.

I was thinking of some more volitile people. And while you don't consider Europeans a threat, just so you know. We do consider America a threat.
As living standards improve in these areas, our enemies will dwindle. Sure, there will always be a few die hards, but they always exist in every system, trying to keep the old. And if by volatile you mean clinically insane, wouldn't be in the US military's best interests to build mental hospitals, and have them sequestered? I know that has happened in both Afghanistan and Iraq, or at the very least, more psychologists were brought in.

Europe, or at least the part of it we're talking about here (the first world countries, that is), have pretty high living standards, in fact most of them have higher standards than the US. Clearly, you believe yourself to be/are a visionary and will be able to answer any attack/statement with an, at least seemingly, well-thought-out reply. And I don't have the vocabulary nor the will to argue with you.

I don't believe in the coming of a new era. I don't believe the world will change for the better. In fact, I don't believe that the world will change much at all. However, I DO believe that our measures of the wealth of a nation differ greatly.

Clearly, you believe yourself to be/are a visionary

Hmm. Interesting point. Say PE, your not dreaming about becoming an artist by any chance? :D

The Middle East should serve as a lesson. The conditions in those countries, and their political, economic, and cultural situations, are identical in many areas throughout the globe. That is why the Middle East should be a lesson: if we let these complex problems play themselves out, it’ll become dangerous to our national security. I see Iraq as a noble, if belated attempt to change that. Assuming that Iraq works out, it’s possible we’ll have a free-market democracy in the Middle East that will spread to other nations in the region. The signs are promising, judging the US’s past record on reconstruction, and the large, liberal-minded middle class in that country..
What middle class??????? There is almost none.
Look to the elections in Algeria in 1991. The islamists won. Fortunately the military took over and prevented them from seizing power.
If there be free elections in many countries - even in Egypt and Jordan - islamists and anti-american parties would take over. That´s a given. You shouldn´t make yourself illusions. The US was never more hated in that region than it is now.


In other regions, like Africa and the Caribbean, some of the same advantages aren’t there. That’s why it’s important to work with them before they get out of control, and threaten the US. ..
You seem to assume that terrorism is due to poverty. That is nonsense. It has other reasons. The main one is a radical ideology, the conflicts in the Middle East. And of course: the US was and is and always remains involved in that region. So it is of course a main target for the terrorists.
I rather see more potential conflict in the Asian-pacific region. The real rivalry in the 21 rst century is going to be between the US and China. That is obvious.
Islamic terrorism is a problem and thread. But there is no islamic country which could even stand the US for a few weeks.
Though it remains a problem and I think it is going to increase. I agree to the hypothesis of Huntington in that regard. The population growth in the islamic world has reached its climax. It is already declining. Though a big young population flows into the labour market (youth boom) and not enough jobs are available and the opportunities difficult. So there is a lot of conflict potential. Though we don´t know whether this explodes within that societis or without it is a given that we have to expect a lot of agression by groups of that population. (Huntington speaks about the baby-boomers in the islamic world and compares them with the baby-boomers in the US and West Europe after World War II who have after all also changed their societies (1968, march through the instituitions).



How do we accomplish this? We need to radicalize region by region. The example in the Middle East is a good start, and assuming that Iraq can be successful a decade from now, it has the ability to change the region for the better. This should serve as a model for future US policy throughout the globe. Instead of containing a problem, as was our policy before Sept. 11, we should combat it. Dictators like Saddam Hussein, a threat to his own people and a powder keg in the region, must be destroyed, and the institutions must be reformed. However, this doesn’t give the US a green light for pure aggression. If a nation pursues reform peacefully, the US should send investment and aid, not bullets. Of course, if they are being regressive, stones should be given instead of carrot sticks. My expectation is that some form of an agreement between the US (and allies) and these nations should form, to make our nations closer economically, militarily, maybe even politically. Some of these developing nations are dependent on the developed already, and as they transition, I’m sure they’d have a very hard time transitioning entirely on their own...
Why do you want to "radicalize" region by region?? Isn´t there enough radicalism already????? And by the way: too what should that lead. Now the US is present in many parts of the world. Since the 1990s only it started new missions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Afghanistan and now Iraq. None of this missions is over. They are all going to continue for an indefinite time. You have limitted ressources. You shouldn´t forget that.
Otherwise you are going to have an imperial overstretch. Many former empires have made this experiences.
How many countries do you want to liberate now??? According to Tenet 50-60 countries are somehow supporting or at least not fighting all forms of terrorism actively. So what do you want to do? Going for regime change in all of them?????
And by the way. There are 2 billion people living in desperate conditions. Do you really think the US with its 260 million people can suddenly change that?????
There would be one way to really help poorer countries. And that would be if the US, Japan and Europe would open up the markets. Besides the rhetoric of the US it is protectionist in many areas (steel, giving subsidies for agricultural exports). It is not only the "bad" EU and "bad" Japan which is an obstacle here.





I’m sure many of you are reading this and thinking this is pure fantasy bordering on insanity. It’s not, I can assure you. The US has the resources to do basically anything it wants in a short time, except conquer Heaven. There are too many safeguards, like the media and the free market that make this experiment go the way of the British Empire. Most importantly, perhaps, I believe that since American society is complex but with liberal and democratic institutions, a lunatic can’t be elected into power. It’s in the vested interests of the American people not to appoint a dictator for life, and I believe that we are smart enough to detect one. Since so much of the world is cowering away from either ideas like this or US foreign policy, this, and the democratic society, add to justify a unipolar world, lead by the US. It’d be great if Europe, China, and others could make a multipolar partnership, but for the moment, that doesn’t look like it is happening.
I would see it differently. The EU is still in the make-up and has to build its instituition and - in a way - unify the continent which was after all divided for so long.
In the long-run it is going to play a more important role. However for a long-time it has to repair the damages caused by the history of the 20 th century, especially the four decades of communism - especially in the economic field. The 10 new members only add 5% more to the economic output. And stabilising the balcans and integrating it into Europe is a job for decades to come.
China is still a developing country - though with high potential and high growth. In a few decades I think they are going to play a second role aside the US.
The US has only 5% of the world population. It is currently contributing 25% to the world economy. But the main growth potential lays in East Asia. In the long-run the relative US numbers are going to drop with the development of other regions in the world catching up (or at least decreasing the gap) to it.
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 however opens a widow of opportunity for the US to dominate the world.
However this widow isn´t open indefinately, only for a few decades.


This policy could lead to arrogance, but there is another safeguard for that. Traditionally, America has been cosmopolitan, and while it was the first culture to actively build from other cultures, it has become a culture in itself. As many Europeans and anti-globalizationalists can attest to, we are the first, and possibly the only culture, that seeks to actively include rather than exclude. As evidenced by China, Japan, Europe, and Russia, the American culture is accepted with open arms. Culture has often counterweighted arrogance, and if it can’t stop it in some Americans, it will stop it from advancing too far in the minds of American intellectuals and politicians.
.
The arrogance of power is a natural thing. It is not avoidable. The US is not really a mixture of cultures. It is the product of European culture and puritan ideas, which after all were not able to spread in Europe. And that the US has no problem in including other cultures is simple not true. I don`t need to go back to the reality in the 1950s or 1960s in the Southern states.
And I was in the US in the 1990s and a coach driver told me that the "Asians" are a problem today. So: obviously problems with minorities don´t only exist in "evil" Europe but also in the so-called "melting pot" US. By the way: where was the melting. At the end most people prefer to stay with his kind.
And after all: you don´t have a big muslim minority like we have in Europe. That there are many and big problems within this group you are aware of. I don´t need to remember you of that. So: it is not that easy to deal with this group, which is pretty large and growing in Europe.
The spread of American culture has more to do with the position the US is in as the worlds leading power. For example: From around 1648 till 1815 France was the leading power on the European continent and French absolutism was the role-modell for other countries (France was in the begining very successful with this system - The only rival was Britain, though it was not present on the continent: The British interests laid overseas). The result of that was that the educated class was not able to speak French but that French was commonly spoken around this group - being it at the castles of the Prussians in Berlin and Potsdam (Sansouci castle is even a smaller copy of Versailles), Vienna or St. Petersburg aside the domestic language. An French culture was also adopted in many fields. Actually even a lot of French vocabulary was included into the languages. But the different cultures remained different. The Russians remained Russians, e.g.
This period ended somewhere in the 19 th century and the use of French language and the copy of its culture decreased a bit. Though it was still commonly use till the middle of the 19 th century and many vocabularies remained in it.
Today English is in the world in the position French was in continental Europe till the 19 th century.
The adoption of American culture in Western Europe began after World War II when the US became the leading power of the western world. And today it is it in the whole world.
So: the acceptance or rather adaption of the English language and parts of the American culture is happening due to power of the US. That is not a special thing. That happened in history several times. And as long as the US is in that position it is going to continue.
Though with the rise of other nations their culture becomes more interesting. Globalisation is not only Americanisation. There is McDonalds (which here especially boomend in the early 1990s) but there was afterwards (end of the 1990s) a boom in chinese restaurants (also as fast food). Though quite honestly: I rather like to see the US to remain in the leading role than China. Not because of the food (of coures not) but because it is a democracy and after all the language is not so difficult and different to our language as Chinese.

What middle class??????? There is almost none.
More than in any other Middle Eastern country except Israel, but that will never have an impact on the region.
Look to the elections in Algeria in 1991. The islamists won. Fortunately the military took over and prevented them from seizing power.
If there be free elections in many countries - even in Egypt and Jordan - islamists and anti-american parties would take over. That´s a given. You shouldn´t make yourself illusions. The US was never more hated in that region than it is now.
There is a difference between liberty and democracy. Liberty is the opening of markets, the granting of certain rights, etc. Democracy is the choosing of leaders by the people. If democracy comes first in an underdeveloped nation, then liberty has no chance. Look at Russia, or parts of India. Total democracy before liberty is never a good thing. Singapore is a role model for that: it had many liberties, but no democracy. Now it should be a true republic within a generation, if not sooner.

You seem to assume that terrorism is due to poverty. That is nonsense. It has other reasons. The main one is a radical ideology, the conflicts in the Middle East. And of course: the US was and is and always remains involved in that region. So it is of course a main target for the terrorists.
It wouldn't matter if the US was there or not. They target us because we're the most powerful around, as well as their grievances against us during the Cold War. The wave of Wahabiism only caused the situation to turn violent.
Now, is terrorism due to poverty? No, but quite the opposite. It is due to a clubbish nature of wealth that produces these ideaologies. However, impoverished areas are often breeding grounds for these ideaologies to spread. It's happening in Egypt, and I fear that it may spread into Africa, particularly in Sudan, among the Janjaweed. They're thirsty for blood. I bet they'll want more.
I rather see more potential conflict in the Asian-pacific region. The real rivalry in the 21 rst century is going to be between the US and China. That is obvious.
Islamic terrorism is a problem and thread. But there is no islamic country which could even stand the US for a few weeks.
Though it remains a problem and I think it is going to increase. I agree to the hypothesis of Huntington in that regard. The population growth in the islamic world has reached its climax. It is already declining. Though a big young population flows into the labour market (youth boom) and not enough jobs are available and the opportunities difficult. So there is a lot of conflict potential. Though we don´t know whether this explodes within that societis or without it is a given that we have to expect a lot of agression by groups of that population. (Huntington speaks about the baby-boomers in the islamic world and compares them with the baby-boomers in the US and West Europe after World War II who have after all also changed their societies (1968, march through the instituitions).
Yes, this militarily delay any plans that I have. But can it economically? I say no. I envision the coming FTAA to end up like the EU in the next twenty years. The wave of Hispanic immigrants will make the US a bilingual society by the end of this century, so automatically the language barier disapears. In the long run, it'll energize the Brazilian economy, and would have a greater chance of reuniting the best developed economy in South America, Columbia. Without the rebels, it's the best economy there, and is actually fairly democratic.
As for East Asia, they are actually something for the US to be proud of. With the revitalization of the Japanese economy in the fifties, in large part due to US help, the Asian tigers developed. But if they are gonna start a rivalry, we'll deal with them later.


Why do you want to "radicalize" region by region?? Isn´t there enough radicalism already?????
Not liberal radicalism. That died around WWII.
And by the way: too what should that lead. Now the US is present in many parts of the world. Since the 1990s only it started new missions in Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia, Afghanistan and now Iraq. None of this missions is over. They are all going to continue for an indefinite time. You have limitted ressources. You shouldn´t forget that.
Otherwise you are going to have an imperial overstretch. Many former empires have made this experiences.
I reiterate that the military won't be our primary weapon, but rather our investments and the flow of markets.
How many countries do you want to liberate now??? According to Tenet 50-60 countries are somehow supporting or at least not fighting all forms of terrorism actively. So what do you want to do? Going for regime change in all of them?????
And by the way. There are 2 billion people living in desperate conditions. Do you really think the US with its 260 million people can suddenly change that?????
All we need to do is to liberate a few countries. The rest would fall into this trap like dominoes. It happened with Japan, and it's more likely to happen in Iraq, because its geopolitics are unique. Not only that, but whatever happens in Iraq, it'll certainly liberalize Iran, if not depose the Aylotollah completely.
There would be one way to really help poorer countries. And that would be if the US, Japan and Europe would open up the markets. Besides the rhetoric of the US it is protectionist in many areas (steel, giving subsidies for agricultural exports). It is not only the "bad" EU and "bad" Japan which is an obstacle here.
You must not be following the news. The US and EU agreed to lower their export subsidies. It's certainly a way to help, but how will it benefit us developed nations in the process?





I would see it differently. The EU is still in the make-up and has to build its instituition and - in a way - unify the continent which was after all divided for so long.
In the long-run it is going to play a more important role. However for a long-time it has to repair the damages caused by the history of the 20 th century, especially the four decades of communism - especially in the economic field. The 10 new members only add 5% more to the economic output. And stabilising the balcans and integrating it into Europe is a job for decades to come.
Because of an aging population, coupled with a population decline, I see Europe's role as significantly decreasing in the next half century. Of course, I also see Europeans as begging the most for a role. Besides, the EU is useful at this moment, and right now, that's what matters.

The US has only 5% of the world population. It is currently contributing 25% to the world economy. But the main growth potential lays in East Asia. In the long-run the relative US numbers are going to drop with the development of other regions in the world catching up (or at least decreasing the gap) to it.
The collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 however opens a widow of opportunity for the US to dominate the world.
However this widow isn´t open indefinately, only for a few decades.
I want to accelarate the process of the developing world being developed. However, I don't want to see the US lose power in the process. That's what I want the US to do: lead the way, make the world our allies, and then our grandchildren have a wide variety of business oppritunities, and don't have to worry about feeling vulnerable. I want them to feel as safe as we did back in the nineties.

The arrogance of power is a natural thing. It is not avoidable. The US is not really a mixture of cultures. It is the product of European culture and puritan ideas, which after all were not able to spread in Europe. And that the US has no problem in including other cultures is simple not true. I don`t need to go back to the reality in the 1950s or 1960s in the Southern states.
And the Northern states?

And after all: you don´t have a big muslim minority like we have in Europe. That there are many and big problems within this group you are aware of. I don´t need to remember you of that. So: it is not that easy to deal with this group, which is pretty large and growing in Europe.
Of course not. But I see it as being like the minority of impoverished urban dwellers here. They abuse welfare, don't work, and are a major conduit of drugs. I'd say their drug activity is a bigger threat to society as a whole than Europe's Arab minority.
The spread of American culture has more to do with the position the US is in as the worlds leading power. For example: From around 1648 till 1815 France was the leading power on the European continent and French absolutism was the role-modell for other countries (France was in the begining very successful with this system - The only rival was Britain, though it was not present on the continent: The British interests laid overseas). The result of that was that the educated class was not able to speak French but that French was commonly spoken around this group - being it at the castles of the Prussians in Berlin and Potsdam (Sansouci castle is even a smaller copy of Versailles), Vienna or St. Petersburg aside the domestic language. An French culture was also adopted in many fields. Actually even a lot of French vocabulary was included into the languages. But the different cultures remained different. The Russians remained Russians, e.g.
This period ended somewhere in the 19 th century and the use of French language and the copy of its culture decreased a bit. Though it was still commonly use till the middle of the 19 th century and many vocabularies remained in it.
Today English is in the world in the position French was in continental Europe till the 19 th century.
The adoption of American culture in Western Europe began after World War II when the US became the leading power of the western world. And today it is it in the whole world.
So: the acceptance or rather adaption of the English language and parts of the American culture is happening due to power of the US. That is not a special thing. That happened in history several times. And as long as the US is in that position it is going to continue.
Though with the rise of other nations their culture becomes more interesting. Globalisation is not only Americanisation. There is McDonalds (which here especially boomend in the early 1990s) but there was afterwards (end of the 1990s) a boom in chinese restaurants (also as fast food). Though quite honestly: I rather like to see the US to remain in the leading role than China. Not because of the food (of coures not) but because it is a democracy and after all the language is not so difficult and different to our language as Chinese.
There are lots of Chinese resturants here, too. I'm not saying that I'm against any sort of melting pot. However, I'm sure that the free market will, by and large, embrace many aspects of American culture. Why is it that the Chinese have to ban certain American films due to box office sales?

Hmm. Interesting point. Say PE, your not dreaming about becoming an artist by any chance? :D
I'm an art lover, and I have plans to go to Vienna :).

And if I could add one last comment on your imperial overstreacth thought, Kybertenia? Thanks.
It won't happen, at least militarily. Look at Iraq. That general up in Mosul (forgot his name) was considered to be the best at training Iraqi security forces. He's now in charge of it all for Iraq. And thank God he was assigned that role! As recruiting offices swell, I have great faith in these large, yet superbly trained Iraqi security forces. In a few years, it should free several divisions of US troops, and as far as I can see it, will make Iraq an ally. They'd assist us should any further trouble arise in the Middle East. I expect the same will happen elsewhere, too.

bump

I wholehartedly agree with PE.

I'm an art lover, and I have plans to go to Vienna :).
Thats what I thought.

There is a difference between liberty and democracy. Liberty is the opening of markets, the granting of certain rights, etc. Democracy is the choosing of leaders by the people. If democracy comes first in an underdeveloped nation, then liberty has no chance. Look at Russia, or parts of India. Total democracy before liberty is never a good thing. Singapore is a role model for that: it had many liberties, but no democracy. Now it should be a true republic within a generation, if not sooner.
Liberty and democracy can indeed be to different things.
But with your arguments you are actually supporting the chinese modell if I may say so: First economic reforms. Whether others follow is another question but if we think in historic dimensions they are going to do sometimes. In Europe the first beginings in the 19 th century were also economic reforms and changes (establishments of a constituition (constituitional monarchy, budget rights for parliaments, rule of law) before parlamentarian democracy was established. However: there was always a lot of tension due to the lack of democracy and individual freedom.
Such a reform process is therefore very difficult. It can only be successful it the country follows an domestic cultural concept to get some support for it. In Singapore that was Konfuzianism, so to a very old domestic concept in that region. How such a concept could be found in Iraq is another question since it is a multi-religious society which follows mainly different directions of Islam (shiite, sunni) and besides the Arab majority there are the Kurds in the north and other smaller groups (Turkmen, e.g., christians).
Whether it is really possible to find an umbrella (final constituition) which is acceptable to all is still an open question. Though other options don`t exist. Your ally (our ally) Turkey and Iran are NEVER GOING TO ACCEPT AN KURDISH STATE for example.




