Divided Nato must rethink its purpose

The Georgian crisis has shown up the anachronism of the defence
organisation, says Robert Fox

FIRST POSTED AUGUST 19, 2008


http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/45156,opinion,what-future-is-there-for-nato

A lot of what is being said now by Moscow and Washington in the aftermath of
the Georgia crisis is diplomatic posturing and militaristic bluster. As
Russian columns were heading through South Ossetia to Gori, Vice-President
Dick Cheney said that "the Russians will be made to pay". To which Robert
Hunter, one of the most accomplished former US ambassadors to Nato,
countered that there was no point in the American leadership dishing out
vague threats that they had little chance of carrying out. 

Similarly, the deliberately leaked story from Moscow over the weekend that
the Russian Baltic Fleet is to be radically modernised with new nuclear
weaponry - in reaction to Poland's decision to deploy key parts of the US
anti-missile shield - appears a flight of military wishful thinking. The
Russian navy is still a shadow of the old Soviet navy in its pomp, and the
Russian defence budget is on paper smaller than Britain's. Moscow can't
afford a fully nuclear Baltic Fleet, and, besides, what could it achieve –
apart from starting a nuclear World War III? 

There is something equally unrealistic about Nato's stance today. Nato was
set up 60 years ago to protect and defend the security area 'from the Urals
to the Atlantic'; in other words, from Turkey in the southeast to Canada in
the northwest. By the time the Berlin Wall came down in November 1989, the
alliance had accomplished its mission of keeping its member nations safe
from a nuclear-armed Soviet Union and its allies in the Warsaw Pact. 

At the end of the Cold War, the key to the arrangement between 16 nations
lay in Article 5 of the founding Atlantic Treaty, which said that an attack
on any one member would be considered an attack on all, and all member
nations were obliged to respond. This was only invoked once - by George
Bush after 9/11 to launch his global 'War on Terror', on the grounds that
the al-Qaeda suicide plane attacks were the hostile acts of a foreign power
on US sovereign territory. 

But Nato's original purpose was primarily as a defensive alliance. Did it
really have a future with its old role and its old Soviet foe gone? 

This is the question the alliance's leaders still have to answer
satisfactorily, and the conduct of Nato over Georgia, and in its first big
expeditionary 'out of area' mission in Afghanistan, suggest it is in urgent
need of a rethink, and possible replacement. 

Since the end of the Cold War, Nato has accrued new members in eastern
Europe, including the three former Soviet Baltic states, Estonia, Lithuania
and Latvia. In doing so it has sent two unfortunate messages - which may
turn out to be disastrous. 

In the case of the Baltics, it appeared to be offering a promissory note
that Nato allies would actually fight for these states, which it had no
intention of redeeming. Imagine if Georgia had been a Nato member this
summer, as France and America want. Would we be diverting troops now from
Basra and Helmand to defend Gori and Poti? 

The second unfortunate message was that Nato's expansion was a bid by
America and its allies to contain and confine Russia. Yet the world is no
longer involved in a confrontation along the old lines, over the conquest
of Europe and the free world by Soviet Communism, nor is Russia threatening
to send its armoured columns across the Rhine. Georgia is a 21st century
crisis of minority interests, new security spheres and access to the global
economy. 

Yet the barrage of rhetoric from the US and the nationalists in Nato seems
to treat Putin's Russia like Stalin's or Brezhnev's Russia, which patently
it is not. And this is proving to be the biggest single failure of Nato
politicians and diplomats since 1989. 

The sense of confusion and muddle at the core of Nato is compounded by the
lack of direction and common purpose in its running of the International
Security and Assistance Force, the 37-nation operation to destroy the
Taliban in Afghanistan. This is in line with new roles adopted by Nato at
its 50th anniversary Washington summit in 1999. Known as 'the new strategic
concept', Nato would now wander near and far across the world in
peace-keeping, stabilisation and reconstruction missions, of which
Afghanistan has been the biggest so far. 

There the Nato allies cannot often agree on common goals and policies, and
fewer than one-third of the member nations' forces are prepared to do any
serious fighting at all. Of the forces now fighting, the Dutch are likely
to be withdrawn next year, and the Canadians halved. 

The crisis in Georgia, and the battle of words over the missile shield, is
developing into a dangerous game of chicken between Russia and the Nato
countries. Russia is showing that it believes in maintaining its
own 'neighbourhood security space'. Its acts and motives are questionable
in many respects, but Moscow is surely right to query that the missile
shield is only 'to deter rogue states, like Iran'. 

Russia is showing that it believes in maintaining its ‘neighbourhood
security space’

Nato has to get real about what it is about, and what it can and cannot do.
It should not engage in long-term, long-distance missions such as
Afghanistan – and it must understand that Russia is not the old Soviet
Union. All alliances have their day, and it is perhaps time that Nato is
replaced with something more effective and attuned to the needs of the
present day, and not the Cold War.  

-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

"Robin T Cox"  wrote ...

> http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/45156,opinion,what-future-is-there-for-nato

> Imagine if Georgia had been a Nato member this
> summer, as France and America want.

Surely some  mistake - France, Germany and others opposed Georgia's
membership of NATO.

Apart from that, good article.


> Nato has to get real about what it is about, and what it can and cannot
do.
> It should not engage in long-term, long-distance missions such as
> Afghanistan - and it must understand that Russia is not the old Soviet
> Union. All alliances have their day, and it is perhaps time that Nato is
> replaced with something more effective and attuned to the needs of the
> present day, and not the Cold War.

NATO has become a proxy fighting force for US interests which the US wants
to keep expanding. Far from being a defensive co-operative it has become a
tool of the US to support American provocation and expansionism. NATO has
become the real 51st State. Europe would be better off out of NATO before
out of date agreements drag them into a war of America's making.

France got it right in the past, staying in NATO but withdrawing military
forces from NATO command because of dominance by the US. France was planning
on bring their troops back under NATO command next year but the Georgian
crisis and aggressive US rhetoric may change that. Perhaps that's the best
course; NATO as a non-military umbrella organisation with military
co-operation on a case-by-case basis ?

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> "Robin T Cox"  wrote ...
> 
>> http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/45156,opinion,what-future-is-there-for-nato
> 
>> Imagine if Georgia had been a Nato member this
>> summer, as France and America want.
> 
> Surely some  mistake - France, Germany and others opposed Georgia's
> membership of NATO.
> 
> Apart from that, good article.
> 
> 
>> Nato has to get real about what it is about, and what it can and cannot
> do.
>> It should not engage in long-term, long-distance missions such as
>> Afghanistan - and it must understand that Russia is not the old Soviet
>> Union. All alliances have their day, and it is perhaps time that Nato is
>> replaced with something more effective and attuned to the needs of the
>> present day, and not the Cold War.
> 
> NATO has become a proxy fighting force for US interests which the US wants
> to keep expanding. Far from being a defensive co-operative it has become a
> tool of the US to support American provocation and expansionism. NATO has
> become the real 51st State. Europe would be better off out of NATO before
> out of date agreements drag them into a war of America's making.
> 
> France got it right in the past, staying in NATO but withdrawing military
> forces from NATO command because of dominance by the US. France was planning
> on bring their troops back under NATO command next year but the Georgian
> crisis and aggressive US rhetoric may change that. Perhaps that's the best
> course; NATO as a non-military umbrella organisation with military
> co-operation on a case-by-case basis ?

We are not far apart here.
I would love to see USA withdraw from NATO so it can wither on the vine 
and become a footnote of history, from lack of any meaningful participants.

