Subject:
|
Re: Here's one of the many things I don't understand...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 31 Jan 2003 21:28:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
338 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Bruce Schlickbernd writes:
(Frank Filz writes)
> > > <snip> In my opinion, we have a small responsibility to protect Europe,
> > > however, those countries being in pretty good economic condition, the help
> > > should mostly be in the form of mutual aid pacts, not outright
> > > defense.</snip>
> >
> > The above is Frank's comment. I have to disagree. I don't feel we have any
> > responsiblity to protect Europe. They are perfectly capable of protecting
> > themselves.
>
> At this point in time, I disagree. But in the mid-term that can happen and
> probably will. Mind you, that does NOT imply in any way that Europe
> automatically becomes an antagonist to the US!
You don't feel Europe is capable of defending itself? In what sense?
Conventional war in Europe itself? Or just their oversees interests?
>
> > However, judging by past indiscretions, they aren't to be
> > trusted to look after themselves,
>
> ???
> Do you mean anything other than the collapse of Yugoslavia? Which was, by
> itself, an artificial creation of WW1 not dealt with after WW2?
I mean the whole of the 20th century. The United States was dragged into
two massive and terrible land wars in Europe in the preceeding century. The
best way to avoid things getting out of hand again is to take an active part
in the process.
I specifically ruled out the Yugoslavian collapse - something as you note
was a problem left over from WWI that is only now resolving itself. The
rest of the east block collapse came about much cleaner.
>
> > and for our own sakes, its best we keep an
> > eye on things (though Europeans have been doing better of late, with the
> > exception of the Balkans which seems to be trying to live up to its billing
> > as the powderkeg of Europe).
>
> Yup, those countries will take a lot of effort to "get along". Anyway, who
> said European Unity was a piece of cake? :-/
Alas, it never is, Europe or anywhere else.
> > I would like to see some sort of final settlement made that had real teeth
> > against any further disrupting party and Israel would have to give up major
> > tracks of land, but let's be honest: the best way to diffuse the situation
> > is for the various countries of Europe that persecuted the jews so that they
> > were inspired to migrate, pay to take them back and re-establish them in
> > Europe. Not gonna happen? So, as usual, the US is stuck with a mess
> > created by Europe. Not that I care for what we have done with it, mind you.
>
> Well, I suppose I agree with you in the way to solve the ME problem, as it
> is today.
> But I'm not sure if I find the same causes for it: IIRC, the British and the
> French tried to stop Jewish migration from Europe to (what was then)
> Palestine, and later the British tried hard to prevent a Jewish State in
> Palestine. Had the intentions of the British been accomplished in '47, and
> the present day problem would have totally different contours. In the end,
> it was the failure to implement a *secular* federal state in Palestine that
> meant 50+ years of conflict; and that failure was NOT due to European lack
> of will.
I understand all of the above that you note, but I don't think that it
changes what I said. The forces that created the migration came about in
Europe, even if specific agents within Europe tried to stop it or mitigate it.
> > > Attempt 3: So I can't prove that you have evil toys. Let's turn this around:
> > > you have to prove that you don't have them. You can't, so I can finally have
> > > my war!
> >
> > Maybe Bush actually did study: the Austro-Hungarian solution to Serbia
> > agreeing to all it's terms. Just declare war and drag all your allies in
> > with you, kicking and screaming.
>
> That's really not that funny in countries with conscript armies, like my
> own. It becomes even LESS fun once you know our PM decided to sign a letter
> of blind support of US policy WITHOUT the authority for it, nor public support.
> It's disturbing for me to think after 29 years of democracy the time to vote
> with the feet may be down the road again :-(
I was making fun of the parallels, not the consequences.
I still have my draft card. 1-H. #157 in the conscription lottery. I
still don't know if its good or bad that the draft ended in the US (good
that they can't drag people off to a war that didn't volunteer for, bad that
the government is more prone to adventurism since they can claim, "Hey, you
volunteered!" There would be a much bigger outcry about Bush's
war-mongering if there was a draft).
>
> I only find it pathetic that this war is meant to overthrow a dictator who
> has been in power for the past decades, and is likely to die of natural
> causes in the next ten years. Patience is the key, IMO: in the
> (more-than-likely to happen) chaos that will follow Saddam's death, it will
> be a lot easier to establish democracy *without* a large scale war involving
> foreigners. Just support the "best" faction in the struggle for power.
> Ta-daa! :-)
That's the big thing: why is it suddenly so urgent to get Saddam? He's not
a particular threat to the US, and nobody else wants to deal with him, so
let his neighbors deal with it.
>
> The whole thing just stinks of vendetta this side of the Atlantic...
On both sides of the Atlantic.
-->Bruce<--
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
69 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