It wouldn't matter if the US was there or not. They target us because we're the most powerful around, as well as their grievances against us during the Cold War. The wave of Wahabiism only caused the situation to turn violent.
Now, is terrorism due to poverty? No, but quite the opposite. It is due to a clubbish nature of wealth that produces these ideaologies. However, impoverished areas are often breeding grounds for these ideaologies to spread. It's happening in Egypt, and I fear that it may spread into Africa, particularly in Sudan, among the Janjaweed. They're thirsty for blood. I bet they'll want more..
They are fighting a simular war like the serbs did in the balcans. The multi-ethnic state of Sudan is going to collaps. The south (mainly black African, animistic and christian) is going to seek independence officialy or is at least de facto independent anyway.
This is mainly a nationality conflict though religion plays a role of course (which it did of course as well in the balcans). I would recommend Huntingtons "Clash of civilisation?" if you haven´t read it yet. The main dangerous lines of conflict are the areas which he calls (I`m not shure about the English world I read a translation) break-line conflicts which he sees at areas where different civilisations meet. He defines the world as being divided in about 6-7 main civilisations.
And he brings a lot of good historic arguments for this divisions. Of course: there are also conflicts within the different civilisations, but the most dangerous once are the break-line conflict. The borders of the civilisations are of course not clearly defined. That leads of course to break-line conflicts. The balcans was one example (Muslims versus catholic Croats versus orthodox Serbs - so three civilastions), Caucasus (main conflicts are between muslim and orthodox christian groups - Russia versus Checheny, Georgia versus Abchasia - Nagorny Karabach (Armenian) versus Azerbaidshan (shiite muslim), Kashmir (India versus Pakistan), Palestine/Israel, South-East Asia (e.g. Philipines (catholic) versus muslim rebells in the south), Sudan (muslim Arabs versus mainly non-muslim Black Africans), Nigeria (currently volotile situation: muslim north versus christian south), e.g.
I of course now more about European history: but what I have to tell you is that for example the balcans is a crisis region almost since 2000 years. When the Roman Empire split apart the border was what is today Bosnia. So that was already a conflict line then. Since then the region not always but very often remains an area of conflict. To solve such break-line conflicts is hard if not almost impossible.
By the way: demography plays a role in that conflict. And mostly in favour of the muslims because they have growing if not exploding populations. For example the muslim palestinian population in the West Bank and Gaza is going to exceed the Isreali population in a few years. It is growing much more quickly. So: the situation for Israel is very difficult. It could actualy be preferable in a few decades for the Palestinians not to demand their own state but demand that they should become Israeli citizens: Than they would be in the majority and the end of Israel as a jewish state would be there.
There is only one area where the demography is not going in favour of the muslims: And that is in Xinjiang (China). The chinese government encourages chinese settlement in this region. Buy doing so the chinese population is more and more increasing (also in percent). So simular to Tibet they make the muslim Uigures to a minority in their country. And since it is a fact that 94% of chinese are Han they can do that very easily.

Yes, this militarily delay any plans that I have. But can it economically? I say no. I envision the coming FTAA to end up like the EU in the next twenty years. The wave of Hispanic immigrants will make the US a bilingual society by the end of this century, so automatically the language barier disapears. In the long run, it'll energize the Brazilian economy, and would have a greater chance of reuniting the best developed economy in South America, Columbia. Without the rebels, it's the best economy there, and is actually fairly democratic.
As for East Asia, they are actually something for the US to be proud of. With the revitalization of the Japanese economy in the fifties, in large part due to US help, the Asian tigers developed. But if they are gonna start a rivalry, we'll deal with them later.?
First of all: many Latin American countries are in deep shit, to say the last. But they are three which have indeed made a lot of progress. And that are Mexico, Brazil and Chile. Especially Brazil has a lot of potential of becoming a leading power of South America. If those countries however became more economic powerful they also are stronger on the international arena. That is a given. So to assume that they would always go with the US seems to be pretty unrealistic for me though. And the plans for a free trade area of all Americans are still in the begining. Experience proves that up until a completly free market is realized it is rather a thing for decades not years.
China alone has 1,5 billion people. And with the growing economy (which is growing much faster than that of the US) China is increasing its influence. Traditionaly China was the hegemonial power in East and South-East Asia. It may become that again. It certain has ambitions to do so. They only thing you can do is to form a counter-alliance with some of Chinas neighbours who are of course also concerned about the development. Aside of Japan that are South Corea (possibly Taiwan), Vietnam, India and Russia.

Though this alliance policy is of course difficult since Korean-Japanese relations are traditionaly not so good and the relationship between India and Pakistan - and old US ally after all- is traditionally that of an arch-enemieship. And the Russian-Japanese relationship is also a bit frosty (though it has improved a bit I know). So whether it is possible to keep this together is very uncertain. And that is even more the case while you at the same time handling the middle east, north Africa, Central Asia and being ready for interventions in Africa and forming alliances on the American continent. That is what I call overstretch. After all: your allies have also different interests and ambitious.
And they don´t fit all under one head.
So: I fear we are rather seeing changing alliances (coalitions of the willing) as a common instrument in the future. Though - as you experience in Iraq - this coalitions are not very stable. Countries may leave it.
Actually only Britain and to a certain degree Poland is a reliable ally. Everybody else is a dubious candidate. The lack of backing (by Nato or UN) is the cause of that.
As to the Japanese economy. The success of Japan began due to a very well planned japanese strategy in the 1960s. This did not at all followed the anglo-saxon modell of opening markets and liberalisation of the labour market. In fact Japanese dismissal protection laws are much more restrictive than in most countries. Japan rather protected its own economy and builded up its own industry. While it copied western technology it sticked to japanese discipline and tradition (which even include principles of the Samurai). Quite interesting though to see how things develop: after World War II Japan was indeed very interested in the US system but with the success of its own economy that shifted very soon.


I reiterate that the military won't be our primary weapon, but rather our investments and the flow of markets.
All we need to do is to liberate a few countries. The rest would fall into this trap like dominoes. It happened with Japan, and it's more likely to happen in Iraq, because its geopolitics are unique. Not only that, but whatever happens in Iraq, it'll certainly liberalize Iran, if not depose the Aylotollah completely.?
You are following a turned around domino theory. The same theory was used to argue that if Vietnam turns communists all of South Asia would. Didn´t happen though.
A simular concern lead to the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan and the Iraqi war on Iran after the Islamic revolution there in 1979.
So: just strategic assumptions which more follow an ideologic believe can go terrible wrong to the realities.
And by the way: what has Japan to do with a domino theory. I haven´t seen East Asia turned into democracies yet.


You must not be following the news. The US and EU agreed to lower their export subsidies. It's certainly a way to help, but how will it benefit us developed nations in the process?

It has been proposed. But there is no deal yet, thus far as I know. What is our benefit: well if countries develop they usually become more stable. And secondly if you really follow the economic principal (Smith) it is better for us. If they can produce things cheaper lets buy them and concentrate on things we do better. It may cost jobs in the begining. But: if we can buy things cheaper we (our socities) have more ressources left for other things and to spent them to advance our technology and push for the structural change. And this structural change is away from an industrialized society (where most people are employed in an industry) to an information and service society (where most people are employed in the service sector). The US is more advanced in this process than we are, though we have made progress with that as well.
We know - or should know - that we can´t stop this structural change. Though it is causing many problems but also opportunities. The last big structural change of our economy was the turn from agricultural rural societis to industrialized urban socities (Europe). This change caused many problems and instabilities. It required a major shift of the social system. The fact that Karl Marx teachings came in that time is not at all suprising.
Today we are actually facing a simular challenge. Ageing population, less people in the traditional employed position - all that requires many changes in our social and social security system. That are big challenges indeed.


Because of an aging population, coupled with a population decline, I see Europe's role as significantly decreasing in the next half century. Of course, I also see Europeans as begging the most for a role. Besides, the EU is useful at this moment, and right now, that's what matters.
At the 19 th century scientists in Europe said that because of the high population growth tens of million of people in Europe are going to starve. Didn´t happen though due to progress in agricultural technology.
And now to the ageing population. You have that as well. It is progress and success that people life longer. 50 years ago people only lifed about 65 years on average, today it is more than 76, in Japan about 80. Every year that is increasing about 3 months. Whether this tendency continues in that spead is unkonw. But we can assume that the life-expectancy continues to grow to about 85 in 2030.
But what is the consequence. If people are getting older and getting healthier older what the hell speaks against working longer. That is not possible with physical work but with other work it is. I refer to my country Germany. The law says that 65 is the retirement age. But in reality it is 60. That costs of course more. One instrument to reduce the cost is a law that cuts the pension if a person retires earlier. In the long-run it is certainly necessary to increase the retirement age to 67-70 or even more (depending also how the medical progress goes. And the government pensions are going to be cut and reduced.
It is a difficult problem but it is not unsolvable.
And as a matter of fact: if the number of people in the working ages goes down it can be assumed that unemployment goes down as well.
A lot of reforms need to be done. But in Germany many things are happening now in that direction. Kohl did some steps in 1996/97, Schröder slept 5 years and did nothing (or even roled back some reforms of Kohl), but since 2003 it is going in the right direction.
There is not one solution, but a combination of solutions:
Increasing the retirement age, reducing pensions, supporting private savings for age, reform of the education system (to enable people to enter in the labour market earlier), more support for families (to promote more children (such a policy was succesful in France which has today almost the same number of children per woman than the US) also due to full-day schools or Kindergarten to enable qualified women to work and to have children, limitted immigration of highly qualified people.
In all those fields reforms were passed. Though we are still in the begining of the reform process imported steps were done and are going to be implemented. More needs to follow. And if a conservative-liberal government takes over in 2006 the speed of the reform process would be higher. But even this left-wing government we have know really did important steps in 2003 mainly. The fact that even they do that (who after all rejected simular steps in 1996/96 taken by Kohl) shows on the one hand how difficult the situation is. There is no alternative. On the other hand there is the nominative power of the facts. You can´t ignore them and it is good that finally steps are taken. It is actually good that the political left did it. They broke their own tabus and another government could build on that. And due to the majority situation (second chamber dominated by the conservatives) they can´t turn around even if they would like to do that.
So actually a pretty good situation for unpopular reforms.
But going back to your thesis of the declining influence of Europe. I would disagree. First of all: There is almost no Europe today. It are the national state like Britain, France, Italy, Germany, e.g. that are acting. They are going to lose influence. And this decline - in my view - may force the countries to come closer together and to unite and come to one opinion rather than to do everything alone. So: Europe may even be stronger than today when every big nation still thinks it is a world power (especialy Britain and France) although they are not that any more even today.



I want to accelarate the process of the developing world being developed. However, I don't want to see the US lose power in the process. That's what I want the US to do: lead the way, make the world our allies, and then our grandchildren have a wide variety of business opportunities, and don't have to worry about feeling vulnerable. I want them to feel as safe as we did back in the nineties..
The question is if that is possible and realistic. The UK was the leading power of the 19 th century due to the fact that the had the stem engine first. But what them happen was a race in Europe. Both France and Prussia tried to get this technology and to close the gap. At the end of the 19 th century and the begining of the 20 th century Britain still was the leading power: BUT the distance between it and others was much, much smaller.
I see a simular development for the US in the 21 rst century. And that of course means not to have as much power as today.


And the Northern states??
They were a bit better of course. But if you claim the badness of European history in the 19 th and especially first half of the 20 th century I can also name you countries here which had nothing to do with that.


Of course not. But I see it as being like the minority of impoverished urban dwellers here. They abuse welfare, don't work, and are a major conduit of drugs. I'd say their drug activity is a bigger threat to society as a whole than Europe's Arab minority.
That I would rather see differently. By the way: it is not just an Arab but also an Turkish and Pakistani muslim minority.

There are lots of Chinese resturants here, too. I'm not saying that I'm against any sort of melting pot. However, I'm sure that the free market will, by and large, embrace many aspects of American culture. Why is it that the Chinese have to ban certain American films due to box office sales?
It certainly does. Though the rest of the world is not going to become American because of that. That is also why I mentioned the dominance of France and the French language (from the second half of the 17 th till the middle of the 19 the century) and aspects of French culture, fashion, e.g in continental Europe. We didn´t become French because of that.
China is still a dictatorship: so it is clear that they ban certain films. Well: and some countries have other restrictions regarding pornography and violence.

By and large, America is the beneficiary of this New World Order. I want a newer world order, and this will have a Midas touch: even though the world turns to gold, guess who one of the main investors are: we are. It'll make the world richer, and us a helluva lot richer. It's win-win in the long term. Isolationism, as you advocate for, will be loose-loose.
Loose loose means free free, you mean lose-lose?

You've never read the story of Midas did you? You might of heard the gist but the tale is far more important. To think you advocate Midas's downfall for America, you don't like US succeeding do you?
Midas's greed was it downfall, its own power amd gift took him down.

Liberty and democracy can indeed be to different things.
But with your arguments you are actually supporting the chinese modell if I may say so: First economic reforms. Whether others follow is another question but if we think in historic dimensions they are going to do sometimes. In Europe the first beginings in the 19 th century were also economic reforms and changes (establishments of a constituition (constituitional monarchy, budget rights for parliaments, rule of law) before parlamentarian democracy was established. However: there was always a lot of tension due to the lack of democracy and individual freedom.
Such a reform process is therefore very difficult. It can only be successful it the country follows an domestic cultural concept to get some support for it. In Singapore that was Konfuzianism, so to a very old domestic concept in that region. How such a concept could be found in Iraq is another question since it is a multi-religious society which follows mainly different directions of Islam (shiite, sunni) and besides the Arab majority there are the Kurds in the north and other smaller groups (Turkmen, e.g., christians).
Whether it is really possible to find an umbrella (final constituition) which is acceptable to all is still an open question. Though other options don`t exist. Your ally (our ally) Turkey and Iran are NEVER GOING TO ACCEPT AN KURDISH STATE for example.
No one needs a tradition of any kind to embark on a liberal path. When Germany and Japan did it (as you can well attest to), they were both fascist regimes that were anything but liberal.


First of all: many Latin American countries are in deep shit, to say the last. But they are three which have indeed made a lot of progress. And that are Mexico, Brazil and Chile. Especially Brazil has a lot of potential of becoming a leading power of South America. If those countries however became more economic powerful they also are stronger on the international arena. That is a given.
What I'm arguing, however, is that we don't need to loose our power to these three nations if our foreign policy becomes more involved in helping to restructure nations. The US has great potential to regain an ally if the US wipes rebels from Colombia. We can secure a major victory in the drug war, while helping Colombia at the same time.
As for Mexico, that will always be our ally, if not the other two. Mexico already heavily relies on money sent by Mexicans in the US, and it is likely that we'll always have a very deep economic connection.
So to assume that they would always go with the US seems to be pretty unrealistic for me though. And the plans for a free trade area of all Americans are still in the begining. Experience proves that up until a completly free market is realized it is rather a thing for decades not years.
China alone has 1,5 billion people. And with the growing economy (which is growing much faster than that of the US) China is increasing its influence. Traditionaly China was the hegemonial power in East and South-East Asia. It may become that again. It certain has ambitions to do so. They only thing you can do is to form a counter-alliance with some of Chinas neighbours who are of course also concerned about the development. Aside of Japan that are South Corea (possibly Taiwan), Vietnam, India and Russia.
China did take about two decades to radicalize its market, and they still aren't a democracy. However, it's a huge start. It's certainly, in my view, enough to lessen the grip of terrorists and others that may want to threaten the US. Already, while the free markets haven't created democracy, they have all but destroyed Communism there.



You are following a turned around domino theory. The same theory was used to argue that if Vietnam turns communists all of South Asia would. Didn´t happen though.
A simular concern lead to the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan and the Iraqi war on Iran after the Islamic revolution there in 1979.
So: just strategic assumptions which more follow an ideologic believe can go terrible wrong to the realities.
And by the way: what has Japan to do with a domino theory. I haven´t seen East Asia turned into democracies yet.
Not all, yet. South Korea, Taiwan, and to a degree, Singapore, are democracies. And with the big exception of North Korea (which is more isolationist than anyone on earth), all of the East Asian economies are free markets, or are becoming them. Japan was not exactly a free market at first, as it followed the German model. It produces the same results, it's just longer. However, they had the rest of the trappings of a market economy: private ownership, extensive trade, and the free (although often secretive) flow of money. From the US point of view, however, it was the best economic policy of our government to occupy and then aid Japan. The US provided them with their military, and aided extensivly. It made the US a major player in East Asia, even though it's 7,000 miles away.



At the 19 th century scientists in Europe said that because of the high population growth tens of million of people in Europe are going to starve. Didn´t happen though due to progress in agricultural technology.
And now to the ageing population. You have that as well. It is progress and success that people life longer. 50 years ago people only lifed about 65 years on average, today it is more than 76, in Japan about 80. Every year that is increasing about 3 months. Whether this tendency continues in that spead is unkonw. But we can assume that the life-expectancy continues to grow to about 85 in 2030.
But what is the consequence. If people are getting older and getting healthier older what the hell speaks against working longer. That is not possible with physical work but with other work it is. I refer to my country Germany. The law says that 65 is the retirement age. But in reality it is 60. That costs of course more. One instrument to reduce the cost is a law that cuts the pension if a person retires earlier. In the long-run it is certainly necessary to increase the retirement age to 67-70 or even more (depending also how the medical progress goes. And the government pensions are going to be cut and reduced.
It is a difficult problem but it is not unsolvable.
And as a matter of fact: if the number of people in the working ages goes down it can be assumed that unemployment goes down as well.
A lot of reforms need to be done. But in Germany many things are happening now in that direction. Kohl did some steps in 1996/97, Schröder slept 5 years and did nothing (or even roled back some reforms of Kohl), but since 2003 it is going in the right direction.
There is not one solution, but a combination of solutions:
Increasing the retirement age, reducing pensions, supporting private savings for age, reform of the education system (to enable people to enter in the labour market earlier), more support for families (to promote more children (such a policy was succesful in France which has today almost the same number of children per woman than the US) also due to full-day schools or Kindergarten to enable qualified women to work and to have children, limitted immigration of highly qualified people.
In all those fields reforms were passed. Though we are still in the begining of the reform process imported steps were done and are going to be implemented. More needs to follow. And if a conservative-liberal government takes over in 2006 the speed of the reform process would be higher. But even this left-wing government we have know really did important steps in 2003 mainly. The fact that even they do that (who after all rejected simular steps in 1996/96 taken by Kohl) shows on the one hand how difficult the situation is. There is no alternative. On the other hand there is the nominative power of the facts. You can´t ignore them and it is good that finally steps are taken. It is actually good that the political left did it. They broke their own tabus and another government could build on that. And due to the majority situation (second chamber dominated by the conservatives) they can´t turn around even if they would like to do that.
So actually a pretty good situation for unpopular reforms.
But going back to your thesis of the declining influence of Europe. I would disagree. First of all: There is almost no Europe today. It are the national state like Britain, France, Italy, Germany, e.g. that are acting. They are going to lose influence. And this decline - in my view - may force the countries to come closer together and to unite and come to one opinion rather than to do everything alone. So: Europe may even be stronger than today when every big nation still thinks it is a world power (especialy Britain and France) although they are not that any more even today.
I can't quite see that. Europe may be even more power with less people, but relatively, Europe may become little more than a giant niche market: tourism, fashion, etc. But with the current social programs, Europe will have no chance of retaining its former glory. However, that's another subject.


The question is if that is possible and realistic. The UK was the leading power of the 19 th century due to the fact that the had the stem engine first. But what them happen was a race in Europe. Both France and Prussia tried to get this technology and to close the gap. At the end of the 19 th century and the begining of the 20 th century Britain still was the leading power: BUT the distance between it and others was much, much smaller.
I see a simular development for the US in the 21 rst century. And that of course means not to have as much power as today.
However, Britain still retained a tremendous amount of power until WWI, arguably more than Germany or France. Exporting technologies or ideas doesn't exactly make any nation less powerful. All that matters is how the nation gets these technologies, manufactures them, and uses them. The US didn't invent the car, and US car technologies aren't great. However, America is the largest car market on the planet, and most cars driven in the US are made in the US, or at least partially. There are other industries like this.

Loose loose means free free, you mean lose-lose?

You've never read the story of Midas did you? You might of heard the gist but the tale is far more important. To think you advocate Midas's downfall for America, you don't like US succeeding do you?
Midas's greed was it downfall, its own power amd gift took him down.
I'm extremely familiar with the story of King Midas. I was referring, however, to the fact that the US has the power, if we really wanted to, can make an impoverished and war-torn region turn into an area with comparable wealth to Malaysia in just a few decades. This plan may be greed, but what's wrong with a bit of greed if it helps benefit people?

bump

No one needs a tradition of any kind to embark on a liberal path. When Germany and Japan did it (as you can well attest to), they were both fascist regimes that were anything but liberal. .
You need a tradition. Things and people don´t come from the middle of nowhere. That is also the case for liberalism and democracy. Japan and Germany had both parlamentarian forms of government before. They had a tradition of political parties. That was after all the basis the political reconstruction started from. It wasn´t a begining from zero.
Just compare it to another of your allies: Pakistan. They aren´t a liberal democracy although of almost 60 years of US-Pakistani alliances. So obviously such an automaticaty doesn´t exist. And democracy in Taiwan or South Korea is still a young phenomenon. Till 1989 both were dictatorships. They developed their economies and finally a liberalisation happened.
Historically a pretty normal development. The middle class (which is created by the economic growth) wants a share of the power and if it is strong enough it can`t be denied to it permanently.