On Aug 19, 1:25 pm, "The Happy Hippy"
 wrote:
> "Jesse"  wrote...
> > We are not far apart here.
> > I would love to see USA withdraw from NATO so it can wither on the vine
> > and become a footnote of history, from lack of any meaningful
>
> participants.
>
> Suits me. Then we can leave US forces to rot in Afghanistan and sort their
> problems out for themselves without having Gates and others tearfully
> bleating to Europe about how hard it is to do the job without European help
> and continually telling us that Europe must come and bail the US out when
> it's having its balls squeezed hard by some two-bit amateur insurgency.
>
> Unfortunately it's not going to happen because the US needs NATO more than
> Europe needs NATO or the US, which is why America is desperately trying to
> expand membership with Georgia and Ukraine. The US is too spineless to walk
> away from NATO, and generally so too is Europe but that seems to be
> changing, albeit slowly. America's bullshit and agressive posturing over
> Georgia might actually be a helping had there although I realise that the UK
> government has it's tongue so wrapped round Bush's colon that we'll be the
> last to desert the sinking ship.

The US needs NATO to do things the UN won't - especially with Russia
or China there to VETO US proposals!

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> "Jesse"  wrote...
> 
>> We are not far apart here.
>> I would love to see USA withdraw from NATO so it can wither on the vine
>> and become a footnote of history, from lack of any meaningful
> participants.
> 
> Suits me. Then we can leave US forces to rot in Afghanistan and sort their
> problems out for themselves without having Gates and others tearfully
> bleating to Europe about how hard it is to do the job without European help
> and continually telling us that Europe must come and bail the US out when
> it's having its balls squeezed hard by some two-bit amateur insurgency.

Fine, I think we can get by without Europeons to guard rear area 
warehouses and cut private non aggression pacts with terrorist leaders.

> Unfortunately it's not going to happen because the US needs NATO more than
> Europe needs NATO or the US,

Debatable, at best.
Europe has had its national security subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer 
lock, stock and barrel since 1945 ... And Europe is showing no signs at 
all of a desire to be weaned off the protecting hand.
Much the same for Korea & Japan, I'd be very much in favor of letting 
them fend for themselves also.

> which is why America is desperately trying to
> expand membership with Georgia and Ukraine. The US is too spineless to walk
> away from NATO, and generally so too is Europe but that seems to be
> changing, albeit slowly. America's bullshit and agressive posturing over
> Georgia might actually be a helping had there although I realise that the UK
> government has it's tongue so wrapped round Bush's colon that we'll be the
> last to desert the sinking ship.

I'm with ya, alliance with Europe is like trying to jog with a bowling 
ball chained to the ankle.
All talk, no action is a very good summation of European policy and, 
militarily, you'd be like a 12 year old kicked out of the house and left 
to fend for yourself without the USA - Which, in the long run, might 
just do you some good.

Jesse wrote:
> The Happy Hippy wrote:
>> "Jesse"  wrote...
>>
>>> We are not far apart here.
>>> I would love to see USA withdraw from NATO so it can wither on the vine
>>> and become a footnote of history, from lack of any meaningful
>> participants.
>>
>> Suits me. Then we can leave US forces to rot in Afghanistan and sort 
>> their
>> problems out for themselves without having Gates and others tearfully
>> bleating to Europe about how hard it is to do the job without European 
>> help
>> and continually telling us that Europe must come and bail the US out when
>> it's having its balls squeezed hard by some two-bit amateur insurgency.
> 
> Fine, I think we can get by without Europeons to guard rear area 
> warehouses and cut private non aggression pacts with terrorist leaders.
> 
>> Unfortunately it's not going to happen because the US needs NATO more 
>> than
>> Europe needs NATO or the US,
> 
> Debatable, at best.
> Europe has had its national security subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer 
> lock, stock and barrel since 1945 ... And Europe is showing no signs at 
> all of a desire to be weaned off the protecting hand.

Protection from what? It is the US which seems to be sacred of the 
bogeyman living under the bed (upstairs from the elephant in the living 
room, perhaps?).

> Much the same for Korea & Japan, I'd be very much in favor of letting 
> them fend for themselves also.
> 
>> which is why America is desperately trying to
>> expand membership with Georgia and Ukraine. The US is too spineless to 
>> walk
>> away from NATO, and generally so too is Europe but that seems to be
>> changing, albeit slowly. America's bullshit and agressive posturing over
>> Georgia might actually be a helping had there although I realise that 
>> the UK
>> government has it's tongue so wrapped round Bush's colon that we'll be 
>> the
>> last to desert the sinking ship.
> 
> I'm with ya, alliance with Europe is like trying to jog with a bowling 
> ball chained to the ankle.
> All talk, no action is a very good summation of European policy and, 

Yes, that has been the whole point of Europe since the bloodbaths got 
too deep - talking. The "action" approach was tried in the past but all 
got out of hand. The USA is still learning this.

> militarily, you'd be like a 12 year old kicked out of the house and left 
> to fend for yourself without the USA - Which, in the long run, might 
> just do you some good.

Not getting into pointless wars would be one obvious benefit.

-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

On Aug 19, 3:14 pm, Jesse  wrote:
> The Happy Hippy wrote:
> > "Jesse"  wrote...
>
> >> We are not far apart here.
> >> I would love to see USA withdraw from NATO so it can wither on the vine
> >> and become a footnote of history, from lack of any meaningful
> > participants.
>
> > Suits me. Then we can leave US forces to rot in Afghanistan and sort their
> > problems out for themselves without having Gates and others tearfully
> > bleating to Europe about how hard it is to do the job without European help
> > and continually telling us that Europe must come and bail the US out when
> > it's having its balls squeezed hard by some two-bit amateur insurgency.
>
> Fine, I think we can get by without Europeons to guard rear area
> warehouses and cut private non aggression pacts with terrorist leaders.
>
> > Unfortunately it's not going to happen because the US needs NATO more than
> > Europe needs NATO or the US,
>
> Debatable, at best.
> Europe has had its national security subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer
> lock, stock and barrel since 1945 ... And Europe is showing no signs at
> all of a desire to be weaned off the protecting hand.
> Much the same for Korea & Japan, I'd be very much in favor of letting
> them fend for themselves also.
>
> > which is why America is desperately trying to
> > expand membership with Georgia and Ukraine. The US is too spineless to walk
> > away from NATO, and generally so too is Europe but that seems to be
> > changing, albeit slowly. America's bullshit and agressive posturing over
> > Georgia might actually be a helping had there although I realise that the UK
> > government has it's tongue so wrapped round Bush's colon that we'll be the
> > last to desert the sinking ship.
>
> I'm with ya, alliance with Europe is like trying to jog with a bowling
> ball chained to the ankle.
> All talk, no action is a very good summation of European policy and,
> militarily, you'd be like a 12 year old kicked out of the house and left
> to fend for yourself without the USA - Which, in the long run, might
> just do you some good.

Having such as NATO members fall in line for an American operation
gives the operation a certain degree on International legitimacy!