What I'm arguing, however, is that we don't need to loose our power to these three nations if our foreign policy becomes more involved in helping to restructure nations. The US has great potential to regain an ally if the US wipes rebels from Colombia. We can secure a major victory in the drug war, while helping Colombia at the same time.
As for Mexico, that will always be our ally, if not the other two. Mexico already heavily relies on money sent by Mexicans in the US, and it is likely that we'll always have a very deep economic connection..
In the case of Mexico that is true. The other things are pure speculation. It is rather likely that some South American countries form their own trade pact (there is actually already one). Whether that joins with NAFTA in the long run or not is an open question. After all: it is generally spoken an open question how the development of trade blocks result. That can actually lead to a kind of multi-polar world in the economic field. There is such a thing already as a matter of fact: economically the world has three centers: North America, East Asia and Europe.


China did take about two decades to radicalize its market, and they still aren't a democracy. However, it's a huge start. It's certainly, in my view, enough to lessen the grip of terrorists and others that may want to threaten the US. Already, while the free markets haven't created democracy, they have all but destroyed Communism there. ..
Whatever communism really is. It is a pure theory which never worked anyway. The chinese are very pragmatic. That is their strength.


Not all, yet. South Korea, Taiwan, and to a degree, Singapore, are democracies. And with the big exception of North Korea (which is more isolationist than anyone on earth), all of the East Asian economies are free markets, or are becoming them. Japan was not exactly a free market at first, as it followed the German model. It produces the same results, it's just longer. However, they had the rest of the trappings of a market economy: private ownership, extensive trade, and the free (although often secretive) flow of money. From the US point of view, however, it was the best economic policy of our government to occupy and then aid Japan. The US provided them with their military, and aided extensivly. It made the US a major player in East Asia, even though it's 7,000 miles away...
First of all it was in the mutual interests of Japan and the US. After all the Soviet block was a thread. The same threat created mutual interest between (West) Germany and the US. In that strategic assumption that must be seen. Noone is acting if it is not in its own self-interest.
That is also the reason why there is never really friendship between nations. There are just common interests.


I can't quite see that. Europe may be even more power with less people, but relatively, Europe may become little more than a giant niche market: tourism, fashion, etc. But with the current social programs, Europe will have no chance of retaining its former glory. However, that's another subject...
You missed my point completly. I assume that the single players loose importance on the international field and that forces them to form a closer cooperation in the so called CFSR (common foreign and defense policy). This policy doesn´t really exist today. They are at least two (actually even more) foreign policies in Europe and many different traditions. Whether that is possible to bring that together remains to be seen but if it would a joint position of (lets say) Britain, France and Germany is of course more important than if they have two or three opinions.
Europe has also still great economic potential. Europe is not just the old EU 15. Just this year 10 new countries joined (and others are going to follow). This enlargement increased the EU population of one quarter but the GDP only for 5%. So this countries are still underdeveloped. But the other side of the coin is that they have enormous growth potential. One thing you seem to ignore.


However, Britain still retained a tremendous amount of power until WWI, arguably more than Germany or France. Exporting technologies or ideas doesn't exactly make any nation less powerful. All that matters is how the nation gets these technologies, manufactures them, and uses them. The US didn't invent the car, and US car technologies aren't great. However, America is the largest car market on the planet, and most cars driven in the US are made in the US, or at least partially. There are other industries like this.
.
Britain was forced or felt forced to form alliances with France and Russia in the 1900s because it obviously felt pretty challenged by the german military spending (also in the field of the navy) and industrial boom. In this alliances it made concessions to France and Russia regarding their colonial ambitions.
So Britain was not in the slightest way as dominant as it was in 1815.
And after the war - althoug Britain won it - it was not able to regain its old position.
And the reason is not of course that the other powers were able to jumpstart their economies. In early 19 th century Britain was mining more coal than or others together. An you need energy for economic development. The other powers were lacking behind but when they got the technology Britain lost this lead within decades actually. It was still a powerful country but not the all dominating power any more.

As stated I wouldn´t have anything against a "Pax Americana" (simular to the Pax Romana of the times of Augustus and also for some time afterward). But first of all such a "Pax Americana" needs to be reached.
And so far I don´t see a realistic concept for it.
And such a concept would need to include the Broader Middle East (North Africa, Gulf Region, Central Asia, Caucasus, Pakistan - a region where after all huge portions of the strategic global ressources lay) and East Asia.

As stated I wouldn´t have anything against a "Pax Americana" (simular to the Pax Romana of the times of Augustus and also for some time afterward). But first of all such a "Pax Americana" needs to be reached.
And so far I don´t see a realistic concept for it.
And such a concept would need to include the Broader Middle East (North Africa, Gulf Region, Central Asia, Caucasus, Pakistan - a region where after all huge portions of the strategic global ressources lay) and East Asia.
I'll try to condense it into a paragraph or two, to try to condense it. I hope I can do it. Anyhow, the pivotal alliances with Germany and Japan are not based entirely on common threats. The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, but a complete withdrawl of US troops from Europe hasn't happened yet. Germany, Japan, and the US have economic interests, as well as political. All long standing alliances have economic interests. I'm thinking that economic interests would be an integral part for any country to rebuild.
However, as you argue, a tradition is needed. I argue it isn't. It's helpful, of course, but not needed. France had no democratic tradition at all before the French Revolution, arguably the most important political event in Europe since the fall of the Roman Empire. America didn't have a strong tradition before our democracy was established, either. Of course, it does help. Oddly enough, it exists in the Middle East. That part of Arabia was the first market economy, even venerating merchants, as Muhammed was one. The baazars and markets of the Middle East were seen in the fifties as likely democracies in a few decades. It was only the political and religious wackos that messed it up, as well as the Cold War. Iraq has a very good tradition for economic liberalization, which should always precede any liberal democracy. As the US is the world's strongest economy, I'm confident that we'll benefit from any economy that developes.

I'll try to condense it into a paragraph or two, to try to condense it. I hope I can do it. Anyhow, the pivotal alliances with Germany and Japan are not based entirely on common threats. The Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, but a complete withdrawl of US troops from Europe hasn't happened yet. Germany, Japan, and the US have economic interests, as well as political. All long standing alliances have economic interests. I'm thinking that economic interests would be an integral part for any country to rebuild..
In the case of Japan there is still the thread of North Korea and potentially of China (Japan and China are arch-rivals).
And in Europe the East Europeans are still afraid of Russia. Germany doesn´t want to spent more on defense and as long you are present you have to take care about our security. So, you don´t need idealism to explain that.

However, as you argue, a tradition is needed. I argue it isn't. It's helpful, of course, but not needed. France had no democratic tradition at all before the French Revolution, arguably the most important political event in Europe since the fall of the Roman Empire. ..
The British would disagree with that and I as well. European history has also a lot in the period between 476 and 1789. The foundation of the Holy Roman Empire for exmaple (800), the division of this empire in three parts (the western part later became France, the eastern part Germany), the reformation, the 30-year-war, the glorious revolution in Britain.
Well: I would clearly place 1989 on top of all: the end of the division of the continent.

The French revolution and the following wars led to a lot of mischief - the arch-enemieship between France and Germany (for 150 years).
You shouldn´t forget about the dictatorship of the Jacobines in the 1790s who used to chop off the heads of all opponents. Their ideology already had some parallels to the communists.
And after this mischief followed permanent instability and then the dictatorship of Napoleon who tried to conquer all of Europe.
The French republic finally succeeded in 1871 after an humiliating defeat of France against an german alliance. Ironicly this war not only created the so called second German Empire (1871-1918/1933) and to crone for the prussian king but also to the final end of monarchy in France and to the France finally permanently becoming a republic.



America didn't have a strong tradition before our democracy was established, either. Of course, it does help...
Who founded the US? Groups of people who left Europe because they didn´t belong to the dominating groups, because they didn´t want to follow the ruling opinion. So: dissidents were from the begining on a strong movement in the colonies.
And by the way: In the second half of the 18 th century there was a big philosophical movement: the enlightenment. Were is such a movement in the Arab world today????


Oddly enough, it exists in the Middle East. That part of Arabia was the first market economy, even venerating merchants, as Muhammed was one. The baazars and markets of the Middle East were seen in the fifties as likely democracies in a few decades. It was only the political and religious wackos that messed it up, as well as the Cold War. Iraq has a very good tradition for economic liberalization, which should always precede any liberal democracy. As the US is the world's strongest economy, I'm confident that we'll benefit from any economy that developes.
You miss one thing. Christianity know the divison between state and religion:" To the emperor what belongs to the emperor (emperor as synoym for state) to god what belongs to god."
This doesn´t exist in Islam. The only muslim country which went steps in that direction was Turkey: And even they have today an islamists government. A government party which sprang out of a movement which is rejecting this fundamental principles of the Turkish republic.
So, even there is a big problem. Not to speak about the islamism in Arab countries, which is one ther rise since the 1970s.
There is no movement visible which demands such a seperation. There are tendencies now in Iran. However that came 20 years after an islamic revolution.
The tendency in other countries goes in exactly the opposite direction.

In the case of Japan there is still the thread of North Korea and potentially of China (Japan and China are arch-rivals).
And in Europe the East Europeans are still afraid of Russia. Germany doesn´t want to spent more on defense and as long you are present you have to take care about our security. So, you don´t need idealism to explain that.
Still, Japan doesn't have nearly as many US troops there as it did in the eighties. The threats are also not as large. Besides, as I've said, we're tied economically to that area.
The British would disagree with that and I as well. European history has also a lot in the period between 476 and 1789. The foundation of the Holy Roman Empire for exmaple (800), the division of this empire in three parts (the western part later became France, the eastern part Germany), the reformation, the 30-year-war, the glorious revolution in Britain.
Well: I would clearly place 1989 on top of all: the end of the division of the continent.

The French revolution and the following wars led to a lot of mischief - the arch-enemieship between France and Germany (for 150 years).
You shouldn´t forget about the dictatorship of the Jacobines in the 1790s who used to chop off the heads of all opponents. Their ideology already had some parallels to the communists.
And after this mischief followed permanent instability and then the dictatorship of Napoleon who tried to conquer all of Europe.
The French republic finally succeeded in 1871 after an humiliating defeat of France against an german alliance. Ironicly this war not only created the so called second German Empire (1871-1918/1933) and to crone for the prussian king but also to the final end of monarchy in France and to the France finally permanently becoming a republic.
The French Revolution, however, had some very important consequences. It spooked the European powers, forcing a coalition of them to repeatedly invade France. Napoleon fought them back all the way to Russia. After France was finally passified, the Congress of Vienna established nearly 100 years without a war in Europe as major as the Seven Years War, or the Napoleonic Wars. In that time came extreme nationalism, increased liberty in some areas, the fall of monarchs, and the creation of new nations, like Germany and Italy. It can all be traced to the French Revolution, but I can argue that it was inspired by the American revolution. I've even heard that there are statues of George Washington in France.


Who founded the US? Groups of people who left Europe because they didn´t belong to the dominating groups, because they didn´t want to follow the ruling opinion. So: dissidents were from the begining on a strong movement in the colonies.
Actually, the vast majority were colonists, not political dissidents.
And by the way: In the second half of the 18 th century there was a big philosophical movement: the enlightenment. Were is such a movement in the Arab world today????
No. Northeast Asia never had a comparable movement, either. But they didn't need to. The literature was all there to be read.

You miss one thing. Christianity know the divison between state and religion:" To the emperor what belongs to the emperor (emperor as synoym for state) to god what belongs to god."
This doesn´t exist in Islam. The only muslim country which went steps in that direction was Turkey: And even they have today an islamists government. A government party which sprang out of a movement which is rejecting this fundamental principles of the Turkish republic.
So, even there is a big problem. Not to speak about the islamism in Arab countries, which is one ther rise since the 1970s.
There is no movement visible which demands such a seperation. There are tendencies now in Iran. However that came 20 years after an islamic revolution.
The tendency in other countries goes in exactly the opposite direction.
This is true. I believe, however, that Arabs can reconcile the two with an ever increasing free market. As the free market did to Japan, it transformed it from a warrior society to a passifiscst nation. I don't think we'll see such a radical change in attitude here, but with the freedom of speech, the markets, and such, these ideas of separation between church and state should gain ground. After all, as we've seen, Iraq actually has the greatest degree of freedom of speach in the Middle East, except maybe Lebanon's.

Still, Japan doesn't have nearly as many US troops there as it did in the eighties. The threats are also not as large. Besides, as I've said, we're tied economically to that area..
Yes, economically and strategically.

The French Revolution, however, had some very important consequences. It spooked the European powers, forcing a coalition of them to repeatedly invade France. Napoleon fought them back all the way to Russia. After France was finally passified, the Congress of Vienna established nearly 100 years without a war in Europe as major as the Seven Years War, or the Napoleonic Wars. In that time came extreme nationalism, increased liberty in some areas, the fall of monarchs, and the creation of new nations, like Germany and Italy. It can all be traced to the French Revolution, but I can argue that it was inspired by the American revolution. I've even heard that there are statues of George Washington in France...
It had. But the so called Vienna congress was not able to create real stability. British prime minister said that a mulit-polar world is a danerous idea. And that was actually that what the Vienna congress created. There were many wars actually.
The German unification was only possible to due three wars, which were however diplomatically well prepared. (1864 German-Denish war (Austria/Prussia versus Denmark over Schleswig-Holstein, 1866 German war (Prussia won against Austria), 1871 Prussia and south german states won against France).
Aside of the many wars on the balcans, on the krim, the decline of the Ottoman empire, e.g.
Well: the very volotile balance of power at the end led to the collapse into to blocks and at the end to the biggest war up until then: the first world war.



Actually, the vast majority were colonists, not political dissidents. ...
None the less: this group played an important role. Aside of the fact that you took many concepts of British parliamentarianism. This is true. I believe, however, that Arabs can reconcile the two with an ever increasing free market. As the free market did to Japan, it transformed it from a warrior society to a passifiscst nation.

No. Northeast Asia never had a comparable movement, either. But they didn't need to. The literature was all there to be read....
I´m not an expert in Japanese history. But the rule of the Samurai (or the shonguns) already ended in the end of the 19 th century. The emperor (tenno) started reforms from above - partly copying the British modell.
So, Japan had a tradition before ultra-nationalism took over.
The defeat of Japan of course created a change in the country. It was after all the loss of a war which Japan began. So there was and admission of guilt. Pacificism however I would rather see as a reaction of the horrors of war which Japan at the end suffered from as well as Germany (after we brought that to other countries it fell back to us).
So in that way it was "just". However I often doubt whether the US knows what the word "war" means for the generation of that time in Europe - which tried to pass that to the coming situation. It was in the 20 th century wars which after all didn´t killed thousand or even hundred thousands but millions of lifes, left behind complete distruction. And there was no difference between civilian and military. There was only destruction.
Such an experience the US fortunately didn´t have to go through in its own territory. Well: 9/11 remains of that. However in World War II there were more people dying every day, and that even in the less bloody period of it at the begining. At the end it was more or less ten times more people every day.
So, that is actually a pretty good explanation for pacifism, especially in those countries who after all began this war and didn´t want to repeat that again and go through that again.


I don't think we'll see such a radical change in attitude here, but with the freedom of speech, the markets, and such, these ideas of separation between church and state should gain ground. After all, as we've seen, Iraq actually has the greatest degree of freedom of speach in the Middle East, except maybe Lebanon's.
Well: thus far Iraq is not a role modell for anybody and they are many after all interested in the failure of this project. Inside Iraq but also outside. Stability would of course first require some degree of security. Without that the economy can´t recover. And without that also on the political field no progress can be made. And after all: the different groups in Iraq could after all end up fighting a civil war against each other (also supported by foreign powers).
It is a dilemma.
Usually such things unfortunately usually happen in conflict.
And that is of course a big problem: medival attitutes on the one side an weapons of the 21 rst century (bio weapons, chemicals, nuclear material).

Yes, economically and strategically.

It had. But the so called Vienna congress was not able to create real stability. British prime minister said that a mulit-polar world is a danerous idea. And that was actually that what the Vienna congress created. There were many wars actually.
The German unification was only possible to due three wars, which were however diplomatically well prepared. (1864 German-Denish war (Austria/Prussia versus Denmark over Schleswig-Holstein, 1866 German war (Prussia won against Austria), 1871 Prussia and south german states won against France).
Aside of the many wars on the balcans, on the krim, the decline of the Ottoman empire, e.g.
Well: the very volotile balance of power at the end led to the collapse into to blocks and at the end to the biggest war up until then: the first world war.



None the less: this group played an important role. Aside of the fact that you took many concepts of British parliamentarianism. This is true. I believe, however, that Arabs can reconcile the two with an ever increasing free market. As the free market did to Japan, it transformed it from a warrior society to a passifiscst nation.

I´m not an expert in Japanese history. But the rule of the Samurai (or the shonguns) already ended in the end of the 19 th century. The emperor (tenno) started reforms from above - partly copying the British modell.
So, Japan had a tradition before ultra-nationalism took over.
The defeat of Japan of course created a change in the country. It was after all the loss of a war which Japan began. So there was and admission of guilt. Pacificism however I would rather see as a reaction of the horrors of war which Japan at the end suffered from as well as Germany (after we brought that to other countries it fell back to us).
So in that way it was "just". However I often doubt whether the US knows what the word "war" means for the generation of that time in Europe - which tried to pass that to the coming situation. It was in the 20 th century wars which after all didn´t killed thousand or even hundred thousands but millions of lifes, left behind complete distruction. And there was no difference between civilian and military. There was only destruction.
Such an experience the US fortunately didn´t have to go through in its own territory. Well: 9/11 remains of that. However in World War II there were more people dying every day, and that even in the less bloody period of it at the begining. At the end it was more or less ten times more people every day.
So, that is actually a pretty good explanation for pacifism, especially in those countries who after all began this war and didn´t want to repeat that again and go through that again.


Well: thus far Iraq is not a role modell for anybody and they are many after all interested in the failure of this project. Inside Iraq but also outside. Stability would of course first require some degree of security. Without that the economy can´t recover. And without that also on the political field no progress can be made. And after all: the different groups in Iraq could after all end up fighting a civil war against each other (also supported by foreign powers).
It is a dilemma.
Usually such things unfortunately usually happen in conflict.
And that is of course a big problem: medival attitutes on the one side an weapons of the 21 rst century (bio weapons, chemicals, nuclear material).
I essentially agree with you, except on one little part. The Congress of Vienna was certainly multipolar, and dangerous. Nevertheless, it worked for a century.
Oh, another thing I've remembered. The last shogun resigned in 1868. After that, Japan was a bit of an autocracy, but it made rapid changes to its economic, social, and political structure. Still, the Japanese still had the warrior spirit. Without it, they'd never gain an empire, nor would WWII happen.

I essentially agree with you, except on one little part. The Congress of Vienna was certainly multipolar, and dangerous. Nevertheless, it worked for a century.
Oh, another thing I've remembered. The last shogun resigned in 1868. After that, Japan was a bit of an autocracy, but it made rapid changes to its economic, social, and political structure. Still, the Japanese still had the warrior spirit. Without it, they'd never gain an empire, nor would WWII happen.
Well, probably without that spirit of the Japanese they would have become a colony of Britain. Anyway: as far as I remember the Tenno actually took over after foreign powers forced Japan to open up. And he began this reforms from above.
So Japan actually became an imerialistic power itself (winning against Russia in 1905). Japanense historians still partly justify Japanese imperialistic policie, for example the occupation of Korea (1910-45) by arguing it was aimed to "safe Asia from (European) colonialism".
To Koreans and Chinese of course disagree with that since the Japanense occupation was after all often even more cruel and became more and more cruel through the time.

Well, probably without that spirit of the Japanese they would have become a colony of Britain. Anyway: as far as I remember the Tenno actually took over after foreign powers forced Japan to open up. And he began this reforms from above.
So Japan actually became an imerialistic power itself (winning against Russia in 1905). Japanense historians still partly justify Japanese imperialistic policie, for example the occupation of Korea (1910-45) by arguing it was aimed to "safe Asia from (European) colonialism".
To Koreans and Chinese of course disagree with that since the Japanense occupation was after all often even more cruel and became more and more cruel through the time.
Still, I think that Japan did a lot to transform from a traditional and feudal society into a unified and industrial society (plus empire) all in a few decades. Not even China is moving as fast as the Japanese did. It was probably a miracle for modern history.
BTW, I'd think they'd be an American colony. Commodore Matthew Perry ordered Japan to open its ports, or else, to put it politely, we'd open them for the Japanese:D.