Arthur Figgis wrote:
> Jesse wrote:
>> The Happy Hippy wrote:
>>> "Jesse"  wrote...
>>>
>>>> We are not far apart here.
>>>> I would love to see USA withdraw from NATO so it can wither on the vine
>>>> and become a footnote of history, from lack of any meaningful
>>> participants.
>>>
>>> Suits me. Then we can leave US forces to rot in Afghanistan and sort 
>>> their
>>> problems out for themselves without having Gates and others tearfully
>>> bleating to Europe about how hard it is to do the job without 
>>> European help
>>> and continually telling us that Europe must come and bail the US out 
>>> when
>>> it's having its balls squeezed hard by some two-bit amateur insurgency.
>>
>> Fine, I think we can get by without Europeons to guard rear area 
>> warehouses and cut private non aggression pacts with terrorist leaders.
>>
>>> Unfortunately it's not going to happen because the US needs NATO more 
>>> than
>>> Europe needs NATO or the US,
>>
>> Debatable, at best.
>> Europe has had its national security subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer 
>> lock, stock and barrel since 1945 ... And Europe is showing no signs 
>> at all of a desire to be weaned off the protecting hand.
> 
> Protection from what? It is the US which seems to be sacred of the 
> bogeyman living under the bed (upstairs from the elephant in the living 
> room, perhaps?).

Might want to ask your distant neighbors in "old Europe" about that.
You have become comfortably numb with distance and having your national 
security subsidized by the USA.

> 
>> Much the same for Korea & Japan, I'd be very much in favor of letting 
>> them fend for themselves also.
>>
>>> which is why America is desperately trying to
>>> expand membership with Georgia and Ukraine. The US is too spineless 
>>> to walk
>>> away from NATO, and generally so too is Europe but that seems to be
>>> changing, albeit slowly. America's bullshit and agressive posturing over
>>> Georgia might actually be a helping had there although I realise that 
>>> the UK
>>> government has it's tongue so wrapped round Bush's colon that we'll 
>>> be the
>>> last to desert the sinking ship.
>>
>> I'm with ya, alliance with Europe is like trying to jog with a bowling 
>> ball chained to the ankle.
>> All talk, no action is a very good summation of European policy and, 
> 
> Yes, that has been the whole point of Europe since the bloodbaths got 
> too deep - talking. The "action" approach was tried in the past but all 
> got out of hand. The USA is still learning this.

Oh yes, the USA has never seen "action" until very recently, sure.
> 
>> militarily, you'd be like a 12 year old kicked out of the house and 
>> left to fend for yourself without the USA - Which, in the long run, 
>> might just do you some good.
> 
> Not getting into pointless wars would be one obvious benefit.

All well and good, if most everyone agreed on what is pointless and what 
is not.

chatnoir wrote:
> On Aug 19, 3:14 pm, Jesse  wrote:
>> The Happy Hippy wrote:
>>> "Jesse"  wrote...
>>>> We are not far apart here.
>>>> I would love to see USA withdraw from NATO so it can wither on the vine
>>>> and become a footnote of history, from lack of any meaningful
>>> participants.
>>> Suits me. Then we can leave US forces to rot in Afghanistan and sort their
>>> problems out for themselves without having Gates and others tearfully
>>> bleating to Europe about how hard it is to do the job without European help
>>> and continually telling us that Europe must come and bail the US out when
>>> it's having its balls squeezed hard by some two-bit amateur insurgency.
>> Fine, I think we can get by without Europeons to guard rear area
>> warehouses and cut private non aggression pacts with terrorist leaders.
>>
>>> Unfortunately it's not going to happen because the US needs NATO more than
>>> Europe needs NATO or the US,
>> Debatable, at best.
>> Europe has had its national security subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer
>> lock, stock and barrel since 1945 ... And Europe is showing no signs at
>> all of a desire to be weaned off the protecting hand.
>> Much the same for Korea & Japan, I'd be very much in favor of letting
>> them fend for themselves also.
>>
>>> which is why America is desperately trying to
>>> expand membership with Georgia and Ukraine. The US is too spineless to walk
>>> away from NATO, and generally so too is Europe but that seems to be
>>> changing, albeit slowly. America's bullshit and agressive posturing over
>>> Georgia might actually be a helping had there although I realise that the UK
>>> government has it's tongue so wrapped round Bush's colon that we'll be the
>>> last to desert the sinking ship.
>> I'm with ya, alliance with Europe is like trying to jog with a bowling
>> ball chained to the ankle.
>> All talk, no action is a very good summation of European policy and,
>> militarily, you'd be like a 12 year old kicked out of the house and left
>> to fend for yourself without the USA - Which, in the long run, might
>> just do you some good.
> 
> Having such as NATO members fall in line for an American operation
> gives the operation a certain degree on International legitimacy!

Yes, that is true.
If everyone started looking after their own affairs more exclusively, 
this would greatly minimize such yearning for international legitimacy.
Of course, that would mean the end of multiculturalism and globalism ... 
And most other "isms" which, by and large, are responsible for the sad 
state of affairs we find ourselves in.

"Jesse"  wrote in message
news:U6Jqk.344444$bC5.151041@fe07.news.easynews.com...

[snips]

> Arthur Figgis wrote:
> >> I'm with ya, alliance with Europe is like trying to jog with a bowling
> >> ball chained to the ankle.
> >> All talk, no action is a very good summation of European policy and,
> >
> > Yes, that has been the whole point of Europe since the bloodbaths got
> > too deep - talking. The "action" approach was tried in the past but all
> > got out of hand. The USA is still learning this.
>
> Oh yes, the USA has never seen "action" until very recently, sure.

Lost in Vietnam, losing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thousands dead. Lesson not
yet learned.

In message <49Dqk.45109$E41.30894@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy 
Hippy  writes
>
>"Robin T Cox"  wrote ...
>
>> http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/45156,opinion,what-future-is-there-for-nato
>
>> Imagine if Georgia had been a Nato member this
>> summer, as France and America want.
>
>Surely some  mistake - France, Germany and others opposed Georgia's
>membership of NATO.
>
>Apart from that, good article.
>
>
>> Nato has to get real about what it is about, and what it can and cannot
>do.
>> It should not engage in long-term, long-distance missions such as
>> Afghanistan - and it must understand that Russia is not the old Soviet
>> Union. All alliances have their day, and it is perhaps time that Nato is
>> replaced with something more effective and attuned to the needs of the
>> present day, and not the Cold War.
>
>NATO has become a proxy fighting force for US interests which the US wants
>to keep expanding. Far from being a defensive co-operative it has become a
>tool of the US to support American provocation and expansionism. NATO has
>become the real 51st State. Europe would be better off out of NATO before
>out of date agreements drag them into a war of America's making.
>
>France got it right in the past, staying in NATO but withdrawing military
>forces from NATO command because of dominance by the US. France was planning
>on bring their troops back under NATO command next year but the Georgian
>crisis and aggressive US rhetoric may change that. Perhaps that's the best
>course; NATO as a non-military umbrella organisation with military
>co-operation on a case-by-case basis ?


France will be fully back in NATO soon.... I think you will find that 
the US position will be Vetoed more and more. Also the command structure 
will change slight and the US will find it is on the edge. Eventually 
Nato will be come the EU Army
-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message <VOEqk.8678$Qi2.1997@fe06.news.easynews.com>, Jesse 
 writes
>The Happy Hippy wrote:
>> "Robin T Cox"  wrote ...
>>
>>> 
>>>http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/45156,opinion,what-future-is-there-for-n>>>ato
>>
>>> Imagine if Georgia had been a Nato member this
>>> summer, as France and America want.
>>  Surely some  mistake - France, Germany and others opposed Georgia's
>> membership of NATO.
>>  Apart from that, good article.
>>
>>> Nato has to get real about what it is about, and what it can and 
>>>cannot
>> do.
>>> It should not engage in long-term, long-distance missions such as
>>> Afghanistan - and it must understand that Russia is not the old Soviet
>>> Union. All alliances have their day, and it is perhaps time that Nato is
>>> replaced with something more effective and attuned to the needs of the
>>> present day, and not the Cold War.
>>  NATO has become a proxy fighting force for US interests which the US 
>>wants
>> to keep expanding. Far from being a defensive co-operative it has become a
>> tool of the US to support American provocation and expansionism. NATO has
>> become the real 51st State. Europe would be better off out of NATO before
>> out of date agreements drag them into a war of America's making.
>>  France got it right in the past, staying in NATO but withdrawing 
>>military
>> forces from NATO command because of dominance by the US. France was planning
>> on bring their troops back under NATO command next year but the Georgian
>> crisis and aggressive US rhetoric may change that. Perhaps that's the best
>> course; NATO as a non-military umbrella organisation with military
>> co-operation on a case-by-case basis ?
>
>We are not far apart here.
>I would love to see USA withdraw from NATO so it can wither on the vine 
>and become a footnote of history, from lack of any meaningful 
>participants.

A Nato without the USA will be much stronger.  You have very little 
understanding of NATO or the armies that make it up.

If you as that nice girl Jane you will find that whilst the US military 
is the largest it is greatly made up of low level low skilled low 
intelligent people like yourself.

The AVERAGE IQ for the US military is a below the minimum for the UK 
Infantry.

In most recent conflicts the US has provided the logistics and the 
grunts (like yourself) and the other NATO armies have provided the 
specialists.


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message <IIGqk.343611$bC5.239949@fe07.news.easynews.com>, Jesse 
 writes
>The Happy Hippy wrote:
>> "Jesse"  wrote...
>>
>>> We are not far apart here.
>>> I would love to see USA withdraw from NATO so it can wither on the vine
>>> and become a footnote of history, from lack of any meaningful
>> participants.
>>  Suits me. Then we can leave US forces to rot in Afghanistan and sort 
>>their
>> problems out for themselves without having Gates and others tearfully
>> bleating to Europe about how hard it is to do the job without European help
>> and continually telling us that Europe must come and bail the US out when
>> it's having its balls squeezed hard by some two-bit amateur insurgency.
>
>Fine, I think we can get by without Europeons to guard rear area 
>warehouses and cut private non aggression pacts with terrorist leaders.
>
>> Unfortunately it's not going to happen because the US needs NATO more than
>> Europe needs NATO or the US,

Not in Afghanistan and Northern Iraq you can't. NATO is providing the 
specialist troops

>Debatable, at best.
>Europe has had its national security subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer 
>lock, stock and barrel since 1945 ...

Not true. The US wanted to be in Europe and would nto go away. Evey time 
the US has threatened to pull out of German it was asked "how fast can 
you pack"

The US has looked after it's own interests it is a complete myth that it 
was protecting Europe. Just like it is "protecting"  Poland now.

> And Europe is showing no signs at all of a desire to be weaned off the 
>protecting hand.

Yes... German has suggested to the US that it leave Europe several 
times. France has never let the US in.

>Much the same for Korea & Japan, I'd be very much in favor of letting 
>them fend for themselves also.

Japan would not be bothered. They are only interested in the economic 
situation. The IS is the invader there not the protector.

As for Korea that is a mess of the US's own making

>
>> which is why America is desperately trying to
>> expand membership with Georgia and Ukraine. The US is too spineless to walk
>> away from NATO, and generally so too is Europe but that seems to be
>> changing, albeit slowly. America's bullshit and agressive posturing over
>> Georgia might actually be a helping had there although I realise that the UK
>> government has it's tongue so wrapped round Bush's colon that we'll be the
>> last to desert the sinking ship.
>
>I'm with ya, alliance with Europe is like trying to jog with a bowling 
>ball chained to the ankle.

Europe feels the same about the US

>All talk, no action is a very good summation of European policy and, 
>militarily

You do not have the intelligence to understand the explanation of why 
you are wrong.

>, you'd be like a 12 year old kicked out of the house and left to fend 
>for yourself without the USA - Which, in the long run, might just do 
>you some good.
>

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message <U6Jqk.344444$bC5.151041@fe07.news.easynews.com>, Jesse 
 writes
>Arthur Figgis wrote:
>> Jesse wrote:
>>> The Happy Hippy wrote:
>>>> "Jesse"  wrote...
>>>>
>>>>> We are not far apart here.
>>>>> I would love to see USA withdraw from NATO so it can wither on the vine
>>>>> and become a footnote of history, from lack of any meaningful
>>>> participants.
>>>>
>>>> Suits me. Then we can leave US forces to rot in Afghanistan and 
>>>>sort  their
>>>> problems out for themselves without having Gates and others tearfully
>>>> bleating to Europe about how hard it is to do the job without 
>>>>European help
>>>> and continually telling us that Europe must come and bail the US 
>>>>out  when
>>>> it's having its balls squeezed hard by some two-bit amateur insurgency.
>>>
>>> Fine, I think we can get by without Europeons to guard rear area 
>>>warehouses and cut private non aggression pacts with terrorist leaders.
>>>
>>>> Unfortunately it's not going to happen because the US needs NATO 
>>>>more  than
>>>> Europe needs NATO or the US,
>>>
>>> Debatable, at best.
>>> Europe has had its national security subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer 
>>>lock, stock and barrel since 1945 ... And Europe is showing no signs 
>>>at all of a desire to be weaned off the protecting hand.
>>  Protection from what? It is the US which seems to be sacred of the 
>>bogeyman living under the bed (upstairs from the elephant in the 
>>living room, perhaps?).
>
>Might want to ask your distant neighbors in "old Europe" about that.

Well they want the US out.

>You have become comfortably numb with distance and having your national 
>security subsidized by the USA.

Our national security has been made worse by the presence of the US. not 
safer

>>> I'm with ya, alliance with Europe is like trying to jog with a 
>>>bowling ball chained to the ankle.
>>> All talk, no action is a very good summation of European policy and,
>>  Yes, that has been the whole point of Europe since the bloodbaths 
>>got too deep - talking. The "action" approach was tried in the past 
>>but all got out of hand. The USA is still learning this.
>
>Oh yes, the USA has never seen "action" until very recently, sure.

Well it has repeated some spectacular cock ups.

-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

In message <YlNqk.45308$E41.42335@text.news.virginmedia.com>, The Happy 
Hippy  writes
>
>"Jesse"  wrote in message
>news:U6Jqk.344444$bC5.151041@fe07.news.easynews.com...
>
>[snips]
>
>> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>> >> I'm with ya, alliance with Europe is like trying to jog with a bowling
>> >> ball chained to the ankle.
>> >> All talk, no action is a very good summation of European policy and,
>> >
>> > Yes, that has been the whole point of Europe since the bloodbaths got
>> > too deep - talking. The "action" approach was tried in the past but all
>> > got out of hand. The USA is still learning this.
>>
>> Oh yes, the USA has never seen "action" until very recently, sure.
>
>Lost in Vietnam, losing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thousands dead. Lesson not
>yet learned.

Korea was hardly a win.  Lost in Georgia.  Did not win in S. America.

Hang on.... Won in Grenada...