Still, I think that Japan did a lot to transform from a traditional and feudal society into a unified and industrial society (plus empire) all in a few decades. Not even China is moving as fast as the Japanese did. It was probably a miracle for modern history.
BTW, I'd think they'd be an American colony. Commodore Matthew Perry ordered Japan to open its ports, or else, to put it politely, we'd open them for the Japanese:D.
Was that one of the first endevaours of the US outside of the Monroe-doctrin area (America).
Must have been before the Phillippines, wasn´t it?
Anyway: in many fields you followed in the footstep of the British, who are after all today you most loyal junior partner.

Most have been one of the first endevaours of the US outside of the Monroe-doctrin area (America).
Must have been before the Phillippines, wasn´t it?

Way before the Philipines. The Spanish-American war was in 1898, the trip to Japan was made twice: once in 1853 to deliver the message, and a year later to get a reply.
Anyway: in many fields you followed in the footstep of the British, who are after all today you most loyal junior partner.
Yep. I actually admire the British, seeing their empire as proof that my ideas can work. They built an empire in the wrong way, with an ingrained sense of moral, even racial superiority, and were just mean. However, former British colonies, especially in Asia, tend to be better off than colonies of other nations, because the British were the only ones interested in building their colonies up. The main reason, I think, that their empire weakened was because of WWI: it killed an entire generation of soldiers and depleted the vast empire's resources. Even if they were declining beforehand, it was still at a slow rate. WWI was a very serious, if not fatal blow.

Yep. I actually admire the British, seeing their empire as proof that my ideas can work. They built an empire in the wrong way, with an ingrained sense of moral, even racial superiority, and were just mean. However, former British colonies, especially in Asia, tend to be better off than colonies of other nations, because the British were the only ones interested in building their colonies up. The main reason, I think, that their empire weakened was because of WWI: it killed an entire generation of soldiers and depleted the vast empire's resources. Even if they were declining beforehand, it was still at a slow rate. WWI was a very serious, if not fatal blow.
So, you see what challenge Germany (and Austria-Hungary, Turkey) was - although surrounded by a french-british-russian (latter supported even by Italy) alliance!
I agree that the British did well in many fields. They mostly left their colonies in an ordered fashion. Well: just two conflicts remained left (Palestine and the India-Pakistani conflict though).

Though some of the aspects you depicted as negative by the British also exists among the US. For example the feeling of a moral superiority. I have nothing against patriotism. But one should be careful between the thin line of patriotism and nationalism. A patriot is one who loves his fatherland, a nationalist is one who hates the fatherlands of others.
Statements like we are the greatest, we are superior or even we are gods own country - what does that mean for the rest: inferior, devils country, evil? - however creates such an impression.
Well: the transatlantic conflict has opened a gap - which already was there but wasn´t obvious.
Whether it is possible to close it I don´t know. But one thing to close it would of course be to remember that the US has its origins in Europe and from Europe and that both belong together. Or - as Maggie Thatcher said - to unite the Europe on both sides of the atlantic.

So, you see what challenge Germany (and Austria-Hungary, Turkey) was - although surrounded by a french-british-russian (latter supported even by Italy) alliance!
I agree that the British did well in many fields. They mostly left their colonies in an ordered fashion. Well: just two conflicts remained left (Palestine and the India-Pakistani conflict though).

Though some of the aspects you depicted as negative by the British also exists among the US. For example the feeling of a moral superiority. I have nothing against patriotism. But one should be careful between the thin line of patriotism and nationalism. A patriot is one who loves his fatherland, a nationalist is one who hates the fatherlands of others.
Statements like we are the greatest, we are superior or even we are gods own country - what does that mean for the rest: inferior, devils country, evil? - however creates such an impression.
Well: the transatlantic conflict has opened a gap - which already was there but wasn´t obvious.
Whether it is possible to close it I don´t know. But one thing to close it would of course be to remember that the US has its origins in Europe and from Europe and that both belong together. Or - as Maggie Thatcher said - to unite the Europe on both sides of the atlantic.
Well, the US is doing their part in Europe. The US led NATO to resist the Soviet Union, and helped to create a post Cold War security order. However, I think some Europeans are--dare I say it?--ungrateful, as there's no reciprocity. Of course, as anti-US sentiment has been all the rage these past twenty years, it's not helping matters. But that's just my opinion. You're probably reading this thinking I'm some arrogant American snob for saying this, right?
As for cultural superiority, it exists in every nation. But it doesn't exist over here as it did in Britain in even the 19th century. In fact, compared to a very large part of the world, the US is quite tolerant. However, I won't turn this into a discussion on something like, say, gay rights.

Well, the US is doing their part in Europe. The US led NATO to resist the Soviet Union, and helped to create a post Cold War security order. However, I think some Europeans are--dare I say it?--ungrateful, as there's no reciprocity.
So, you helped non-communists Europe due not in order to have an ally against the Soviets and to prevent the spread of communism (especially Italy and France had strong communists parties)?
What would have happened if the Soviets took over in Europe for the global rivalry between the US and the USSR? You needed allies in Europe and Europe needed you. We certainly needed you more than the other way around. But what is the conclusion out of that??
Every nation acts in its own interets and not out of thankfulness.
I´m in favour of a renewal of the US-German partnership. But not out of thankfulness but because I think it is in our interests.


Of course, as anti-US sentiment has been all the rage these past twenty years, it's not helping matters. But that's just my opinion. You're probably reading this thinking I'm some arrogant American snob for saying this, right?

No, I think you are speaking from your cultural background. And that is from a national history that is unbroken and guided from the believe in the godness of your country.
I speak from another background. I don´t see my position or background as superior. But I don´t see your background as superior as well.
As for Anti-Americanism. Yes it exists. And since you are the most powerful country you have to life with the most anti-sentiment.
But why do you make such an issue out of it?
There was anti-British sentiment as well (and certainly much more in the past). There still is a lot of anti-Russian or anti-Japanese sentiment. Or anti-German sentiment for that matter. For example the Czech general election in spring 2002 was orchestrated by an anti-German campaign of the Czech socialists party (who used it to secure its re-election). So, what? Only because that was probably not top news at CNN it does exists. Our government actually even downplayed it.
So, what is the point in making such a big issue out of it??
The existence of America is not threatened. You are the most powerful country. You are not surrounded by evil anti-American enemies who threatend your existence. You are not in the situation of Israel for that matter. I understand that they feel that way, but not the US.
In all due respect: you should not allow a few terrorists (which are in comparison to the world population a lunatic fringe group) to undermine your self-assurance. You have a right to defend yourself (and I personally don´t care if you overthrow other regimes in the Middle East. That is your business) but you have to be aware there never is going to be a 100% security from it and you should be aware of that fact.

So, you helped non-communists Europe due not in order to have an ally against the Soviets and to prevent the spread of communism (especially Italy and France had strong communists parties)?
What would have happened if the Soviets took over in Europe for the global rivalry between the US and the USSR? You needed allies in Europe and Europe needed you. We certainly needed you more than the other way around. But what is the conclusion out of that??
Every nation acts in its own interets and not out of thankfulness.
I´m in favour of a renewal of the US-German partnership. But not out of thankfulness but because I think it is in our interests.
By definition, the world is an anarchic place, am I correct? A little show of gratitude is good if any nation wants to depend on the other. With the pace the world is changing, it may be that the US is still powerful in a few decades, and Europe becomes a place that is internationally unimportant to us. I don't want Europe and East Asia to give the US the moon, but can Americans have any respect?


No, I think you are speaking from your cultural background. And that is from a national history that is unbroken and guided from the believe in the godness of your country.
I speak from another background. I don´t see my position or background as superior. But I don´t see your background as superior as well.
I don't see my beliefs as superior, either, if that's what you mean. I just have faith in the goodness of our country. Any one of the European or Asian powers can do what I want in the world with great benevolence, but at the moment, none of them have the resources or interest to. We lack interest here, of course, but I feel it's been rapidly gaining momentum.
As for Anti-Americanism. Yes it exists. And since you are the most powerful country you have to life with the most anti-sentiment.
But why do you make such an issue out of it?
There was anti-British sentiment as well (and certainly much more in the past). There still is a lot of anti-Russian or anti-Japanese sentiment. Or anti-German sentiment for that matter. For example the Czech general election in spring 2002 was orchestrated by an anti-German campaign of the Czech socialists party (who used it to secure its re-election). So, what? Only because that was probably not top news at CNN it does exists. Our government actually even downplayed it.
So, what is the point in making such a big issue out of it??
The existence of America is not threatened. You are the most powerful country. You are not surrounded by evil anti-American enemies who threatend your existence. You are not in the situation of Israel for that matter. I understand that they feel that way, but not the US.
In all due respect: you should not allow a few terrorists (which are in comparison to the world population a lunatic fringe group) to undermine your self-assurance. You have a right to defend yourself (and I personally don´t care if you overthrow other regimes in the Middle East. That is your business) but you have to be aware there never is going to be a 100% security from it and you should be aware of that fact.
Our existence isn't threatened, but our respectability in the world is. There are less foreign students in the US than twenty years ago, even from Europe. The falling dollar is caused partly because of lack of foreign investment. This is not a world that, unlike the British Empire's, individuals and businesses regularly interact with foreigners. If America is hated, that is gonna make quite a few people leary about working with us, even if it doesn't involve politics. It's happening already.

By definition, the world is an anarchic place, am I correct? A little show of gratitude is good if any nation wants to depend on the other. With the pace the world is changing, it may be that the US is still powerful in a few decades, and Europe becomes a place that is internationally unimportant to us. I don't want Europe and East Asia to give the US the moon, but can Americans have any respect?.
There different modells to lock at the world. One is the anarchic modell. Huntington has the cultural modell - which is a pretty interesting one. The world is not completly anarchic - however some regions are. None the less - over all there it is more appropiate to say that after the end of the bipolar world we rather still have a world disorder than a world order. For Europe however a new order is evolving - for example with the enlargement of the EU which was prepared during the last 10 years - and the integration of the European economies (German trade with the ten new members is bigger than with the US today) and the support which is given to those countries we help to stabilize democracies and create a new order which garantees peace for this old continent.
This is a huge challenge. Germany spents 4% of its GDP only for the reconstruction of East Germany. An economic burden no other country faces. Aside that we are with distance the biggest payer to the EU which supports with the money not just agriculture (that is also true but to say only that is a false stereotype) but also weaker regions within the union. And it can´t be said that the structural programs of the EU didn´t help. Ireland and Spain for example got a lot of support and they used it to rebuild their economies. Today Ireland which once had a very weak economy is above the EU-15 (before enlargement) average. The East European countries have also mainly very market economic policies. I´m shure that with a bit of support they are going to close the gap with "old Europe" within a few decades. And we support them with that. I don´t expect them to be grateful. It is after all in our interests to have peace and stability in Europe. But you shouldn´t forget who pays the most for it.
We also helped Russia to stabilize. I don´t know how many tens of billions we gave them. Was that wrong? I don´t think so. Of course: a strong Russia can be a thread. But a weak Russia even more since the military ressources (especially biological and chemical weapongs but also of course the nukes or material from those weapons) could get out of control of a central government. That would have been very dangerous indeed. That is not the only reason but that alone is actually reason enough to go for a strategic partnership with Russia. Aside of the energy partnership of course, hehe.
Germany put enormous efforts to help Russia finding a new position in the international community for example throught its inclusion in the G8 or the Nato-Russian partnership. With this partnership it was possible even to go through difficult times like during the Kosovo war.
Whether Russia would have developed that way without this enormous efforts and also by Germany is at least disputable.
Do we get respect for that? Well, unthankfulness it the worlds payment, as a german proverb says. Nobody can expect that.




I don't see my beliefs as superior, either, if that's what you mean. I just have faith in the goodness of our country. Any one of the European or Asian powers can do what I want in the world with great benevolence, but at the moment, none of them have the resources or interest to. We lack interest here, of course, but I feel it's been rapidly gaining momentum.
The question is also, what do you want? A policy of interventionism in the so called "Greater Middle East" is not a policy which is going to be conducted by anybody else.

Our existence isn't threatened, but our respectability in the world is. There are less foreign students in the US than twenty years ago, even from Europe. The falling dollar is caused partly because of lack of foreign investment. This is not a world that, unlike the British Empire's, individuals and businesses regularly interact with foreigners. If America is hated, that is gonna make quite a few people leary about working with us, even if it doesn't involve politics. It's happening already.
There is more student exchange within Europe however. And that is of course much easier since there are programs of exchange (Erasmus) for one or two semester that support such actions and also garantee a mutual acceptance of courses due to a credit point system. With such a programm you don´t even have to pay the fees of the other university. You may have to pay for your domestic university if they have fees in your country.
So, it is of course much more convenient to go for such a program in Europe. And much less expansive. Most countries have even the same currency and you can go to the UK or Ireland if you want to study in an English-speaking country.
So, in order to change that you would need to spent much more government funds. As a matter of fact the places for such programs with the US are very limited. And privately doing such a thing is too costly for most people.
Regarding the development of the Dollar you should also look at the budget policy of your government. It was obviously in their interests to give a boost to your export industry. That is not what we wished, quite frankly spoken.
In order to strengthen the Dollar you have to do two things: balance your budget and increase your interests rates. Than the Dollar gains strength automatically. The latter thing is happening since your Alan Greenspan makes a very responsible policy in that respect. The first thing however is an issue where the future administration - which ever it is has to put much more effort in. I mean - quite outrageusly - your new deficit is even in percent higher that that of Germany. You don´t want to be compared to "the sick man of Europe", do you???

I don't know quite how you use that... if you mean spreading consumerism and corporate power, then obviously I'm opposed. If you mean by spreading American values like liberty, democracy and apple pie, and allowing the free flow of things like medicine, education and literature to all the corners of the world, then I'm in favour. I don't even necessarly mean that you have to push these values upon other people and cultures, its enough that they know what they are and have opportunities to choose.

By toppling regimes like saddam hussein we have a better chance of a change like that happening.

Anyone who is expecting an overnight democracy is fooling themselves.
If anything i believe that in the end this government will be a few steps better then what it originally was. But the point here is that they will have a government that they can change more. Whereas before they had saddam, who only loved his tribe. When iraquis see that they are more powerful under this system i have a feeling they will embrace it more, and try to change it possibly to something more familiar ( more socialist ) or something liek what were used too. It is our duty to not let iraq fall under extreme parties though.

What everyone doesnt realize is that for the united states to remain the bomb, we need to topple regimes every once in a while and further our interests. 911 showed us that we just cant sit and contain places all the time. Imagine we thought iraq had wmd, what if they had had it for years, but due to faulty intelligence we didnt kno? get my point? We need to protect this nation at all costs. Protecting this nation in essence is protecting the world economy, which is protecting the world. If we fail, theres alot more repurcutions then one may think.

unfortunately we must try and conserve stability in this world ( by force if thats what is necessary). Its not like were out tryin to mess up europe. If anything were trying to make change happen to better the people. Anyone seen how europes opinion is changing on iran lately? years ago we never wouldv pondered going into iran, but now it seems more and more likely it will happen. Not just by the united states, but by countries like russia, france, and britain.

If iraq is better in ten years, i would like to kno what everyones opinion on bush would be.
I know my opinion would change drastically for the better.

Anyone seen how europes opinion is changing on iran lately? years ago we never wouldv pondered going into iran, but now it seems more and more likely it will happen.
Yeah. And have you seen how our opinion of the US has changed?
A recent poll showed that a good percantage of us consider the US just as dangerouse to worldpeace as Iran and North Korea. :D

Not just by the united states, but by countries like russia, france, and britain.
Unlikely.

Yeah. And have you seen how our opinion of the US has changed?
A recent poll showed that a good percantage of us consider the US just as dangerouse to worldpeace as Iran and North Korea. :D


Unlikely.

well.
iran just sent a proposition to britain, france and russia askign them for ARMS. which those 3 countries definately do not like, and now they are pondering turning iraq into the security council for further action.
granted this is wihtout the US influencing them.
Ill find the link

As for world opinion. I could care less what the world thinks about alot of things. You cant do things and worry about everyones opinion all the time or else you would never get anything done, or youd never be sure of what your doing.

Imagine if civil rights activists worried about everyones opinions?

Plus skepticism is healthy. Its a check and balance all on its own.

Bet you didnt kno clinton had tomatoes thrown at him when he went to britain in 99, his comment was " im glad to see everyone is mad about somethin!"

There different modells to lock at the world. One is the anarchic modell. Huntington has the cultural modell - which is a pretty interesting one. The world is not completly anarchic - however some regions are. None the less - over all there it is more appropiate to say that after the end of the bipolar world we rather still have a world disorder than a world order. For Europe however a new order is evolving - for example with the enlargement of the EU which was prepared during the last 10 years - and the integration of the European economies (German trade with the ten new members is bigger than with the US today) and the support which is given to those countries we help to stabilize democracies and create a new order which garantees peace for this old continent.
This is a huge challenge. Germany spents 4% of its GDP only for the reconstruction of East Germany. An economic burden no other country faces. Aside that we are with distance the biggest payer to the EU which supports with the money not just agriculture (that is also true but to say only that is a false stereotype) but also weaker regions within the union. And it can´t be said that the structural programs of the EU didn´t help. Ireland and Spain for example got a lot of support and they used it to rebuild their economies. Today Ireland which once had a very weak economy is above the EU-15 (before enlargement) average. The East European countries have also mainly very market economic policies. I´m shure that with a bit of support they are going to close the gap with "old Europe" within a few decades. And we support them with that. I don´t expect them to be grateful. It is after all in our interests to have peace and stability in Europe. But you shouldn´t forget who pays the most for it.
We also helped Russia to stabilize. I don´t know how many tens of billions we gave them. Was that wrong? I don´t think so. Of course: a strong Russia can be a thread. But a weak Russia even more since the military ressources (especially biological and chemical weapongs but also of course the nukes or material from those weapons) could get out of control of a central government. That would have been very dangerous indeed. That is not the only reason but that alone is actually reason enough to go for a strategic partnership with Russia. Aside of the energy partnership of course, hehe.
Germany put enormous efforts to help Russia finding a new position in the international community for example throught its inclusion in the G8 or the Nato-Russian partnership. With this partnership it was possible even to go through difficult times like during the Kosovo war.
Whether Russia would have developed that way without this enormous efforts and also by Germany is at least disputable.
Do we get respect for that? Well, unthankfulness it the worlds payment, as a german proverb says. Nobody can expect that.
Publisize your payments to Eastern Europe better. Then many Americans, or at least the American business community, should feel greatful.


There is more student exchange within Europe however. And that is of course much easier since there are programs of exchange (Erasmus) for one or two semester that support such actions and also garantee a mutual acceptance of courses due to a credit point system. With such a programm you don´t even have to pay the fees of the other university. You may have to pay for your domestic university if they have fees in your country.
So, it is of course much more convenient to go for such a program in Europe. And much less expansive. Most countries have even the same currency and you can go to the UK or Ireland if you want to study in an English-speaking country.
So, in order to change that you would need to spent much more government funds. As a matter of fact the places for such programs with the US are very limited. And privately doing such a thing is too costly for most people.
Regarding the development of the Dollar you should also look at the budget policy of your government. It was obviously in their interests to give a boost to your export industry. That is not what we wished, quite frankly spoken.
In order to strengthen the Dollar you have to do two things: balance your budget and increase your interests rates. Than the Dollar gains strength automatically. The latter thing is happening since your Alan Greenspan makes a very responsible policy in that respect. The first thing however is an issue where the future administration - which ever it is has to put much more effort in. I mean - quite outrageusly - your new deficit is even in percent higher that that of Germany. You don´t want to be compared to "the sick man of Europe", do you???
I'm not in college yet, so I can't provide specifics on colleges. However, about the dollar, I support its fall myself. It strenghtens are export sector, and helped bring our economy back. However, part of the reason it fell is due to lack of foreign investment. It's not the dollar's fall that disturbs me as much as why the dollar fell.
As for the deficit, I personally can't be worried about that. It's currently 3.8% of the GDP, far less than what Reagan ran up. Besides, it can be argued that it wouldn't be there if there wasn't a war. But I do know a lot of programs that can be cut out to make it a surplus.

bump

again bump

Publisize your payments to Eastern Europe better. Then many Americans, or at least the American business community, should feel greatful..

22.3 billion euros into the EU budget this year. Germany will receive transfers of 7.6 billion euros in return, leaving a net payment of 14.7 billion
(http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/info/publications/week/2003/030523/economy2.html)
In the years before it was even higher. And that in a situation were the country faced three years of stagnation and is in the first time below the EU-15 average in its GDP per capita.
You have to take into account that Germany is a small country with a lower population than for example the US. So you have to look at the number taking this fact into account.
Aside that Germany spents 75 Billion Euro each year in the reconstruction of East Germany. That is about 4% of its GDP.


Aside of the fact that Germany is one of the largest contributers to international missions.
http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/politics/military/deployments.html
However for a country like Germany it is important to act within an international framework: either Nato or UN or EU, of course.
Outside of that Germany is not going to participate on actions. That is one of the historic counclusions.
Aside of that I would like to draw your attention to the army reform.
http://www.germany-info.org/relaunch/politics/domestic/Background_dom/bundeswehr.html
That is going to increase the ability of the Federal Republic to contribute even more to international missions if it deems it to be in its national interests.
Russia had about 30 billion depth only towards the German government (however there was a partial depth relief so it may be only half now).
Aside of the dept towards private banks and private investors.
Germany paid Russia about 15 billion only for their withdrawl till 1994 as "compensation".
The support for the first gulf war (1990)was about 15 billion towards the US, aside of logistical support and support for Turkey and Saudi-Arabia through weapons sells.

Germany was the main supporter for the EU enlargement towards eastern Europe and German companies are the main investors over there. The volume of trade between the ten new members and Germany only is higher than the US-German trade and has growth rates of nearly ten percent.
Aside of the fact that the new members have free access to our markets (no customs).

I´m personally not a big fan of developing aid to developing countries. After all it is smaller than the disadvantage those countries have because of customs and other obstacles to trade. The removal of any customs and any other barriers in trade is in itself a huge support.
And in the next years they are going to get more financial support from the EU. And guess who has to pay for that?


As for the deficit, I personally can't be worried about that. It's currently 3.8% of the GDP, far less than what Reagan ran up. Besides, it can be argued that it wouldn't be there if there wasn't a war. But I do know a lot of programs that can be cut out to make it a surplus.
What programs and how fast can they be implemented?
If the deficit remains that high the interests rate in the US are going to rise soon. Not so long ago it was almost 6% (2000).
And such a development would of course lead to serious problems if the deficit remains that high.
So the reduction of the deficit needs to be one of the top priorities for the next four years. That is not only important for the US but for the world economy as a whole.
The US budget is globally much more important than the budget of any other country - even much more important than that of other leading economies like Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy or Canada.

I don´t expect any greatfulness towards Germany for its contributions. But it can´t be said that it is doing little given its ressources, its population, its economy and its internal challenges and problems. Taking that into account the german contribution is very high. Aside of the fact that the entire EU would not work without us - neither politically nor financially. Germany together with France and Britain can inshure peace and stability in Europe. Without Germany that isn´t possible. Without France it isn´t possible as well. And Britain is also needed. So it would be exremly unwise to isolate any of those countries. That could lead to a lot of mischief in Europe.

Purly + Philosophy = many dead Americans

Purly + Philosophy = WW3

Pretty soon (I know you are not old enough yet), perhaps you will get a chance to try out your new philosophy on the battlefield, or were you going to get someone else to do that for you?

What programs and how fast can they be implemented?
If the deficit remains that high the interests rate in the US are going to rise soon. Not so long ago it was almost 6% (2000).
And such a development would of course lead to serious problems if the deficit remains that high.
So the reduction of the deficit needs to be one of the top priorities for the next four years. That is not only important for the US but for the world economy as a whole.
The US budget is globally much more important than the budget of any other country - even much more important than that of other leading economies like Japan, Germany, Britain, France, Italy or Canada.
The last time we ran a big deficit was in the eighties. Despite how far higher it was then, it had no effect. In fact, that was when the world economy boomed. Interest rates even went down from their high of 22% in the late seventies. This time, I'm not worried. Interest rates have been increasing, but that's a result of rising prices due to a rapidly growing world economy, and not because of the deficit. Don't forget, however, that interest rates are still very low.
I don´t expect any greatfulness towards Germany for its contributions. But it can´t be said that it is doing little given its ressources, its population, its economy and its internal challenges and problems. Taking that into account the german contribution is very high. Aside of the fact that the entire EU would not work without us - neither politically nor financially. Germany together with France and Britain can inshure peace and stability in Europe. Without Germany that isn´t possible. Without France it isn´t possible as well. And Britain is also needed. So it would be exremly unwise to isolate any of those countries. That could lead to a lot of mischief in Europe.
Very true. Eastern Europe should be repaying you guys for your financial and political contributions. I have a feeling they will. They seem like an extremely greatful people. I don't see why it was in many of their strategic interests to join NATO, or host US troops.

Purly + Philosophy = many dead Americans

Purly + Philosophy = WW3

Pretty soon (I know you are not old enough yet), perhaps you will get a chance to try out your new philosophy on the battlefield, or were you going to get someone else to do that for you?
Actually, I fantasize about joining the military. I probably can't, though. My right side is partially disabled.
But I don't plan to test it. I want to do the usual motions of a scholar: write a book about it, and a hundred years after my death, hope someone takes it seriously.

Actually, I fantasize about joining the military. I probably can't, though. My right side is partially disabled.
But I don't plan to test it. I want to do the usual motions of a scholar: write a book about it, and a hundred years after my death, hope someone takes it seriously.
Well if you want to write a book, how about one where your intution, resolve, and ability, resulted in an historic breakthough in public relations that resulted in an enduring peace amongst nations?

There are enough war mongers in the world?

Very true. Eastern Europe should be repaying you guys for your financial and political contributions. I have a feeling they will. They seem like an extremely greatful people. I don't see why it was in many of their strategic interests to join NATO, or host US troops.
Yeah. Very gratefull indeed. :rolleyes: Running into the arms of the US at the first chance they get.

Well if you want to write a book, how about one where your intution, resolve, and ability, resulted in an historic breakthough in public relations that resulted in an enduring peace amongst nations?

There are enough war mongers in the world?
I'm not war mongering. War mongering is encouraging useless agression. I'm not. BTW, there are plenty of books upholding peace. Indeed, you are a testament to how sucessfuly the West has debellified. If you ask me, it'd be pretty interesting to read a book from a real hawk, who says we need to adopt a foreign policy like that of 18th century Prussia.

Yeah. Very gratefull indeed. :rolleyes: Running into the arms of the US at the first chance they get.
Hey, they did.

I think we should stop caring what other nations- especially Europeon ones- think of our actions. They already hate us, so what difference does it make whether they agree with us or not?

I think we should stop caring what other nations- especially Europeon ones- think of our actions. They already hate us, so what difference does it make whether they agree with us or not?
Nothing. I think I was trying to make a point. No matter what America says or does in the world, we're hated. I just wish that it didn't have to be so.

Nothing. I think I was trying to make a point. No matter what America says or does in the world, we're hated. I just wish that it didn't have to be so.

Agreed.

The thing I'm most divided about in this philosophy, btw, is what the role of Europe should be. Europe is an enigma, really. The EU is imperfect, but improving on their governance. In fifty years, I have little doubt that the EU can act as a country, and the nations today are merely states of tommarow. Now, however, it is much more complex.
Most of Europe isn't fond with the US, no matter who the president is. France, of course, wants to compete against the US. Britain seems to want to make the EU work closely with the US. Then there are economic issues. The developed economies of Europe have flat growth. A negative population growth may result in a shrinking of the economy, with Europe being surpassed by Asia and the Americas economically.
Yet, I don't want to leave Europe by the wayside. They've always been so important, and they still might be, geopolitically. They are strategically located between North Africa, Russia, and the Middle East. Plus, they are seasoned veterans at nation building.

I'm not war mongering. War mongering is encouraging useless agression. I'm not.
Well after reading some of your posts, as in who is next and where it should go from there, plus suggesting regime change, etc., demonstrates to me that you are war mongering.
Indeed, you are a testament to how sucessfuly the West has debellified.
Okay, I will bite, what is "debellified"?

If you ask me, it'd be pretty interesting to read a book from a real hawk, who says we need to adopt a foreign policy like that of 18th century Prussia.
No thanks. 18th century Prussia turned into 20th century Germany and where did that go?

In regards to all this imperialistic posturing that is going on, I personally believe that the US doesn't have the capabilities of deploying enough troops to carry out an enlarged expansionist agenda at this time, especially without instituting a draft. The other part of the equation that complicates these interventionist ideals is due to a large segment of the US population is dead set against moving in this direction.

The last time we ran a big deficit was in the eighties. Despite how far higher it was then, it had no effect. In fact, that was when the world economy boomed. Interest rates even went down from their high of 22% in the late seventies. This time, I'm not worried. Interest rates have been increasing, but that's a result of rising prices due to a rapidly growing world economy, and not because of the deficit. Don't forget, however, that interest rates are still very low..
Currently yes. But that may change soon. And as a matter of fact the growth of the world economy is not going up as fast as hoped. But inflationary tendencies do - for many reasons. One is the rising energy prices.
I´m not too worried as well because I think that the FED is going to go for a stability policy and is going to rise interest rates as needed. But how far that is needed depends also on the deficit - which is by the way to a huge degree covered due to foreign investors.
A weak dollar policy is quite frankly spoken not in their interests. And it is of course going to harm their readiness for future investments in the US. So quite frankly spoken it is necessary to have in the long-run balanced budgets like Friedman says (not every year but on average). I´m much more in favour of fiscal conservatism than of neo-keynesianism.
After all it was Keynesianism which led to the problems in the 1970s.


Very true. Eastern Europe should be repaying you guys for your financial and political contributions. I have a feeling they will. They seem like an extremely greatful people. I don't see why it was in many of their strategic interests to join NATO, or host US troops.
. Well that is easy. It is the fear of Russia which makes it in their interests to be members of Nato.
Regarding the investment in East Europe: I don´t expect thankfulness. But I think it is going to stabilize the region, stabilize democracies and helps to create stability, prosperity and peace in Europe. Given the history of this continent that is of a value which can´t be measured.
Regarding Russia: It can pay back in the long-run. And the field for that is of course the energy sector. Germany covers currently 37,5% of its over all energy (electricity, industry, private homes, industry, traffic, e.g.) by the use of oil (compared to almost 50% in the middle of the 1970s) and 21,7% through gas.
37% comes from former Soviet republics (CIS countries): most from Russia (30,7% in 2002, in 2001: 28,7%). Only 20% comes from Opec-countries and 34 from North Sea oil (Norway, Britain). And 31,2%(2002) of the gas comes from Russia (Norway 25%, Netherlands 18,6%, Britain 4,0%, domestic 18,3%). So the energy partnership is developing and growing.
Also Britain has engaged itself a bit. Last year they also made a big contract with Russia.
So: it may pay back in the form of a bit more secure energy surplies than other countries have (like Japan who are more dependen on the Middle East).
Under President Putin this partnership (which already began in the 1970s after the first oil crisis and increased more since the 1990s) has increased even more. President Putin sees obviously the partnership as very important as well, as he also outlined in 2002 when he gave an adress to the Bundestag in fluent German.
This partnership creates of course a certain dependency to Russia. We are aware of that an that´s why we also import from other countries (preferentially from other European countries) or others and use other ressources (domestic or imported coal (from Australia or South Africa).
But the dependency goes vice versa. If you try to attack your business partner he is not likely to do any business with you any more. In that way the partnership also creates common interests. Aside of the fact that it stabilizes Russia and makes it much more unlikely that neo-communists or ultra-nationalists take over. President Putin is not an angel. But he isn´t a dictator either. Russia isn´t a western style democracy, but Turkey for example isn´t either. He is a reformer and so far he was a reliable partner. I have no doubt that it remains that way.

Hey, they did.
My point exactly. They shouldn't have allowed to become members. At least for another 10 years or so.

Originally Posted by Purly Euclid
If you ask me, it'd be pretty interesting to read a book from a real hawk, who says we need to adopt a foreign policy like that of 18th century Prussia.

And what would that be?

Originally Posted by Purly Euclid
If you ask me, it'd be pretty interesting to read a book from a real hawk, who says we need to adopt a foreign policy like that of 18th century Prussia.

Prussia indeed expanded in the 18 th century. But it was never the dominating power in that period. It was a medium power and became due to its ambitious policy (and a lot of luck) the fith great power in Europe. In the seven-year war (1756-63) for example Prussia almost lost. There was only a miracle which prevented the defeat of it. And that was the death of the russian czar Katharina the Great on January 5, 1762 and the seperate peace with Russia on May 5 with Czar Peter III, which the prussian-friendly new czar did. That saved their neck.
By the way: Austria remained the dominating power although it had to give up some terretories. Prussia had also to accept and to support that the Habsburg dynasty holding the more ceremonial title of emperor of the "Holy Roman Empire". In the second half of the 18 th century Prussian expansion was mainly due to deals with Austria and Russia (for example the three polish divisions (1772, 1793, 1795) which divided Poland between Russia, Austria and Prussia.
The Prussian had ambitions to challenge Austria and their power rise. But they couldn´t overthrow Austrians position, yet.
In the 1790s the Prussian policy was very undecisive. Prussia joined the coalition of England, Austria and Russia against revolutonary France(1 rst coalition war 1792-97). But since the war was not successful and pretty costly it abandoned its allies in 1795, making a seperate peace with France. And it didn´t even participate on the second or third coalition war (1798-1801, 1805) which led to humiliating defeates of Austria and to the formal end of the Holy Roman Empire (800-1806) after an ultimatum by Napoleon in 1806. The prussian neutrality didn´t bring them anything. In 1806/07 Prussia faced France almost alone and faced an humiliating defeat an lost half of its territory.
The Vienna congress after the defeat of Napoleon was actually also more succesfull for Austria than Prussia.
The real dominance of Prussia in Central Europe only came due to the industrialisation within the 19 th century. The customs union with other german states (but not with Austria) in 1834 strengthened that position. Shortly all other states (except Austria) joined this customs union). So economically Prussia archieved its dominance in the middle of the 19 th century (one reason why even the liberals realized that an unification of the country is only possible with Prussian leadership and without Austria. That was even the voting of the Frankfurt parliament in 1849 (after the revolution of 1848/49). Military Austria was finally kicked out in 1866, after a very-well provoked conflict over the administration of Schleswig-Holstein which were administred jointly by Prussia and Austria after the German-Denish war of 1864.
The prussian chancellor Bismarck was a very clever strategists. The use of force was necessary for it wouldn´t have been possible with diplomacy, a clever strategy and alliances domestically and abroad.
I personally missed to see what the clever strategy of the US is.
And while Prussia wasn´t popular in South Germany for example the idea of an united Germany was an due to that fact it was accepted.
I doubt that the idea of an united world would find that acceptance.
Ok, freedom could be such an idea. But than it would need a strategy to popularize that idea and its concept and it would require a clever strategy and patience. I can´t see that, though.
On the conterary: this idea becomes dogmatically more and more discredited as being part of "western imperialism". So, any strategy would need to counter that claim to popularize that concept.

What we have here folks, is a Conservatives attempts to gloss over the terrorist actions of America by hoping that his eloquence will hide the many mistakes within the text. This of course, is arrogance.

He mentions that US Culture is accepted with open arms by the people of Japan, Russian, and several European countries - He neglects to see the anti-globalization processes, particurlarly gaining strength in Japan and the Asian World. He neglects to see that American 'Culture' as he puts it - is not a harmless corporate image which represents a lifestyle. But simply another way of spreading US Hegemony around the World, countries with less developed economies become incredibly dependant on these MNC's and therefore relax laws on everything from worker's rights to the environment to accomodate them. Not only that but Globalization is not the buzz word that represents the 'World getting smaller' (new transport means e.t.c.). That is not what the word means to the protesters and the people concerned with it.

Globalization represents, for them, the enforcement of US Imperialism through many means - one of them being through the use of Corporate entities. This has proven effective, look at Irwin Stelzer and his Relationship with Rupert Murdoch, then look at Stelzer's relationship with Bush and Blair, then look at Blair's attempt (5 years after he met Stelzer) to allow Murdoch to take over La Stampa. Yep, Corporations can exact power on Governments, and can be influenced by thier country of origin - Their power should not be understated.

Whats more, the author of this what could be said to be 'relatively awful post' tries to make, like most right wingers who cannot put forward an argument, illusions about The US's Foreign Policy, he even at one point says that opposition to it is primarily from old Communist countries after the break up of the Soviet Union. This of course is ignorance and The US's Foreign Policy recieves the most opposition in the Muslim World, and rightly so. America has always propped up dictatorships it believes to be useful for its interests, despite the effects upon the people. The US also uses the excuse that they are 'democratic' to deflect critiscm, because it makes the justification for such things seem more 'democratic' itself. Yet I doubt the people of Nicaragua, or South Vietnam under Diem, or Saudi Arabia or even Afghanistan before the War would have though the same. But what is also interesting is the way the US viermently opposes democracy in the Middle-East, for example thier opposition to Yassir Arafat, the only democratically elected leader in the region. Perhaps they would rather replace him with a puppet who would stand down before Israeli aggression? Like the Interim Government of Iraq is there primarily to defend US interests?

Yes the US is the World's leading terrorist state. And not without good reason for the examples mentioned, most of which end in massacres. But remember people - this is just his 'philosophy' as it is not backed up by fact and mainly he is the one that draws conclusions based on his own beliefs, not evidence.

So next time you are browsing through NationStates General board, remember this guy, because he twists the truth so unsubtly you could see it from a mile off :D

Well after reading some of your posts, as in who is next and where it should go from there, plus suggesting regime change, etc., demonstrates to me that you are war mongering.
That's primarily because I want threats to international security eliminated now. I don't want the US to attack South Africa simply because of its gold mines.
Okay, I will bite, what is "debellified"?
The creation of war as something to be avoided, though passifism may be the wrong world for it. Even I'm a bit more dovish, compared to the average joe of two hundred years ago.
No thanks. 18th century Prussia turned into 20th century Germany and where did that go?
Relax. I'm not promoting this. But there are those who are. They are true hawks, but I shouldn't say that. You'll accuse me of calling the kettle black :).
In regards to all this imperialistic posturing that is going on, I personally believe that the US doesn't have the capabilities of deploying enough troops to carry out an enlarged expansionist agenda at this time, especially without instituting a draft. The other part of the equation that complicates these interventionist ideals is due to a large segment of the US population is dead set against moving in this direction.
You are right about the opinions of the US public. But they'd be ready to accept this, because I believe that military intervention, at least later, won't need to be applied. It'll be mostly, to put it in your language, financial and liberal imperialism. We all win this way.
One more thing: should military action be necessary in the future, I feel it'll require a small army. Thirteen years ago, nearly a million troops were needed to defeat Hussein's army in Kuwait. A force of about 200,000, most of them on ships just firing missiles, conquered the country. I'm optimistic less troops should be needed in the future, even for occupation.

Originally Posted by Purly Euclid
If you ask me, it'd be pretty interesting to read a book from a real hawk, who says we need to adopt a foreign policy like that of 18th century Prussia.