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

On Aug 19, 6:02 pm, Jesse  wrote:
> chatnoir wrote:
> > On Aug 19, 3:14 pm, Jesse  wrote:
> >> The Happy Hippy wrote:
> >>> "Jesse"  wrote...
> >>>> We are not far apart here.
> >>>> I would love to see USA withdraw from NATO so it can wither on the vine
> >>>> and become a footnote of history, from lack of any meaningful
> >>> participants.
> >>> Suits me. Then we can leave US forces to rot in Afghanistan and sort their
> >>> problems out for themselves without having Gates and others tearfully
> >>> bleating to Europe about how hard it is to do the job without European help
> >>> and continually telling us that Europe must come and bail the US out when
> >>> it's having its balls squeezed hard by some two-bit amateur insurgency.
> >> Fine, I think we can get by without Europeons to guard rear area
> >> warehouses and cut private non aggression pacts with terrorist leaders> >>> Unfortunately it's not going to happen because the US needs NATO more than
> >>> Europe needs NATO or the US,
> >> Debatable, at best.
> >> Europe has had its national security subsidized by the U.S. taxpayer
> >> lock, stock and barrel since 1945 ... And Europe is showing no signs at
> >> all of a desire to be weaned off the protecting hand.
> >> Much the same for Korea & Japan, I'd be very much in favor of letting
> >> them fend for themselves also.
>
> >>> which is why America is desperately trying to
> >>> expand membership with Georgia and Ukraine. The US is too spineless to walk
> >>> away from NATO, and generally so too is Europe but that seems to be
> >>> changing, albeit slowly. America's bullshit and agressive posturing over
> >>> Georgia might actually be a helping had there although I realise that the UK
> >>> government has it's tongue so wrapped round Bush's colon that we'll be the
> >>> last to desert the sinking ship.
> >> I'm with ya, alliance with Europe is like trying to jog with a bowling
> >> ball chained to the ankle.
> >> All talk, no action is a very good summation of European policy and,
> >> militarily, you'd be like a 12 year old kicked out of the house and left
> >> to fend for yourself without the USA - Which, in the long run, might
> >> just do you some good.
>
> > Having such as NATO members fall in line for an American operation
> > gives the operation a certain degree on International legitimacy!
>
> Yes, that is true.
> If everyone started looking after their own affairs more exclusively,
> this would greatly minimize such yearning for international legitimacy.
> Of course, that would mean the end of multiculturalism and globalism ...
> And most other "isms" which, by and large, are responsible for the sad
> state of affairs we find ourselves in.

Don't think so for the US!:

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/profile2.html

excerpt:

ow exactly did the end of the Long Peace so quickly yield the Long
War? Seeing themselves as a peaceful people, Americans remain wedded
to the conviction that the conflicts in which they find themselves
embroiled are not of their own making. The global war on terror is no
exception. Certain of our own benign intentions, we reflexively assign
responsibility for war to others, typically malignant Hitler like
figures inexplicably bent on denying us the peace that is our fondest
wish.

This book challenges that supposition. It argues that the actions of
Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, however malevolent, cannot explain
why the United States today finds itself enmeshed in seemingly never-
ending conflict. Although critics of U.S. foreign policy, and
especially of the Iraq War, have already advanced a variety of
alternative explanations — variously fingering President Bush, members
of his inner circle, jingoistic neoconservatives, greedy oil
executives, or even the Israel lobby — it also finds those
explanations inadequate. Certainly, the president and his advisers,
along with neocons always looking for opportunities to flex American
military muscle, bear considerable culpability for our current
predicament. Yet to charge them with primary responsibility is to
credit them with undeserved historical significance. It's the
equivalent of blaming Herbert Hoover for the Great Depression or of
attributing McCarthyism entirely to the antics of Senator Joseph
McCarthy.

The impulses that have landed us in a war of no exits and no deadlines
come from within. Foreign policy has, for decades, provided an outward
manifestation of American domestic ambitions, urges, and fears. In our
own time, it has increasingly become an expression of domestic
dysfunction — an attempt to manage or defer coming to terms with
contradictions besetting the American way of life. Those
contradictions have found their ultimate expression in the perpetual
state of war afflicting the United States today.

Gauging their implications requires that we acknowledge their source:
They reflect the accumulated detritus of freedom, the by- products of
our frantic pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.

Freedom is the altar at which Americans worship, whatever their
nominal religious persuasion. "No one sings odes to liberty as the
final end of life with greater fervor than Americans," the theologian
Reinhold Niebuhr once observed. Yet even as they celebrate freedom,
Americans exempt the object of their veneration from critical
examination. In our public discourse, freedom is not so much a word or
even a value as an incantation, its very mention enough to stifle
doubt and terminate all debate.

The Limits of Power will suggest that this heedless worship of freedom
has been a mixed blessing. In our pursuit of freedom, we have accrued
obligations and piled up debts that we are increasingly hard- pressed
to meet. Especially since the 1960s, freedom itself has undercut the
nation's ability to fulfill its commitments. We teeter on the edge of
insolvency, desperately trying to balance accounts by relying on our
presumably invincible armed forces. Yet there, too, having exaggerated
our military might, we court bankruptcy.

The United States today finds itself threatened by three interlocking
crises. The first of these crises is economic and cultural, the second
political, and the third military. All three share this
characteristic: They are of our own making. In assessing the
predicament that results from these crises, The Limits of Power
employs what might be called a Niebuhrean perspective. Writing de
cades ago, Reinhold Niebuhr anticipated that predicament with uncanny
accuracy and astonishing prescience. As such, perhaps more than any
other figure in our recent history, he may help us discern a way out.

As pastor, teacher, activist, theologian, and prolific author, Niebuhr
was a towering presence in American intellectual life from the 1930s
through the 1960s. Even today, he deserves recognition as the most
clear- eyed of American prophets. Niebuhr speaks to us from the past,
offering truths of enormous relevance to the present. As prophet, he
warned that what he called "our dreams of managing history" — born of
a peculiar combination of arrogance and narcissism — posed a
potentially mortal threat to the United States. Today, we ignore that
warning at our peril.

Niebuhr entertained few illusions about the nature of man, the
possibilities of politics, or the pliability of history. Global
economic crisis, total war, genocide, totalitarianism, and nuclear
arsenals capable of destroying civilization itself — he viewed all of
these with an unblinking eye that allowed no room for hypocrisy,
hokum, or self- deception. Realism and humility formed the core of his
worldview, each infused with a deeply felt Christian sensibility.

Realism in this sense implies an obligation to see the world as it
actually is, not as we might like it to be. The enemy of realism is
hubris, which in Niebuhr's day, and in our own, finds expression in an
outsized confidence in the efficacy of American power as an instrument
to reshape the global order.

Humility imposes an obligation of a different sort. It summons
Americans to see themselves without blinders. The enemy of humility is
sanctimony, which gives rise to the conviction that American values
and beliefs are universal and that the nation itself serves
providentially assigned purposes. This conviction finds expression in
a determination to remake the world in what we imagine to be America's
image.

In our own day, realism and humility have proven in short supply. What
Niebuhr wrote after World War II proved truer still in the immediate
aftermath of the Cold War: Good fortune and a position of apparent
preeminence placed the United States "under the most grievous
temptations to self- adulation." Americans have given themselves over
to those temptations. Hubris and sanctimony have become the paramount
expressions of American statecraft. After 9/11, they combined to
produce the Bush administration's war of no exits and no deadlines.

President Bush has likened today's war against what he calls
"Islamofascism" to America's war with Nazi Germany — a great struggle
waged on behalf of liberty. That President Bush is waging his global
war on terror to preserve American freedom is no doubt the case. Yet
that commitment, however well intentioned, begs several larger
questions: As actually expressed and experienced, what is freedom
today? What is its content? What costs does the exercise of freedom
impose? Who pays?

These are fundamental questions, which cannot be dismissed with a
rhetorical wave of the hand. Great war time presidents of the past —
one thinks especially of Abraham Lincoln speaking at Gettysburg — have
not hesitated to confront such questions directly. That President Bush
seems oblivious to their very existence offers one mea sure of his
shortcomings as a statesman.