Prussia indeed expanded in the 18 th century. But it was never the dominating power in that period. It was a medium power and became due to its ambitious policy (and a lot of luck) the fith great power in Europe. In the seven-year war (1756-63) for example Prussia almost lost. There was only a miracle which prevented the defeat of it. And that was the death of the russian czar Katharina the Great on January 5, 1762 and the seperate peace with Russia on May 5 with Czar Peter III, which the prussian-friendly new czar did. That saved their neck.
By the way: Austria remained the dominating power although it had to give up some terretories. Prussia had also to accept and to support that the Habsburg dynasty holding the more ceremonial title of emperor of the "Holy Roman Empire". In the second half of the 18 th century Prussian expansion was mainly due to deals with Austria and Russia (for example the three polish divisions (1772, 1793, 1795) which divided Poland between Russia, Austria and Prussia.
The Prussian had ambitions to challenge Austria and their power rise. But they couldn´t overthrow Austrians position, yet.
In the 1790s the Prussian policy was very undecisive. Prussia joined the coalition of England, Austria and Russia against revolutonary France(1 rst coalition war 1792-97). But since the war was not successful and pretty costly it abandoned its allies in 1795, making a seperate peace with France. And it didn´t even participate on the second or third coalition war (1798-1801, 1805) which led to humiliating defeates of Austria and to the formal end of the Holy Roman Empire (800-1806) after an ultimatum by Napoleon in 1806. The prussian neutrality didn´t bring them anything. In 1806/07 Prussia faced France almost alone and faced an humiliating defeat an lost half of its territory.
The Vienna congress after the defeat of Napoleon was actually also more succesfull for Austria than Prussia.
The real dominance of Prussia in Central Europe only came due to the industrialisation within the 19 th century. The customs union with other german states (but not with Austria) in 1834 strengthened that position. Shortly all other states (except Austria) joined this customs union). So economically Prussia archieved its dominance in the middle of the 19 th century (one reason why even the liberals realized that an unification of the country is only possible with Prussian leadership and without Austria. That was even the voting of the Frankfurt parliament in 1849 (after the revolution of 1848/49). Military Austria was finally kicked out in 1866, after a very-well provoked conflict over the administration of Schleswig-Holstein which were administred jointly by Prussia and Austria after the German-Denish war of 1864.
The prussian chancellor Bismarck was a very clever strategists. The use of force was necessary for it wouldn´t have been possible with diplomacy, a clever strategy and alliances domestically and abroad.
I personally missed to see what the clever strategy of the US is.
And while Prussia wasn´t popular in South Germany for example the idea of an united Germany was an due to that fact it was accepted.
I doubt that the idea of an united world would find that acceptance.
Ok, freedom could be such an idea. But than it would need a strategy to popularize that idea and its concept and it would require a clever strategy and patience. I can´t see that, though.
On the conterary: this idea becomes dogmatically more and more discredited as being part of "western imperialism". So, any strategy would need to counter that claim to popularize that concept.
My point, however, was that Prussia was extremely expansionist and militaristic, even for their time. I'm not advocating a return for that.

What we have here folks, is a Conservatives attempts to gloss over the terrorist actions of America by hoping that his eloquence will hide the many mistakes within the text. This of course, is arrogance.

He mentions that US Culture is accepted with open arms by the people of Japan, Russian, and several European countries - He neglects to see the anti-globalization processes, particurlarly gaining strength in Japan and the Asian World. He neglects to see that American 'Culture' as he puts it - is not a harmless corporate image which represents a lifestyle. But simply another way of spreading US Hegemony around the World, countries with less developed economies become incredibly dependant on these MNC's and therefore relax laws on everything from worker's rights to the environment to accomodate them. Not only that but Globalization is not the buzz word that represents the 'World getting smaller' (new transport means e.t.c.). That is not what the word means to the protesters and the people concerned with it.

Globalization represents, for them, the enforcement of US Imperialism through many means - one of them being through the use of Corporate entities. This has proven effective, look at Irwin Stelzer and his Relationship with Rupert Murdoch, then look at Stelzer's relationship with Bush and Blair, then look at Blair's attempt (5 years after he met Stelzer) to allow Murdoch to take over La Stampa. Yep, Corporations can exact power on Governments, and can be influenced by thier country of origin - Their power should not be understated.

Whats more, the author of this what could be said to be 'relatively awful post' tries to make, like most right wingers who cannot put forward an argument, illusions about The US's Foreign Policy, he even at one point says that opposition to it is primarily from old Communist countries after the break up of the Soviet Union. This of course is ignorance and The US's Foreign Policy recieves the most opposition in the Muslim World, and rightly so. America has always propped up dictatorships it believes to be useful for its interests, despite the effects upon the people. The US also uses the excuse that they are 'democratic' to deflect critiscm, because it makes the justification for such things seem more 'democratic' itself. Yet I doubt the people of Nicaragua, or South Vietnam under Diem, or Saudi Arabia or even Afghanistan before the War would have though the same. But what is also interesting is the way the US viermently opposes democracy in the Middle-East, for example thier opposition to Yassir Arafat, the only democratically elected leader in the region. Perhaps they would rather replace him with a puppet who would stand down before Israeli aggression? Like the Interim Government of Iraq is there primarily to defend US interests?

Yes the US is the World's leading terrorist state. And not without good reason for the examples mentioned, most of which end in massacres. But remember people - this is just his 'philosophy' as it is not backed up by fact and mainly he is the one that draws conclusions based on his own beliefs, not evidence.

So next time you are browsing through NationStates General board, remember this guy, because he twists the truth so unsubtly you could see it from a mile off :D
I'm glad you like it. I'm sure your fellow anti-Americans agree 100%.

That's primarily because I want threats to international security eliminated now. I don't want the US to attack South Africa simply because of its gold mines.

The creation of war as something to be avoided, though passifism may be the wrong world for it. Even I'm a bit more dovish, compared to the average joe of two hundred years ago.

Relax. I'm not promoting this. But there are those who are. They are true hawks, but I shouldn't say that. You'll accuse me of calling the kettle black :).

You are right about the opinions of the US public. But they'd be ready to accept this, because I believe that military intervention, at least later, won't need to be applied. It'll be mostly, to put it in your language, financial and liberal imperialism. We all win this way.
One more thing: should military action be necessary in the future, I feel it'll require a small army. Thirteen years ago, nearly a million troops were needed to defeat Hussein's army in Kuwait. A force of about 200,000, most of them on ships just firing missiles, conquered the country. I'm optimistic less troops should be needed in the future, even for occupation.
*Canuck* cracks knuckles.....

1. Too many threats, NOT enough manpower, not enough International support, and will create even more threats.

2. There are peaceful solutions and some very obvious ones, but it is unlikely that US foreign policy would change to accept a fundamental paradigm shift. Consider that the US spends about $400 to $500 Billion on military budget which is about equal to 1/2 the world's TOTAL defense budget. Suppose that the US took 1/5 of that money and invested it in the suffering people of the world. I don't mean give the money to the governments but set up distributorships of food, clothing, and healthcare in various regions. I know, I know, that that is just not going to happen but making friends would be more logical that blowing them to pieces?

3. Early Prussia = later Nazi Germany.....so not interested in that philosophy at all. If you have people advocating that in the US, then people should be aware of who they are and their agenda.

4. I really don't believe that the US has the numbers that would make an ever expanding foreign policy work.

5. You required smaller numbers against Iraq this time for the sheer fact that Iraqs army had been devestated in the previous Gulf War, Iraq had no air force, no anti-aircraft, and very little support from older traditional allies. Also, the Iraqi will had been broken by the Iran/Iraq War, Kuwait occupation, and the ensuing Gulf War. Besides, Iraq had no real firepower because most of it had been destroyed or dismantled by years of UN inspectors.

6. Taking on a much stronger country such as Iran, might lead my American friends into a death trap, and I for one would not like to see that. There is no win/win situation in war, at least what you have proposed.

My point, however, was that Prussia was extremely expansionist and militaristic, even for their time. I'm not advocating a return for that.
Well: we could have a discussion about Prussian history but that would be completly off topic. It is however true that Prussia was ambitious and that it developed from a samll medium north-east German state to the smallest of the five european great powers within the 18 th century and - after the defeat against Napoleon in 1806- began reforms. The so called Prussian reformers modernized many fields: Agriculture (end of feudalism), communal governments, military. All those reforms were designed to strenghten the bound and the loyality of the citizens towards the state, to modernize it, its economy, its military and to make it stronger.
And after the French defeat in Russia the Prussian military was much better and stronger and was able together with Austria and Russia to defeat it.
By the way: one major reason for the military success of revolutionary France in the 1790s and the Napoleonic France was the instituition of the draft. That was a French idea. The other powers had paid soldiers, engaged "private contractors" or/and where members of the aristocratic class. There was no draft before that.
Due to the draft France was of course able to increase its man-power tremendously. So it was copied aftere the final defeat in 1806. However they were rather reluctant to do that. After all: a draft requires loyal citizens who don´t raise the arms against the own government. And therefore it was a reform combined with others (like end of feudalism, freedom of labour and business, city council rights, e.g.).
By the way: In the 18 th century the Prussians invited French immigrants (Hugenotts) who were force to flee the country due to the repression of protestantism. The Prussians - althoug staunchly protestant - didn´t care about confession as long as nobody turned against the dynasty.

Regarding expansionism. The US of the 19 th century was also expansionist. From 13 states to 50 (195..) is a huge expansion. I know: not everything through war. But the Prussian expansion wasn´t through war only as well.
If you really want however to look at expansionism I would recommed you to take a look at Russia and look at its expansionism from the 16 th century (a small kingdom around Moscow) to the end of the 19 th century. That is much more impressive actually.

I think you actually touched an important point however. The US is still an expanding power. Not so much in territory but in influence and interests. And that of course is a difficult position since it means that one can be involved in many conflicts. Prussians expansionism - like the expansionism of other european great powers - was always limitted by the others (in the 19 th century through balance of power principal. However before changing alliances existed as well in the relationships Prussia, Austria, Russia).
Americans potential of expansionism is theoretically unlimmited. The only one who can limit it is America itself.

*Canuck* cracks knuckles.....

1. Too many threats, NOT enough manpower, not enough International support, and will create even more threats.

2. There are peaceful solutions and some very obvious ones, but it is unlikely that US foreign policy would change to accept a fundamental paradigm shift. Consider that the US spends about $400 to $500 Billion on military budget which is about equal to 1/2 the world's TOTAL defense budget. Suppose that the US took 1/5 of that money and invested it in the suffering people of the world. I don't mean give the money to the governments but set up distributorships of food, clothing, and healthcare in various regions. I know, I know, that that is just not going to happen but making friends would be more logical that blowing them to pieces?

3. Early Prussia = later Nazi Germany.....so not interested in that philosophy at all. If you have people advocating that in the US, then people should be aware of who they are and their agenda.

4. I really don't believe that the US has the numbers that would make an ever expanding foreign policy work.

5. You required smaller numbers against Iraq this time for the sheer fact that Iraqs army had been devestated in the previous Gulf War, Iraq had no air force, no anti-aircraft, and very little support from older traditional allies. Also, the Iraqi will had been broken by the Iran/Iraq War, Kuwait occupation, and the ensuing Gulf War. Besides, Iraq had no real firepower because most of it had been destroyed or dismantled by years of UN inspectors.

6. Taking on a much stronger country such as Iran, might lead my American friends into a death trap, and I for one would not like to see that. There is no win/win situation in war, at least what you have proposed.
1. In ten years, as I've mentioned, I believe that our Middle East policy should show results. Then, if the world doesn't stand shoulder-to-shoulder with us (and that's unlikely), most countries will at least give us moral support. At least, most of the world's liberal democracies. Besides, if it makes you feel better, the guy that'll be president in a decade will not be Bush.
2. Look at John Kennedy's efforts to fund Latin America in the 1960s. It was a very noble attempt to build the region's civilian infrastructure, but the money ended up going to all sorts of rebels and military things. As we've seen, such as with the Marshall Plan, large amounts of monetary aid work best when the giver, being the US, can see its use every step of the way. A helluvalot of aid is going into Iraq, and with the US helping to oversee its distribution and usage, the aid has more of a chance going to what it was intended for.
3. Yes, I know. It's sad. But I don't want to be seen as an advocate for this foreign policy. Economic stewartship is prefferable to military might.
4. We have enough troopps right now, especially since a major realignment plan is starting this year. However, if we're in a crunch in the future, perhaps we may gain more allies. Besides, recruitment isn't optimal, but it isn't gloomy. The four branches of the military reached their recruitment target by an average of 101%.
5. It was also because of advancing technology, and bombs that actually know where to hit. That's why more weren't killed, and I think that it'll make war frightening, but not exactly damaging for civilians in the cross-fire. Of course, that's one reason the military needs to continue making wars as quick and bloodless as possible.
6. I don't believe that. They are larger, but their equipment is largely leftovers from the Soviet Union, and that's no match for modern armor and bombs. However, I didn't say that war with Iran would exactly be desirable for the US, but likely. Israel may strike first, as they hinted at doing. Besides, in the event of a war, all they need is a few adjustments to their military structure and government, but not a massive overhaul, as Iraq desparately needed. The Iranians know quite a bit on how to govern themselves, and most are already liberal minded. It should leave the US to leave a small footprint on Iran, should war break out. However, it shouldn't be a death trap for us. The US is an expert at defeating large armies, even on the cheap.

1. In ten years, as I've mentioned, I believe that our Middle East policy should show results. Then, if the world doesn't stand shoulder-to-shoulder with us (and that's unlikely), most countries will at least give us moral support. At least, most of the world's liberal democracies. Besides, if it makes you feel better, the guy that'll be president in a decade will not be Bush.
2. Look at John Kennedy's efforts to fund Latin America in the 1960s. It was a very noble attempt to build the region's civilian infrastructure, but the money ended up going to all sorts of rebels and military things. As we've seen, such as with the Marshall Plan, large amounts of monetary aid work best when the giver, being the US, can see its use every step of the way. A helluvalot of aid is going into Iraq, and with the US helping to oversee its distribution and usage, the aid has more of a chance going to what it was intended for.
3. Yes, I know. It's sad. But I don't want to be seen as an advocate for this foreign policy. Economic stewartship is prefferable to military might.
4. We have enough troopps right now, especially since a major realignment plan is starting this year. However, if we're in a crunch in the future, perhaps we may gain more allies. Besides, recruitment isn't optimal, but it isn't gloomy. The four branches of the military reached their recruitment target by an average of 101%.
5. It was also because of advancing technology, and bombs that actually know where to hit. That's why more weren't killed, and I think that it'll make war frightening, but not exactly damaging for civilians in the cross-fire. Of course, that's one reason the military needs to continue making wars as quick and bloodless as possible.
6. I don't believe that. They are larger, but their equipment is largely leftovers from the Soviet Union, and that's no match for modern armor and bombs. However, I didn't say that war with Iran would exactly be desirable for the US, but likely. Israel may strike first, as they hinted at doing. Besides, in the event of a war, all they need is a few adjustments to their military structure and government, but not a massive overhaul, as Iraq desparately needed. The Iranians know quite a bit on how to govern themselves, and most are already liberal minded. It should leave the US to leave a small footprint on Iran, should war break out. However, it shouldn't be a death trap for us. The US is an expert at defeating large armies, even on the cheap.
What I envisage is a Kerry win and him pulling off the coup of the new millenium.....a peaceful resolve to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. That would go a long way towards cooling down the whole Middle East, except for the unwanted presence of US troops in Iraq.

Anyhow, thats how I call it. Okay now....call me a dreamer.....

Well: we could have a discussion about Prussian history but that would be completly off topic. It is however true that Prussia was ambitious and that it developed from a samll medium north-east German state to the smallest of the five european great powers within the 18 th century and - after the defeat against Napoleon in 1806- began reforms. The so called Prussian reformers modernized many fields: Agriculture (end of feudalism), communal governments, military. All those reforms were designed to strenghten the bound and the loyality of the citizens towards the state, to modernize it, its economy, its military and to make it stronger.
And after the French defeat in Russia the Prussian military was much better and stronger and was able together with Austria and Russia to defeat it.
By the way: one major reason for the military success of revolutionary France in the 1790s and the Napoleonic France was the instituition of the draft. That was a French idea. The other powers had paid soldiers, engaged "private contractors" or/and where members of the aristocratic class. There was no draft before that.
Due to the draft France was of course able to increase its man-power tremendously. So it was copied aftere the final defeat in 1806. However they were rather reluctant to do that. After all: a draft requires loyal citizens who don´t raise the arms against the own government. And therefore it was a reform combined with others (like end of feudalism, freedom of labour and business, city council rights, e.g.).
By the way: In the 18 th century the Prussians invited French immigrants (Hugenotts) who were force to flee the country due to the repression of protestantism. The Prussians - althoug staunchly protestant - didn´t care about confession as long as nobody turned against the dynasty.

Regarding expansionism. The US of the 19 th century was also expansionist. From 13 states to 50 (195..) is a huge expansion. I know: not everything through war. But the Prussian expansion wasn´t through war only as well.
If you really want however to look at expansionism I would recommed you to take a look at Russia and look at its expansionism from the 16 th century (a small kingdom around Moscow) to the end of the 19 th century. That is much more impressive actually.

I think you actually touched an important point however. The US is still an expanding power. Not so much in territory but in influence and interests. And that of course is a difficult position since it means that one can be involved in many conflicts. Prussians expansionism - like the expansionism of other european great powers - was always limitted by the others (in the 19 th century through balance of power principal. However before changing alliances existed as well in the relationships Prussia, Austria, Russia).
Americans potential of expansionism is theoretically unlimmited. The only one who can limit it is America itself.
This is true. What's so surprising about my idea is that I realize it is happening the more I talk about it. Many third world nations have lost their patrons of the Cold War, and need help. US businesses are helping develope their resource bases, ultimatly making them richer. Most recently, ExxonMobil is building up an oilfield in Chad, complete with a very large pipeline. The economic effects remain to be seen, but the World Bank has ordered all oil royalties to be put in a special fund to develope Chadian infrastructure. The US, therefore, almost has to get involved because of our global economic interests. Why has the US been one of the biggest promoters of free trade in the world? Because, intentionally or not, it benefits our interests overseas.
American expansionism, btw, happened largely because the West was open land. There was the Mexican-American war, but most of the land fought over was empty, anyhow. The real expansionists were the later settlers. America's empire actually began to appear in the 1890s, first with the overthrow of the Hawai'ian monarchy, then the Spanish-American war. Like most of Europe, our empire faded after WWII.
As for Russia, I fail to find that interesting. Sure, it expanded West, and that's an interesting story. However, most of it was over Siberia. What was out there? Not much, and that was what allowed Russia to grow in size so fast. The real intersting thing in Russian history of the time are the czars.
And Napoleon was the father of the draft? I didn't know that.

What I envisage is a Kerry win and him pulling off the coup of the new millenium.....a peaceful resolve to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. That would go a long way towards cooling down the whole Middle East, except for the unwanted presence of US troops in Iraq.

Anyhow, thats how I call it. Okay now....call me a dreamer.....
The present course ain't bad, though. No one has tried mixing Wilsonianism and imperialism, and I think that the two can complement eachother.

3. Early Prussia = later Nazi Germany.....so not interested in that philosophy at all. .
This statement is like saying: Rome under Augustus = Rome under Nero.

Well, that is not the point here. But it belongs to the study of every diplomat to go for the last 200 years of European history. Especially the Vienna Congress after the defeat of Napoleonic France in 1815. The dominant figure was actually Metternich (Austria) and Talleyrand (France). The prussian representative von Stein (one of the prussian reformers) was not so successful in the negotiations of the reordern of Europe after the Napoleonic wars (which was dominated by the four allied powers: Britain, Russia, Prussia and Austria. Though due to the balance of power principal of Britain France acutally managed to defend even parts of the territories it conquered in the 1790s and only had to partly give back territories).
Aside of Talleyrand and Metternich (of the time of the Vienna congress) Bismarck plays an important historic role. Prussian chancellor of 1862-90 he was through a very tricky diplomatic policy (which included the use of force three times (1864,66,70/71) able to unite Germany in 1871. After that he tried to consolidate the german position. He was even against colonial endevours and saw them as useless.
So it is completly nonsense to compare his policy to Hitler or something.
If Germany followed his foreign policy after his resignation in 1890 there would very likely not have been a World War I.

This statement is like saying: Rome under Augustus = Rome under Nero.

Well, that is not the point here. But it belongs to the study of every diplomat to go for the last 200 years of European history. Especially the Vienna Congress after the defeat of Napoleonic France in 1815. The dominant figure was actually Metternich (Austria) and Talleyrand (France). The prussian representative von Stein (one of the prussian reformers) was not so successful in the negotiations of the reordern of Europe after the Napoleonic wars (which was dominated by the four allied powers: Britain, Russia, Prussia and Austria. Though due to the balance of power principal of Britain France acutally managed to defend even parts of the territories it conquered in the 1790s and only had to partly give back territories).
Aside of Talleyrand and Metternich (of the time of the Vienna congress) Bismarck plays an important historic role. Prussian chancellor of 1862-90 he was through a very tricky diplomatic policy (which included the use of force three times (1864,66,70/71) able to unite Germany in 1871. After that he tried to consolidate the german position. He was even against colonial endevours and saw them as useless.
So it is completly nonsense to compare his policy to Hitler or something.
If Germany followed his foreign policy after his resignation in 1890 there would very likely not have been a World War I.
I brought Prussia up, btw, not just because of their milatarism, but because of their cultural attitude toward war. Who was it in the 18th century that said war is diplomacy carried out by hostile means? It shows that they regarded it as an ordinary feature in foreign policy. That isn't so, nowadays.