Freedom is not static, nor is it necessarily benign. In practice,
freedom constantly evolves and in doing so generates new requirements
and abolishes old constraints. The common understanding of freedom
that prevailed in December 1941 when the United States entered the war
against Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany has long since become
obsolete. In some respects, this must be cause for celebration. In
others, it might be cause for regret.

The changes have been both qualitative and quantitative. In many
respects, Americans are freer today than ever before, with more
citizens than ever before enjoying unencumbered access to the promise
of American life. Yet especially since the 1960s, the reinterpretation
of freedom has had a transformative impact on our society and culture.
That transformation has produced a paradoxical legacy. As individuals,
our appetites and expectations have grown exponentially. Niebuhr once
wrote disapprovingly of Americans, their "culture soft and vulgar,
equating joy with happiness and happiness with comfort." Were he alive
today, Niebuhr might amend that judgment, with Americans increasingly
equating comfort with self- indulgence.

The collective capacity of our domestic political economy to satisfy
those appetites has not kept pace with demand. As a result, sustaining
our pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness at home requires
increasingly that Americans look beyond our borders. Whether the issue
at hand is oil, credit, or the availability of cheap consumer goods,
we expect the world to accommodate the American way of life.

The resulting sense of entitlement has great implications for foreign
policy. Simply put, as the American appetite for freedom has grown, so
too has our penchant for empire. The connection between these two
tendencies is a causal one. In an earlier age, Americans saw empire as
the antithesis of freedom. Today, as illustrated above all by the Bush
administration's efforts to dominate the energy- rich Persian Gulf,
empire has seemingly become a prerequisite of freedom.

There is a further paradox: The actual exercise of American freedom is
no longer conducive to generating the power required to establish and
maintain an imperial order. If anything, the reverse is true: Centered
on consumption and individual autonomy, the exercise of freedom is
contributing to the gradual erosion of our national power. At
precisely the moment when the ability to wield power — especially
military power — has become the sine qua non for preserving American
freedom, our reserves of power are being depleted.

One sees this, for example, in the way that heightened claims of
individual autonomy have eviscerated the concept of citizenship.
Yesterday's civic obligations have become today's civic options. What
once rated as duties — rallying to the country's defense at times of
great emergency, for example — are now matters of choice. As
individuals, Americans never cease to expect more. As members of a
community, especially as members of a national community, they choose
to contribute less.

Meanwhile, American political leaders — especially at the national
level — have proven unable (or unwilling) to address the disparity
between how much we want and what we can afford to pay. Successive
administrations, abetted by Congress, have deepened a looming crisis
of debt and dependency through unbridled spending. As Vice President
Dick Cheney, a self- described conservative, announced when told that
cutting taxes might be at odds with invading Iraq, "Deficits don't
matter." Politicians of both parties certainly act as if they
don't. ...

>"chatnoir"  wrote in message 
>news:c2b55a7f-0840-48ef-a954-7df113b78140@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>On Aug 19, 6:02 pm, Jesse  wrote:
>> chatnoir wrote:
>> > On Aug 19, 3:14 pm, Jesse  wrote:

big snip

>> Yes, that is true.
>> If everyone started looking after their own affairs more exclusively,
>> this would greatly minimize such yearning for international legitimacy.
>> Of course, that would mean the end of multiculturalism and globalism ...
>> And most other "isms" which, by and large, are responsible for the sad
>> state of affairs we find ourselves in.
>
>Don't think so for the US!:
>
>http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/profile2.html
>
>excerpt:
>
>ow exactly did the end of the Long Peace so quickly yield the Long
>War? Seeing themselves as a peaceful people, Americans remain wedded
>to the conviction that the conflicts in which they find themselves
>embroiled are not of their own making. The global war on terror is no
>exception. Certain of our own benign intentions, we reflexively assign
>responsibility for war to others, typically malignant Hitler like
>figures inexplicably bent on denying us the peace that is our fondest
>wish.
>
>This book challenges that supposition. It argues that the actions of
>Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden, however malevolent, cannot explain
>why the United States today finds itself enmeshed in seemingly never-
>ending conflict. Although critics of U.S. foreign policy, and
>especially of the Iraq War, have already advanced a variety of
>alternative explanations — variously fingering President Bush, members
>of his inner circle, jingoistic neoconservatives, greedy oil
>executives, or even the Israel lobby — it also finds those
>explanations inadequate. Certainly, the president and his advisers,
>along with neocons always looking for opportunities to flex American
>military muscle, bear considerable culpability for our current
>predicament. Yet to charge them with primary responsibility is to
>credit them with undeserved historical significance. It's the
>equivalent of blaming Herbert Hoover for the Great Depression or of
>attributing McCarthyism entirely to the antics of Senator Joseph
>McCarthy.
>
>The impulses that have landed us in a war of no exits and no deadlines
>come from within. Foreign policy has, for decades, provided an outward
>manifestation of American domestic ambitions, urges, and fears. In our
>own time, it has increasingly become an expression of domestic
>dysfunction — an attempt to manage or defer coming to terms with
>contradictions besetting the American way of life. Those
>contradictions have found their ultimate expression in the perpetual
>state of war afflicting the United States today.
>
>Gauging their implications requires that we acknowledge their source:
>They reflect the accumulated detritus of freedom, the by- products of
>our frantic pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.
>
>Freedom is the altar at which Americans worship, whatever their
>nominal religious persuasion. "No one sings odes to liberty as the
>final end of life with greater fervor than Americans," the theologian
>Reinhold Niebuhr once observed. Yet even as they celebrate freedom,
>Americans exempt the object of their veneration from critical
>examination. In our public discourse, freedom is not so much a word or
>even a value as an incantation, its very mention enough to stifle
>doubt and terminate all debate.
>
>The Limits of Power will suggest that this heedless worship of freedom
>has been a mixed blessing. In our pursuit of freedom, we have accrued
>obligations and piled up debts that we are increasingly hard- pressed
>to meet. Especially since the 1960s, freedom itself has undercut the
>nation's ability to fulfill its commitments. We teeter on the edge of
>insolvency, desperately trying to balance accounts by relying on our
>presumably invincible armed forces. Yet there, too, having exaggerated
>our military might, we court bankruptcy.
>
>The United States today finds itself threatened by three interlocking
>crises. The first of these crises is economic and cultural, the second
>political, and the third military. All three share this
>characteristic: They are of our own making. In assessing the
>predicament that results from these crises, The Limits of Power
>employs what might be called a Niebuhrean perspective. Writing de
>cades ago, Reinhold Niebuhr anticipated that predicament with uncanny
>accuracy and astonishing prescience. As such, perhaps more than any
>other figure in our recent history, he may help us discern a way out.
>
>As pastor, teacher, activist, theologian, and prolific author, Niebuhr
>was a towering presence in American intellectual life from the 1930s
>through the 1960s. Even today, he deserves recognition as the most
>clear- eyed of American prophets. Niebuhr speaks to us from the past,
>offering truths of enormous relevance to the present. As prophet, he
>warned that what he called "our dreams of managing history" — born of
>a peculiar combination of arrogance and narcissism — posed a
>potentially mortal threat to the United States. Today, we ignore that
>warning at our peril.
>
>Niebuhr entertained few illusions about the nature of man, the
>possibilities of politics, or the pliability of history. Global
>economic crisis, total war, genocide, totalitarianism, and nuclear
>arsenals capable of destroying civilization itself — he viewed all of
>these with an unblinking eye that allowed no room for hypocrisy,
>hokum, or self- deception. Realism and humility formed the core of his
>worldview, each infused with a deeply felt Christian sensibility.
>
>Realism in this sense implies an obligation to see the world as it
>actually is, not as we might like it to be. The enemy of realism is
>hubris, which in Niebuhr's day, and in our own, finds expression in an
>outsized confidence in the efficacy of American power as an instrument
>to reshape the global order.
>
>Humility imposes an obligation of a different sort. It summons
>Americans to see themselves without blinders. The enemy of humility is
>sanctimony, which gives rise to the conviction that American values
>and beliefs are universal and that the nation itself serves
>providentially assigned purposes. This conviction finds expression in
>a determination to remake the world in what we imagine to be America's
>image.
>
>In our own day, realism and humility have proven in short supply. What
>Niebuhr wrote after World War II proved truer still in the immediate
>aftermath of the Cold War: Good fortune and a position of apparent
>preeminence placed the United States "under the most grievous
>temptations to self- adulation." Americans have given themselves over
>to those temptations. Hubris and sanctimony have become the paramount
>expressions of American statecraft. After 9/11, they combined to
>produce the Bush administration's war of no exits and no deadlines.
>
>President Bush has likened today's war against what he calls
>"Islamofascism" to America's war with Nazi Germany — a great struggle
>waged on behalf of liberty. That President Bush is waging his global
>war on terror to preserve American freedom is no doubt the case. Yet
>that commitment, however well intentioned, begs several larger
>questions: As actually expressed and experienced, what is freedom
>today? What is its content? What costs does the exercise of freedom
>impose? Who pays?
>
>These are fundamental questions, which cannot be dismissed with a
>rhetorical wave of the hand. Great war time presidents of the past —
>one thinks especially of Abraham Lincoln speaking at Gettysburg — have
>not hesitated to confront such questions directly. That President Bush
>seems oblivious to their very existence offers one mea sure of his
>shortcomings as a statesman.
>
>Freedom is not static, nor is it necessarily benign. In practice,
>freedom constantly evolves and in doing so generates new requirements
>and abolishes old constraints. The common understanding of freedom
>that prevailed in December 1941 when the United States entered the war
>against Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany has long since become
>obsolete. In some respects, this must be cause for celebration. In
>others, it might be cause for regret.
>
>The changes have been both qualitative and quantitative. In many
>respects, Americans are freer today than ever before, with more
>citizens than ever before enjoying unencumbered access to the promise
>of American life. Yet especially since the 1960s, the reinterpretation
>of freedom has had a transformative impact on our society and culture.
>That transformation has produced a paradoxical legacy. As individuals,
>our appetites and expectations have grown exponentially. Niebuhr once
>wrote disapprovingly of Americans, their "culture soft and vulgar,
>equating joy with happiness and happiness with comfort." Were he alive
>today, Niebuhr might amend that judgment, with Americans increasingly
>equating comfort with self- indulgence.
>
>The collective capacity of our domestic political economy to satisfy
>those appetites has not kept pace with demand. As a result, sustaining
>our pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness at home requires
>increasingly that Americans look beyond our borders. Whether the issue
>at hand is oil, credit, or the availability of cheap consumer goods,
>we expect the world to accommodate the American way of life.
>
>The resulting sense of entitlement has great implications for foreign
>policy. Simply put, as the American appetite for freedom has grown, so
>too has our penchant for empire. The connection between these two
>tendencies is a causal one. In an earlier age, Americans saw empire as
>the antithesis of freedom. Today, as illustrated above all by the Bush
>administration's efforts to dominate the energy- rich Persian Gulf,
>empire has seemingly become a prerequisite of freedom.
>
>There is a further paradox: The actual exercise of American freedom is
>no longer conducive to generating the power required to establish and
>maintain an imperial order. If anything, the reverse is true: Centered
>on consumption and individual autonomy, the exercise of freedom is
>contributing to the gradual erosion of our national power. At
>precisely the moment when the ability to wield power — especially
>military power — has become the sine qua non for preserving American
>freedom, our reserves of power are being depleted.
>
>One sees this, for example, in the way that heightened claims of
>individual autonomy have eviscerated the concept of citizenship.
>Yesterday's civic obligations have become today's civic options. What
>once rated as duties — rallying to the country's defense at times of
>great emergency, for example — are now matters of choice. As
>individuals, Americans never cease to expect more. As members of a
>community, especially as members of a national community, they choose
>to contribute less.
>
>Meanwhile, American political leaders — especially at the national
>level — have proven unable (or unwilling) to address the disparity
>between how much we want and what we can afford to pay. Successive
>administrations, abetted by Congress, have deepened a looming crisis
>of debt and dependency through unbridled spending. As Vice President
>Dick Cheney, a self- described conservative, announced when told that
>cutting taxes might be at odds with invading Iraq, "Deficits don't
>matter." Politicians of both parties certainly act as if they
>don't. ...

Chatnoir, thanks for this. One line in particular seems, for me, to sum up 
the response of many of the Americans that have posted here in the past. 
"freedom is not so much a word or even a value as an incantation, its very 
mention enough to stifle doubt and terminate all debate". It is refreshing 
to meet an American here who has a broader point of view, and who, if I may 
say so, speaks intelligently and knowledgeably about the world in general.

That's all.

chatnoir wrote:

> Don't think so for the US!:
> 
> http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/profile2.html

<snipped>

An excellent analysis, and one which is as true for Britain as it is for the
US.

The core principle is surely that before you can remove the speck in your
brother's eye, you need to see clearly first by removing the log in your
own. And all too often projecting our own problems on the outside world
gives us a cop-out from facing up to them. As a result, not only do the
innocent suffer but, if we did but realise it, so do we.

Navel-gazing is, of course, less appealing than jingoism in certain
quarters. But a period of silence from those quarters whilst they reflect
on, and address, their own shortcomings, is long overdue.

-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

Jesse wrote:
> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>> Jesse wrote:

>>> lock, stock and barrel since 1945 ... And Europe is showing no signs 
>>> at all of a desire to be weaned off the protecting hand.
>>
>> Protection from what? It is the US which seems to be sacred of the 
>> bogeyman living under the bed (upstairs from the elephant in the 
>> living room, perhaps?).
> 
> Might want to ask your distant neighbors in "old Europe" about that.
> You have become comfortably numb with distance and having your national 
> security subsidized by the USA.

Old Europe - France and Germany - are the textbook example of better 
ways to do things. Now there is no need for huge armies facing each 
other across the Rhine, everyone can do more interesting things.

They've recently started work a new bridge for use by high speed trains, 
which will finally replace one blown up in two world wars and the 
Franco-Prussian war. Sounds better than more guns.

>>> Much the same for Korea & Japan, I'd be very much in favor of letting 
>>> them fend for themselves also.
>>>
>>>> which is why America is desperately trying to
>>>> expand membership with Georgia and Ukraine. The US is too spineless 
>>>> to walk
>>>> away from NATO, and generally so too is Europe but that seems to be
>>>> changing, albeit slowly. America's bullshit and agressive posturing 
>>>> over
>>>> Georgia might actually be a helping had there although I realise 
>>>> that the UK
>>>> government has it's tongue so wrapped round Bush's colon that we'll 
>>>> be the
>>>> last to desert the sinking ship.
>>>
>>> I'm with ya, alliance with Europe is like trying to jog with a 
>>> bowling ball chained to the ankle.
>>> All talk, no action is a very good summation of European policy and, 
>>
>> Yes, that has been the whole point of Europe since the bloodbaths got 
>> too deep - talking. The "action" approach was tried in the past but 
>> all got out of hand. The USA is still learning this.
> 
> Oh yes, the USA has never seen "action" until very recently, sure.