This statement is like saying: Rome under Augustus = Rome under Nero.

Well, that is not the point here. But it belongs to the study of every diplomat to go for the last 200 years of European history. Especially the Vienna Congress after the defeat of Napoleonic France in 1815. The dominant figure was actually Metternich (Austria) and Talleyrand (France). The prussian representative von Stein (one of the prussian reformers) was not so successful in the negotiations of the reordern of Europe after the Napoleonic wars (which was dominated by the four allied powers: Britain, Russia, Prussia and Austria. Though due to the balance of power principal of Britain France acutally managed to defend even parts of the territories it conquered in the 1790s and only had to partly give back territories).
Aside of Talleyrand and Metternich (of the time of the Vienna congress) Bismarck plays an important historic role. Prussian chancellor of 1862-90 he was through a very tricky diplomatic policy (which included the use of force three times (1864,66,70/71) able to unite Germany in 1871. After that he tried to consolidate the german position. He was even against colonial endevours and saw them as useless.
So it is completly nonsense to compare his policy to Hitler or something.
If Germany followed his foreign policy after his resignation in 1890 there would very likely not have been a World War I.
Empires come and empires go. Rape and pillage and plunder. Economic takeovers, and military takeovers. They all have the same result......people die and there is human suffering. The world really needs to grow up, and someday it will, when man realizes the futility of his folly.

Maybe we will all play nice once the women takeover the countries?

Empires come and empires go. Rape and pillage and plunder. Economic takeovers, and military takeovers. They all have the same result......people die and there is human suffering. The world really needs to grow up, and someday it will, when man realizes the futility of his folly.

Maybe we will all play nice once the women takeover the countries?
Think Condi Rice :D.

Think Condi Rice :gundge:
Nawwwww Hilary Clinton :cool:

*Changed Purly's emoticon*

This is true. What's so surprising about my idea is that I realize it is happening the more I talk about it. Many third world nations have lost their patrons of the Cold War, and need help. US businesses are helping develope their resource bases, ultimatly making them richer. Most recently, ExxonMobil is building up an oilfield in Chad, complete with a very large pipeline. The economic effects remain to be seen, but the World Bank has ordered all oil royalties to be put in a special fund to develope Chadian infrastructure. The US, therefore, almost has to get involved because of our global economic interests. Why has the US been one of the biggest promoters of free trade in the world? Because, intentionally or not, it benefits our interests overseas.
American expansionism, btw, happened largely because the West was open land. There was the Mexican-American war, but most of the land fought over was empty, anyhow. The real expansionists were the later settlers. America's empire actually began to appear in the 1890s, first with the overthrow of the Hawai'ian monarchy, then the Spanish-American war..
Well, and small Indian wars (like at the Little Bighorn River if I remember right). But you see the problem between expansionism in North America or in Europe. In Europe there are already many nations and Europe was - even at that time - relatively high populated. So: expansionism in any form lead to much more conflict. And even the expansionism of Prussia - which was in abolute size pretty small anyway was only possible due to arrangements with others (like Austria and Russia who divided Poland) or at least with the silent approval of another great power. This consideration didn´t play a role in North America. Wasn´t there a little war with Britain in 1812 about Canada??? Well, I think you lost that one. Anyway: you were expanding. The fact that many land was virtually empty doesn´t change that fact. That made it rather easier for you to expand.

Like most of Europe, our empire faded after WWII.
As for Russia, I fail to find that interesting. Sure, it expanded West, and that's an interesting story. However, most of it was over Siberia. What was out there? Not much, and that was what allowed Russia to grow in size so fast. . - and that is comparable with the US of course. Aside of the fact that the expansion to the west - which was primarly pushed by Czar Peter the Great was only possible by defeating the hegemonial power of Northern Europe at that time Sweden (Great Nordic war 1700-21). The three baltic states, the nort german region of Mecklenburg (due to the 1648 settlement of the 30-year-war: which was a very big war between several european powers: Holy Alliance (catholic) versus Protestant powers + France (which was and remained catholic however saw it in its interests to side with the protestant powers: so you see the French are always good for surprises)Finland and even the region where later St. Petersburg was built were swedish at that time. Aside of the expansion of Russia towards the Caucasus rivaling with the Ottoman Empire and towards Central Asia. For example Uzbekistan or Turkenistan (which are today again independent countries) were only occupied in 1895 and tried to seek independence in 1918, which ended after a defeat in 1922). Georgia tried that as well. And Chechens already rebelled against Moscow from 1830-59 under Imam Shamil. Aside of the chechen rebellion during World War II.


The real intersting thing in Russian history of the time are the czars.. Well, the expansion happened during the time of the czars.
And Napoleon was the father of the draft? I didn't know that.
Not Napoleon. It was already introduced after the French revolution in the revolutionary wars. I don´t remember the year and whether it was before the Jacobines or during their rule (1792-94). But I know for shure that it was the case during their rule and since them. That was a completly new idea: A peoples army. Well, you here that concept even in their anthem: Aux armes citoyens - To the arms citizens. The anthem is referring to the revolutionary wars (1790 following) when the other European powers tried to reestablish the French monarchy. By the way France has abandoned the draft in 2000 (after deciding for that in 1997). A disputed decision, since France was the inventor of it. Germany still has the draft.
Before that time it was usually to have a small army of aristocrats - who hold all leading positions, even the lower leading positions and low positions- and some contracted people: so actually private contractors. Many of those private contractors were from Switzerland by the way(a relict for that is the Swiss guard at the Vaticans). That were also the people who fought the 30 year-war (1618-48) or the other smaller war since them. The got some payment or were even allowed to plunder as payment.

In the middle ages they were the knives of course. But that ended already in the 15 th, 16 th century.

I brought Prussia up, btw, not just because of their milatarism, but because of their cultural attitude toward war. Who was it in the 18th century that said war is diplomacy carried out by hostile means? It shows that they regarded it as an ordinary feature in foreign policy. That isn't so, nowadays.
I think most of the staments you referr to are 19 th century. You mean e.g. General Moltke: "War is the continuation of politics by other means." Or statements like war is designed to force your will on the enemy.
In EU-Europe we have reached a point where war between that countries is impossible. But we have to realize that this is not true for the whole world, not even for the whole of Europe as the wars in the balcans showed.
There were attempts by the US and European power to stop this wars (e.g. Bosnia). However this diplomatic efforts were blocked mainly by Serbia. The result was a prolonged war which caused 400.000 deaths (ten percent ot the Bosnian population) and about a million refugees in Bosnia only.
This mistakes were not repeated in the Kosovo crisis. Clinton made a good job and showed great leadership. And there was a war. And of course - how else can you say that - it was a continuation of politics with other means. However I think that war should never become again a normal means of politics. It can only be a last resort. But it can´t be excluded completly as a last ressort. This discussion was a very difficult one in Germany. Because of our history Germany was very reluctant to say that they are situations where interventions are needed: and one situation is of course a genocide happening or attempted in one country of our continent. 1999 was the first time Germany participated in a war (though it was only an air campaign it was still a war). Approval rating for it was only 56-62% according to polls. But the political class mainly agreed to it due to experiences with Serbian policy in Bosnia.

Regarding the cultural judgements of war: The old Greec said: War is the father and the king of all things. They also fought a lot of wars against each other. The Romans took that over as well.
War is a factor of human history from the begining on. I mean: the fact that the usual way to great in Hebrew is Shalom and in Arabic Salam (Peace) underlines that. That shows that the culture was not so peaceful, so that it was necessary to underline with what intentions you are coming.

Empires come and empires go. Rape and pillage and plunder. Economic takeovers, and military takeovers. They all have the same result......people die and there is human suffering. The world really needs to grow up, and someday it will, when man realizes the futility of his folly.
May I ask you whether you believe in the disappearance of crime? It always existed. I don´t believe that it is going to disappear completly. But probably the world becomes one day more peaceful. The idea and concept of one dominating power could lead to that: There were after all centuries of relative peace under the Roman Empire: The so called Pax Romana. Probably - but I don´t know - it would be good to have a Pax Americana. But the question is are the Americans able and ready to go for that and whether they have a realistic strategy for it.

Maybe we will all play nice once the women takeover the countries?
You mean like Maggie Thatcher or other great woman of the past: Czar Katharina the Great of Russia, Maria Theresia of Austria or others???
Well, I ashure you that women are generally not better people than men.
I don´t have anything against a female head of government. But it ought to be the right person. I don´t care about the sex.
Actually in my country the conservative opposition is likely to nominate their chair woman as candidate for chancellor. So probably Germany is going to have a female chancellor in 2006. I´m going to vote for the conservatives anyway.
I actually liked Presiden Clinton. He did a fine job, especially after he got over the problems in his first two years of presidency. So, especially the period between 1995-2001 was very good: not only economically but also from the foreign policy of the US (1995 Dayton peace accord for Bosnia, 1999 Kosovo war and his engagement for peace in the Middle East (which unfortunately failed)).
But I don´t like his wife. So, get somebody else like Edwards or Lieberman.
I personally don´t care whether Bush or Ketchup-Kerry gets elected.
However I believe that Bush is going to win against this boring new-England state politican.

May I ask you whether you believe in the disappearance of crime? It always existed. I don´t believe that it is going to disappear completly. But probably the world becomes one day more peaceful. The idea and concept of one dominating power could lead to that: There were after all centuries of relative peace under the Roman Empire: The so called Pax Romana. Probably - but I don´t know - it would be good to have a Pax Americana. But the question is are the Americans able and ready to go for that and whether they have a realistic strategy for it.
Well when the right entity comes along, there will be no more crime, or wars, or poverty, but that won't happen for awhile. As far as a Pax Americana is concerned, personally I can't see it. There is too much greed, hate, and lust (not the kind you are thinking), involved with the current power brokers in the US, unless of course a Canadian can squeeze in there and mellow them out LOL.

You mean like Maggie Thatcher or other great woman of the past: Czar Katharina the Great of Russia, Maria Theresia of Austria or others???
Well, I ashure you that women are generally not better people than men.
I don´t have anything against a female head of government. But it ought to be the right person. I don´t care about the sex.
Noooo to Maggie. More along the lines of a Golda Meir or Indira Ghandi.

Actually in my country the conservative opposition is likely to nominate their chair woman as candidate for chancellor. So probably Germany is going to have a female chancellor in 2006. I´m going to vote for the conservatives anyway.
would that be a coalition type of government, or a majority?

I actually liked Presiden Clinton. He did a fine job, especially after he got over the problems in his first two years of presidency. So, especially the period between 1995-2001 was very good: not only economically but also from the foreign policy of the US (1995 Dayton peace accord for Bosnia, 1999 Kosovo war and his engagement for peace in the Middle East (which unfortunately failed)).
Yes I agree that Bill Clinton did a great job as President, with just one small blemish on his record. Perhaps if the Republicants had left him alone, he might have been able to pull off a Mid-East peace?

But I don´t like his wife. So, get somebody else like Edwards or Lieberman.
I personally don´t care whether Bush or Ketchup-Kerry gets elected.
However I believe that Bush is going to win against this boring new-England state politican.
I don't know too much about Hilary's politics but it would be interesting to see a female US President, but alas I don't think the guys would allow it....

As far as this election is concerned, I believe that Kerry will prevail. I believe Bush has been extremely harmful to the people of the US and world at large.

I think most of the staments you referr to are 19 th century. You mean e.g. General Moltke: "War is the continuation of politics by other means." Or statements like war is designed to force your will on the enemy.
In EU-Europe we have reached a point where war between that countries is impossible. But we have to realize that this is not true for the whole world, not even for the whole of Europe as the wars in the balcans showed.
There were attempts by the US and European power to stop this wars (e.g. Bosnia). However this diplomatic efforts were blocked mainly by Serbia. The result was a prolonged war which caused 400.000 deaths (ten percent ot the Bosnian population) and about a million refugees in Bosnia only.
This mistakes were not repeated in the Kosovo crisis. Clinton made a good job and showed great leadership. And there was a war. And of course - how else can you say that - it was a continuation of politics with other means. However I think that war should never become again a normal means of politics. It can only be a last resort. But it can´t be excluded completly as a last ressort. This discussion was a very difficult one in Germany. Because of our history Germany was very reluctant to say that they are situations where interventions are needed: and one situation is of course a genocide happening or attempted in one country of our continent. 1999 was the first time Germany participated in a war (though it was only an air campaign it was still a war). Approval rating for it was only 56-62% according to polls. But the political class mainly agreed to it due to experiences with Serbian policy in Bosnia.
Since the end of the Soviet Union, however, war is becoming less likely in Europe. It's helped partly because of the transpearancy of forces, and partly by arms limitations. However, I feel that the main reason is not because of arms limitation. It's silly to assume, as Wilson did, that the existence of armaments cause war. Rather, the cause of war is always a complete breakdown in communications. Europe will never have that. Should a situation arise that may ultimately lead to war on the continent, the EU should stop it, as it fosters cooperation between states. It's far more effective at this then the UN.
And even in my idea for foreign policy, war shouldn't be taken lightly. It should be used to remove oppressive and illiberal regimes, but not out of wanton agression. Still, to be totally honest, the US is the most warlike country in the West, even though we're less warlike than some other non Western nations. It's not exactly desirable, but in American society, it isn't regarded as a creation of the Devil, if you know what I mean.
Regarding the cultural judgements of war: The old Greec said: War is the father and the king of all things. They also fought a lot of wars against each other. The Romans took that over as well.
War is a factor of human history from the begining on. I mean: the fact that the usual way to great in Hebrew is Shalom and in Arabic Salam (Peace) underlines that. That shows that the culture was not so peaceful, so that it was necessary to underline with what intentions you are coming.
If you mean I have to underline my intentions, I think I did. Anyhow, the West has changed quite dramatically with its thought on war. We all still employ it to the world's best effect, but we don't use it anymore. I guess the best way to see our change is that war today is regarded as a science, something sometimes necessary, but also very technical. War of our ancestors was an art. In the most ancient societies, in fact, war was fought merely for the sake of fighting. If I were the president of the US, and I created a war for this reason, there'd likely be a revolt against me. Even detractors of the Iraq war give a reason for our actions, although not neccessarily one they like.

Well, and small Indian wars (like at the Little Bighorn River if I remember right). But you see the problem between expansionism in North America or in Europe. In Europe there are already many nations and Europe was - even at that time - relatively high populated. So: expansionism in any form lead to much more conflict. And even the expansionism of Prussia - which was in abolute size pretty small anyway was only possible due to arrangements with others (like Austria and Russia who divided Poland) or at least with the silent approval of another great power. This consideration didn´t play a role in North America. Wasn´t there a little war with Britain in 1812 about Canada??? Well, I think you lost that one. Anyway: you were expanding. The fact that many land was virtually empty doesn´t change that fact. That made it rather easier for you to expand.
I have trouble regarding the Indian Wars as real wars. I guess its because the opposition wasn't really organized. As for the War of 1812, that wasn't fought over Canada. Some in the US felt that Canada should be annexed, but the real reason was because of the British disrupting our trade. We were trading with France, controlled by Napoleon at the time. The British didn't like it, nor our cooperation with France, like the Louisiana Purchase. They raided our trading vessels, so Congress declared war. It was more of a stalemate, but after the war, Britain left us alone.

bump

I'm glad you like it. I'm sure your fellow anti-Americans agree 100%.

Is that all you can come up with Purly? I expected better..... :D

Is that all you can come up with Purly? I expected better..... :D
You have low standards for me, just like I have low standards for you.

I think most of the staments you referr to are 19 th century. You mean e.g. General Moltke: "War is the continuation of politics by other means."
*Points to his signature*

You have low standards for me, just like I have low standards for you.

Standards based on what exactly?

Your post dissapointed me. Your entire thread was, self admittedly, a 'philosophy' it had no hard evidence backed up in fact and only drew upon rhetoric to make a case. Clearly I was dissapointed as I expected it to address issues such as US Hegemony rather than portray the US' Foreign Policy as the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Standards based on what exactly?

Your post dissapointed me. Your entire thread was, self admittedly, a 'philosophy' it had no hard evidence backed up in fact and only drew upon rhetoric to make a case. Clearly I was dissapointed as I expected it to address issues such as US Hegemony rather than portray the US' Foreign Policy as the greatest thing since sliced bread.
Well, if you don't like what I say, why not just leave me alone? I know that I won't get a lot of backers, so I'm telling you that you can leave. You'll never convince me that I'm wrong.

It'd have always been a backwards world if all cultures continued to exist. For example, in India, the British outlawed the practice of Sati due to its murderous nature. Aztec culture was destroyed for the same reason. And of course, once education increases, simple cultures that exist among many people simply won't do anymore.

Hate to burst your bubble...but neither the British nor the Spanish conquistadores did what they did out of altruism. The Aztecs were massacred because the Spaniards wanted their gold...and they enslaved the Incas for the same reason... the British considered anyone who wasn't British to be a savage, and therefore culturally inferior...and incapable of managing their domestic affairs or wealth. Prettying things up after the fact for the history books doesn't change the fact that they were basically greedy bastards in it for themselves....like every other empire that has ever existed.

Well, if you don't like what I say, why not just leave me alone? I know that I won't get a lot of backers, so I'm telling you that you can leave. You'll never convince me that I'm wrong.

My intent is to totally disprove everything you say, so others can be convinced you are wrong.

Hate to burst your bubble...but neither the British nor the Spanish conquistadores did what they did out of altruism. The Aztecs were massacred because the Spaniards wanted their gold...and they enslaved the Incas for the same reason... the British considered anyone who wasn't British to be a savage, and therefore culturally inferior...and incapable of managing their domestic affairs or wealth. Prettying things up after the fact for the history books doesn't change the fact that they were basically greedy bastards in it for themselves....like every other empire that has ever existed.
Hey, who isn't? But you are being harsh on the Spanish in particular. Most Aztecs were killed due to disease, not neccessarily from Spanish treatment. The British were pricks in conquest, but look at the nations that were their former colonies. They're better off than former French, German, or Italian colonies.

My intent is to totally disprove everything you say, so others can be convinced you are wrong.
Good luck on that. In fact, I encourage you to find holes. I really do.

Good luck on that. In fact, I encourage you to find holes. I really do.

But thier are holes everywhere in your arguments, all they are comprised of is rhetoric and wishful thinking.

But thier are holes everywhere in your arguments, all they are comprised of is rhetoric and wishful thinking.
Why don't you name a specific for me, okie dokie? I want someplace to start.

For example you say "Global Politics is a relatively new phenomenon."

Which is absolute rubbish, the late 19th Century experienced the banding together of Imperialistic nations in efforts to consolidate thier respective empires, granted it was not very successful. But its relative to what we have today in The Western World banding together to defend thier economic interests no matter what the cost.

The best insight on US foreign diplomatic methods is to be found in the book, The Ugly American. I'd suggest that anyone who would like to find out why our diplomatic missions fail read it. Basically, we go about it the wrong way. We have made "Ambassador" a retirement position for career politicians, and we don't study up on the countries or their languages and cultures, and as a result, we offend the countries we are trying to woo, all oblivious to the fact that our methods are callous and offensive.

It's worth a read.

Since the end of the Soviet Union, however, war is becoming less likely in Europe. It's helped partly because of the transpearancy of forces, and partly by arms limitations. However, I feel that the main reason is not because of arms limitation. It's silly to assume, as Wilson did, that the existence of armaments cause war. Rather, the cause of war is always a complete breakdown in communications. Europe will never have that. Should a situation arise that may ultimately lead to war on the continent, the EU should stop it, as it fosters cooperation between states. It's far more effective at this then the UN..
That is true. The question however is why is the EU more effective than the UN. And the reason is that it is comprised of countries which have although of diverences a common cultural heritage which lays in ancient greece, the roman heritage and the christian tradition and later the enlightenment.
It is true that the risk of a big war has become less likely with the end of the Soviet Union BUT the risk of small wars has unfortunately increased. Just look to the Balcans. During the Cold War the national conflicts already existed and there were occansionally riots (especially in Kosovo). But the politicans in old Jugoslavia new that a civil war could cause a Soviet invasion. So they kept some kind of discipline even after Titos dead in 1981. From 1981-91 they even didn´t have a permanent head of state, they had a council of the republics with changing head. A very volutile construction. And with the end of communism in Eastern Europe (1989-91) and the Soviet Union (1990/91) it collapsed and Slovenia, Croatia (both 1991) and Bosnia (1992) declared independence. Thus marking the begining of the balcanic wars.
Such conflicts also exist in the Caucasus. Though it of course depens how do you definate Europe. Geographically it goes actually till the Ural and the Caucasus. However politically it is going to end at the Russian border. The open question is the future of Belarus (which may fusion with Russia one day) and the Ukraine). And of course Turkey.



And even in my idea for foreign policy, war shouldn't be taken lightly. It should be used to remove oppressive and illiberal regimes, but not out of wanton agression. Still, to be totally honest, the US is the most warlike country in the West, even though we're less warlike than some other non Western nations. It's not exactly desirable, but in American society, it isn't regarded as a creation of the Devil, if you know what I mean.
And that exactly is a difference to Europe. And that is due to the history of this continent were two world wars caused massive destruction and death.
And during the Cold War Europe would have been the likely battlefield.
So the acceptance to use war as a last resort is still limitted. Though it increased after the wars in the balcans in the 1990s. That showed that sometimes non-action is worse than talking military action as a last resort.



If you mean I have to underline my intentions, I think I did. Anyhow, the West has changed quite dramatically with its thought on war. We all still employ it to the world's best effect, but we don't use it anymore. I guess the best way to see our change is that war today is regarded as a science, something sometimes necessary, but also very technical. War of our ancestors was an art. In the most ancient societies, in fact, war was fought merely for the sake of fighting. If I were the president of the US, and I created a war for this reason, there'd likely be a revolt against me. Even detractors of the Iraq war give a reason for our actions, although not neccessarily one they like.
The ancient wars were not as destructive as todays wars. World war I and II showed the prices of wars between industrialized countries with modern weapons. That shows that wars between those countries are insane.
However that is the case for North America and Europe. In other parts of the world that is not the case and war is still a normal means of politics.
By the way: wars were never fought without a reason. Land, honour, woman, well - lots of reasons for going to war in the past. Today wars are also sometimes about land, about independence, about strategic interests, about implementing a new strategy on a region (via regime change) to pacify (like in the Kosovo war in the balcans 1999). However today only a few reasons are seen as justified. In contrast to the past.

I have trouble regarding the Indian Wars as real wars. I guess its because the opposition wasn't really organized. As for the War of 1812, that wasn't fought over Canada. Some in the US felt that Canada should be annexed, but the real reason was because of the British disrupting our trade. We were trading with France, controlled by Napoleon at the time. The British didn't like it, nor our cooperation with France, like the Louisiana Purchase. They raided our trading vessels, so Congress declared war. It was more of a stalemate, but after the war, Britain left us alone.
Must have been parallel to the continental blocade. After France won against Austria and Prussia and controlled the entire European continent, he began the continental blocade against Britain and forced Prussia and Austria to support it. Furthernmore he tried to built a tunnel under the channel, though that attempt wasn´t succesful.
Britain responded with a blockade of the continent which was obviously undermined by the US.
Though the Russians were obviously trying to undermine it - so he started his attack on Russia which brought him till Moscow, where the citizens set the city ablaze to prevent the invasion of the capital.
He couldn´t cope with the Russian winter 1812/13 however. So he withdrawl. Though his army was reduced by the winter and by "snipers". That encouraged Prussia and Austria to rebell against the french dominance. Together with Russia they won over Napoleon at the battle of Leipzig in 1813. That marked then the end of Napoleonic rule. Napoleon was exiled in 1814 in Elba (Italy) however he was able to flee in 1815 returning to France. But finally he was defeated at Waterloo (Belgium) and exiled to St. Helena (sout atlantic island - a british colony) where he couldn´t escape from.

Historically the Napoleonic wars ended with the final victory of the sea power (Britain) over the continental power (France).
The French dominance over continental Europe ended. Britain however wasn´t interested in involving itself to much into the continent. So the concept of balance of power was born, mainly by Britain together with Austria and Russia.

Well when the right entity comes along, there will be no more crime, or wars, or poverty, but that won't happen for awhile. As far as a Pax Americana is concerned, personally I can't see it. There is too much greed, hate, and lust (not the kind you are thinking), involved with the current power brokers in the US, unless of course a Canadian can squeeze in there and mellow them out LOL..
I have doubts about this Pax Americana either. I can´t see that the US has a consistant and realistic strategy for it.

Noooo to Maggie. More along the lines of a Golda Meir or Indira Ghandi... Well, those two ladies were iron ladies too. Indira Ghandi even did forced sterilisations. Not a policy which I would advocate, though. For me it depends on the party and their program. The candidate is secondary - though not completly irrelevant. But I don´t care whether it is a man or a woman. That is not a criteria and it shouldn´t be one.

would that be a coalition type of government, or a majority?...
Well, if the conservative CDU/CSU doesn´t win an absolute majority (and that happened only once (in 1957) and it also seems unlikely) it is going to be a coaltion government of CDU/CSU and the other opposition party: the FDP (liberal party). According to current polls CDU/CSU and FPD are standing together by more than 50%, while the current government parties, the social democrats (SPD) and the greens have together less than 40%. Though it is still a long way till the next election in September 2006. Two years: only half of the legislative term is over yet. But the government is really in deep shit. Can´t see how they could get out of it. It may even get worse for them if they are going to face a two-third majority in the second chamber (Bundesrat) against them next year. The second chamber needs to approve laws affecting the state and changes of the constituition (about half of the laws). It can veto other laws (like budget laws, social laws, e.g.). However this veto can be voted out by the first chamber (Bundestag) with the absolute majority of its members (which is held by the government). Though if the veto is casted by two thirds of the votes in the Bundesrat it can only be overvoted by two-thirds of the votes in the Bundestag. And of course the current government doesn´t have that, hehehe. It is not unusal that the opposition holds the majority in the second chamber. But it would be the first time in the 55 years history of the Federal Republic of Germany that it would held a two-third majority. And it looks very likely that the opposition is going to win the state elections in North-Rhein-Westpfalia and Schleswig-Holstein next year.


Yes I agree that Bill Clinton did a great job as President, with just one small blemish on his record. Perhaps if the Republicants had left him alone, he might have been able to pull off a Mid-East peace?
The problem rather laid by Mr. Arafat though and not in the US.


As far as this election is concerned, I believe that Kerry will prevail. I believe Bush has been extremely harmful to the people of the US and world at large.
I don´t think so. I think Bush is going to win.
Kerry doesn´t present an alternative to him. I also think that he lacks charisma.

For example you say "Global Politics is a relatively new phenomenon."

Which is absolute rubbish, the late 19th Century experienced the banding together of Imperialistic nations in efforts to consolidate thier respective empires, granted it was not very successful. But its relative to what we have today in The Western World banding together to defend thier economic interests no matter what the cost.
That's sort of new as far as human history goes. It actually stretches back to the 17th century, but before that, much of politics was regional. It's relatively knew in the tens of thousands of years of human history.

That is true. The question however is why is the EU more effective than the UN. And the reason is that it is comprised of countries which have although of diverences a common cultural heritage which lays in ancient greece, the roman heritage and the christian tradition and later the enlightenment.
It is true that the risk of a big war has become less likely with the end of the Soviet Union BUT the risk of small wars has unfortunately increased. Just look to the Balcans. During the Cold War the national conflicts already existed and there were occansionally riots (especially in Kosovo). But the politicans in old Jugoslavia new that a civil war could cause a Soviet invasion. So they kept some kind of discipline even after Titos dead in 1981. From 1981-91 they even didn´t have a permanent head of state, they had a council of the republics with changing head. A very volutile construction. And with the end of communism in Eastern Europe (1989-91) and the Soviet Union (1990/91) it collapsed and Slovenia, Croatia (both 1991) and Bosnia (1992) declared independence. Thus marking the begining of the balcanic wars.
Such conflicts also exist in the Caucasus. Though it of course depens how do you definate Europe. Geographically it goes actually till the Ural and the Caucasus. However politically it is going to end at the Russian border. The open question is the future of Belarus (which may fusion with Russia one day) and the Ukraine). And of course Turkey.



And that exactly is a difference to Europe. And that is due to the history of this continent were two world wars caused massive destruction and death.
And during the Cold War Europe would have been the likely battlefield.
So the acceptance to use war as a last resort is still limitted. Though it increased after the wars in the balcans in the 1990s. That showed that sometimes non-action is worse than talking military action as a last resort.



The ancient wars were not as destructive as todays wars. World war I and II showed the prices of wars between industrialized countries with modern weapons. That shows that wars between those countries are insane.
However that is the case for North America and Europe. In other parts of the world that is not the case and war is still a normal means of politics.
By the way: wars were never fought without a reason. Land, honour, woman, well - lots of reasons for going to war in the past. Today wars are also sometimes about land, about independence, about strategic interests, about implementing a new strategy on a region (via regime change) to pacify (like in the Kosovo war in the balcans 1999). However today only a few reasons are seen as justified. In contrast to the past.
I pretty much agree with all of your points, so why bother arguing you?

That's sort of new as far as human history goes. It actually stretches back to the 17th century, but before that, much of politics was regional. It's relatively knew in the tens of thousands of years of human history.

By calling it 'relatively new' you lead people to assume you mean Modern Times. If you meant, relatively new within the last 4 centuries - Why didn't you put that?

By calling it 'relatively new' you lead people to assume you mean Modern Times. If you meant, relatively new within the last 4 centuries - Why didn't you put that?
Well, from a historical standpoint, modern times is the last four centuries. After all, it was the time that the traditional world started to radically change.
Anyhow, I feel now that I'd be better off addressing a previous point you made: about anti-globalizationalist forces in Asia. First, about the individual protestors there. They do not oppose globalization. They just see it as bad because it is done by the West. According to the Asians, the West has been extremely successful economically, but has sacrificed its morality in the process. Asia, of course, wants economic success with a maintainance of morals.
This is championed by Singapore, especially under Lee Yuan Kwan. They are one of the healthiest economies in the region, and are very much for free trade. Why else are they the largest port in Asia, and the second largest in the world? In fact, they recently signed a free trade agreement with the US. However, they have rules. Bubble gum chewing is illegal, and foreigners caught committing petty crimes, like vandalism and pick pocketting, are flogged.
Now that he's out of power, Lee Yuan Kwan has acheived cult status in the region. That's the model for anti-globalization protestors in Asia, particularly in Japan or China, as explained in Dinesh D'Souza's book What's So Great About America?. They don't necessarily protest globalization.
That isn't to say that these protestors don't exist, as they do, especially in Europe. However, they aren't organized enough, physically or ideaologically. They oppose the low wages in sweatshops, for example, but fail to see what'd happen if wages went higher. They've even scribbled on picket signs sayings like "Civilization is Genocide". What does that mean? I don't know, but if the anti-globalization movement wants to survive, they need to do some soul-searching.

Well, from a historical standpoint, modern times is the last four centuries. After all, it was the time that the traditional world started to radically change.

Erm no, Modern Times means the era from the start of the Industrial Revolution, where machinery started to change working practices and our daily lives, not to mention radically overhaul the economies of nations in the Western World.

And it seems to me like you dislike the fact anti-globalization protestors are making a valid point (The increasing power of MNC's). Perhaps you would like to ban protests? Or perhaps ban the burning of the flag? Wouldn't surprise me in the least with the unsubstantiated rubbish you plough out.

Erm no, Modern Times means the era from the start of the Industrial Revolution, where machinery started to change working practices and our daily lives, not to mention radically overhaul the economies of nations in the Western World.

And it seems to me like you dislike the fact anti-globalization protestors are making a valid point (The increasing power of MNC's). Perhaps you would like to ban protests? Or perhaps ban the burning of the flag? Wouldn't surprise me in the least with the unsubstantiated rubbish you plough out.
I was just simply saying that the protestors are very unorganized. While they oppose the expansion of the free markets, they have no viable alternatives. I'm guessing you're ideaologically close to these protestors, am I right?
BTW, I have no problem with protesting. Protest about whatever you want, just do it in a peaceful manner.

I was just simply saying that the protestors are very unorganized. While they oppose the expansion of the free markets, they have no viable alternatives. I'm guessing you're ideaologically close to these protestors, am I right?
BTW, I have no problem with protesting. Protest about whatever you want, just do it in a peaceful manner.

There are viable alternatives, regulation by the UN on MNC's in Foreign Countries for example. And yes I am ideologically close to these protestors.

There are viable alternatives, regulation by the UN on MNC's in Foreign Countries for example. And yes I am ideologically close to these protestors.
I'll just probe a bit more into the issue, for clarification purposes. The three pillars of Wilsonianism, which many see globalization as embedding, are the liberal institutions of a republic, peace, and the free market. Are you opposed to Wilsonianism?

I wouldn't say that Wilsonianism emboddies Liberal Institutions - plus it doesn't exist anymore - only neo-Wilsonianism does, and it is evident that neo-conservatism and neo-Wilsonianism equate with each other. Neo-Wilsonianism is an isolationist viewpoint and opposes the Liberal Idea of Peace, as isolationism leads to less peace in the World, and can lead to economic downfall, as displayed with isolationist Hoover Government that believed in High Tarriffs e.t.c. Plus it believes in the 'US laying the Foundation for a stable World order', which basically means exportation of 'democracy'.

I wouldn't say that Wilsonianism emboddies Liberal Institutions - plus it doesn't exist anymore - only neo-Wilsonianism does, and it is evident that neo-conservatism and neo-Wilsonianism equate with each other. Neo-Wilsonianism is an isolationist viewpoint and opposes the Liberal Idea of Peace, as isolationism leads to less peace in the World, and can lead to economic downfall, as displayed with isolationist Hoover Government that believed in High Tarriffs e.t.c. Plus it believes in the 'US laying the Foundation for a stable World order', which basically means exportation of 'democracy'.
That's our fundemental disagreement, then. There are some elements of neo-Wilsonianism, however, that I find hard to accept. For example, it says that every nation is entitled to a state. I don't necessarily believe this, or else there'd be hundreds of sovereign states in existence. Some are in a position, economically or politically, to govern themselves effectively.
Wisonianism and modern variants are not isolationist. In fact, Woodrow Wilson himself pioneered the League of Nations. Wilsonianism is the foundation of the modern security order. He believed that arms themselves were the cause of war. I find it silly, but their is a grain of truth that turned into Europe's common security order: transparency exists between all European countries, and as nuclear arms are limited on the continent, including between the two superpowers, proliferation was far less than it could've been Wilsonianism and variants aren't isolationist, but rather cooperative. I believe it can work in the modern world, but with some modifications. I guess I can sum up my philosophy in this word: modified neo-Wilsonianism.

NWV, you're on right now. Any comments?

Meh, I'm going to play Doom 3 in a bit. But I don't really believe that Wilson was pioneer of Internationalism, The whole Republican era of Hoover and Wilson was very isolationist - well in economic terms anyway. But economics and politics are inextricably linked.

Meh, I'm going to play Doom 3 in a bit. But I don't really believe that Wilson was pioneer of Internationalism, The whole Republican era of Hoover and Wilson was very isolationist - well in economic terms anyway. But economics and politics are inextricably linked.
They weren't Wilsonists. Remember, Wilson was ahead of his time. The Treaty of Versailles, with many of his ideas in there, was rejected by Congress, and never ratified. The three presidents afterwards were isolationists to the core.
BTW, Wilson was a Democrat. His domestic policy was actually pretty liberal by today's standards. But his foreign policy was a work of art.
I also want to explain more about this man. Wilson wasn't an isolationist. Congress was. That's why Wilson stayed out of war, as Congress didn't declare it. When he did, he used it as a platform to test his ideas formulated back at Princeton. They didn't work then, but they're working now. I, however, am of the opinion that more can be done. If combined with imperialism, it'll force the developed world to support the developing world, enrichening and protecting the US in the process. That's why I say it's a win-win.

Meh, I'm going to play Doom 3 in a bit. But I don't really believe that Wilson was pioneer of Internationalism, The whole Republican era of Hoover and Wilson was very isolationist - well in economic terms anyway. But economics and politics are inextricably linked.
Shut up, eurotrash.

bump

bumpity bump

Since the end of the Soviet Union, however, war is becoming less likely in Europe. Wrong.

Sure, the threat of full-scale nuclear war between the former East and West has diminished since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR.

However, since the end of the Cold War, conflicts have erupted in Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Russia, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.

As many Europeans and anti-globalizationalists can attest to, we are the first, and possibly the only culture, that seeks to actively include rather than exclude. By imposing hegemony over others?

As evidenced by China, Japan, Europe, and Russia, the American culture is accepted with open arms. In Japan maybe but I can assure you most Europeans and Chinese are not big fans of the US. Most Russians despise the US. The collapse of the Soviet Union has brought nothing but hardship to most Russians. They resent the US for its Cold War 'victory' and blame the West in general for Russia's recent economic woes.

I don't know quite how you use that... if you mean spreading consumerism and corporate power, then obviously I'm opposed. If you mean by spreading American values like liberty, democracy and apple pie, and allowing the free flow of things like medicine, education and literature to all the corners of the world, then I'm in favour. I don't even necessarly mean that you have to push these values upon other people and cultures, its enough that they know what they are and have opportunities to choose.

Spreading American values like liberty and Democracy. Ah yes, ever the favourite slogan of the American "we are the most open nation in the world, we are the only country that has a true democracy". I suggest, if you want real democracy, that you go to France. Only in a truly Democratic country can the far, far-right (led by Le Pen) form the second largest party in the vote. There were so many leftist partys standing, in so many places, and with so many candidates, that the vote was entirely split. This meant that the traditional adversaries of Chiracs Gaullist party were pushed into third, as the Right was consolidated. This means that, in the reaches of power in France, only the Right currently has a say- this is hilarious.

You say you want to allow "the free flow of medicine". Remind me how the health system works in America. Oh yes- I remember- if you are poor, you die. Although I am quite strongly right-wing (i like liberties, but a strong economy must come first), I can see that this is fundamentally wrong. I will be branded as a socialist, or a Communist, but this is wrong- I belong to the Right, not the left. Please could you explain how you think that America could allow the free flow of medicine internationally, when many people cant access it in the USA already! Also, the policies of American corporations cause the loss of thousands of lives per annum- how can anyone stand for this? Surely if you had any moral fibre, then you could not (join the boycott of Nestle today!- go to www.oxfam.co.uk and there should be a link to a petition they are running)

Even though these views may seem leftist, I remind you that I am a Con (although never a Neo!)

Wrong.

Sure, the threat of full-scale nuclear war between the former East and West has diminished since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the USSR.

However, since the end of the Cold War, conflicts have erupted in Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Macedonia, Russia, Moldova, Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.
True, but that is different from full scale war. Besides, most (but not all) of these conflicts are internal. All are in South Eastern Europe, the least developed part of the continent. Is war very likely in Central or Western Europe?

In Japan maybe but I can assure you most Europeans and Chinese are not big fans of the US. Most Russians despise the US. The collapse of the Soviet Union has brought nothing but hardship to most Russians. They resent the US for its Cold War 'victory' and blame the West in general for Russia's recent economic woes.
Perhaps the Chinese don't like the US itself. However, they've embraced several aspects of US culture, like our car culture. As for Russia, I have a feeling that their sentiment toward the US will change very rapidly, especially if the price of oil remains fairly high.
And like I said, I think world opinion will turn toward our favor ten years from now. By then, Afghanistan should stabilize, and Iraq should be growing at the same rate India is today. If it helps at all, by that time, Bush will certainly be out of office.

Oh what the hell!

Bump.

:fluffle:

Oh what the hell!

Bump.

:fluffle:
Dig deep, boys!

http://www.chapelofthecrossms.org/IMAGES/gravediggerdeep.jpg

However, they've embraced several aspects of US culture, like our car culture.
If that is true, it doesn't reflect very well on the Americans...

The Chinese are looking for cars as status symbols, if possible big SUVs with tinted windows and chauffeurs. Ferrari (http://www.classicdriver.com/uk/magazine/3700.asp?id=12705) is trying to change that and remind Chinese people that there is some joy to be found in driving, but so far there is little success.

By the way, is there a domestic racing series in China?