So where was the US Verdun or Stalingrad?

>>> militarily, you'd be like a 12 year old kicked out of the house and 
>>> left to fend for yourself without the USA - Which, in the long run, 
>>> might just do you some good.
>>
>> Not getting into pointless wars would be one obvious benefit.
> 
> All well and good, if most everyone agreed on what is pointless and what 
> is not.


-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK

On Aug 20, 6:38 am, Robin T Cox  wrote:
> chatnoir wrote:
> > Don't think so for the US!:
>
> >http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/08152008/profile2.html
>
> <snipped>
>
> An excellent analysis, and one which is as true for Britain as it is for the
> US.
>
> The core principle is surely that before you can remove the speck in your
> brother's eye, you need to see clearly first by removing the log in your
> own. And all too often projecting our own problems on the outside world
> gives us a cop-out from facing up to them. As a result, not only do the
> innocent suffer but, if we did but realise it, so do we.
>
> Navel-gazing is, of course, less appealing than jingoism in certain
> quarters. But a period of silence from those quarters whilst they reflect
> on, and address, their own shortcomings, is long overdue.
>
> --
> Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

But as we here from the New York Times, the perception in the US and
in other Western countirs may come to the conclusion that our waning
influence in the world and the rise of more independent Nationalist
states is costing the Americans and other Western Nations the life
style they have become accustomed to!:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/19/business/19oil.html?ref=worldbusiness

Headline:

As Oil Giants Lose Influence, Supply Drops

Jorge Silva/Reuters
Workers in an oil field in Venezuela, one of the countries that
experts say hold the oil supplies of the future.
SIGN IN TO E-MAIL OR SAVE THIS
PRINT
SINGLE PAGE
REPRINTS
SHARE

By JAD MOUAWAD
Published: August 18, 2008
Oil production has begun falling at all of the major Western oil
companies, and they are finding it harder than ever to find new
prospects even though they are awash in profits and eager to expand.

Multimedia

Graphic
Big Profits, Bigger Troubles
 Back Story With Jad Mouawad (mp3)

Add to Portfolio
Exxon Mobil Corp
BP Plc
Chevron Corp
Go to your Portfolio »
Part of the reason is political. From the Caspian Sea to South
America, Western oil companies are being squeezed out of resource-rich
provinces. They are being forced to renegotiate contracts on less-
favorable terms and are fighting losing battles with assertive state-
owned oil companies.

And much of their production is in mature regions that are declining,
like the North Sea.

The reality, experts say, is that the oil giants that once dominated
the global market have lost much of their influence — and with it,
their ability to increase supplies.

“This is an industry in crisis,” said Amy Myers Jaffe, the associate
director of Rice University’s energy program in Houston. “It’s a
crisis of leadership, a crisis of strategy and a crisis of what the
future looks like for the supermajors,” a term often applied to the
biggest oil companies. “They are like a deer caught in headlights.
They know they have to move, but they can’t decide where to go.”

The sharp retreat in all of the commodities’ prices over the last
month, about 20 percent, reflects slowing global growth and with it
reduced demand for more oil in the short term. But over the next
decade, the world will need more oil to satisfy developing Asian
economies like China. The oil companies’ difficulties suggest that
these much-needed future supplies may be hard to come by.

Oil production has failed to catch up with surging consumption in
recent years, a disparity that propelled oil prices to records this
year. Despite the recent decline, oil remains above $100 a barrel,
unimaginable a few years ago, causing pain throughout the economy,
like higher prices at the gas pump and automakers posting sizable
losses. ...

excerpt:

The new oil order has been emerging for a few decades.

As late as the 1970s, Western corporations controlled well over half
of the world’s oil production. These companies — Exxon Mobil, BP,
Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Total of France and Eni of
Italy — now produce just 13 percent.

Today’s 10 largest holders of petroleum reserves are state-owned
companies, like Russia’s Gazprom and Iran’s national oil company.

Sluggish supplies have prompted a cottage industry of doomsday
predictions that the world’s oil production has reached a peak. But
many energy experts say these “peak oil” theories are misplaced. They
say the world is not running out of oil — rather, the companies that
know the most about how to produce oil are running out of places to
drill.

“There is still a lot of oil to develop out there, which is why we
don’t call this geological peak oil, especially in places like
Venezuela, Russia, Iran and Iraq,” said Arjun Murti, an energy analyst
at Goldman Sachs. “What we have now is geopolitical peak oil.”

Western companies are far better than most national oil companies at
finding and extracting petroleum, experts say. They have developed
advanced exploration technologies and can muster significant financing
to develop new fields. Many of the world’s exporting states, however,
have spurned their expertise.

Oil company executives see a straightforward explanation: a trend
known as resource nationalism. They contend that they have been shut
out of promising regions by a rising assertiveness in the Middle East,
in Russia, in South America and elsewhere by governments determined to
keep full control of their oil. ...

-------------------

So, a view among western countries may arise that the good old days
where supply control is reasserted by the Old method of overthrowing
Nationalist Governments and replacing them with more compliant
dictators, such as the overthrow of Allende and and Mossadeq of Iran,
where they become dependent on the US for survival. may be the best
course again!  The half-hearted attempt on Chavez in fact backfired
and reduce the outflow of oil from Venezuela!  To maintain their
impossible lifestyle, Western Governments may view a return to harsher
tactics my be the way to go with assurance the maintenance of
lifestyle in the Western Worlds (especially the US) will lead to a
compliant willing citizenry on this issue!  Empire must keep a happy
citizenry - even if it ultimately Circuses and Bread!:

http://www.thomasjamesmartin.com/breadcircus.htm

The Happy Hippy wrote:
> "Jesse"  wrote in message
> news:U6Jqk.344444$bC5.151041@fe07.news.easynews.com...
> 
> [snips]
> 
>> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>> I'm with ya, alliance with Europe is like trying to jog with a bowling
>>>> ball chained to the ankle.
>>>> All talk, no action is a very good summation of European policy and,
>>> Yes, that has been the whole point of Europe since the bloodbaths got
>>> too deep - talking. The "action" approach was tried in the past but all
>>> got out of hand. The USA is still learning this.
>> Oh yes, the USA has never seen "action" until very recently, sure.
> 
> Lost in Vietnam, losing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thousands dead. Lesson not
> yet learned.

Action, won, lost or tied, is still action.
I wouldn't expect a world class dunderhead like you to understand that.

Arthur Figgis wrote:
> Jesse wrote:
>> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>> Jesse wrote:
> 
>>>> lock, stock and barrel since 1945 ... And Europe is showing no signs 
>>>> at all of a desire to be weaned off the protecting hand.
>>>
>>> Protection from what? It is the US which seems to be sacred of the 
>>> bogeyman living under the bed (upstairs from the elephant in the 
>>> living room, perhaps?).
>>
>> Might want to ask your distant neighbors in "old Europe" about that.
>> You have become comfortably numb with distance and having your 
>> national security subsidized by the USA.
> 
> Old Europe - France and Germany - are the textbook example of better 
> ways to do things. Now there is no need for huge armies facing each 
> other across the Rhine, everyone can do more interesting things.

It appears I meant "New Europe" ... Not much into political catch phrases.
So far, so good - And yes obviously the Rhine has ceased to be a hot 
spot for quite some time now.
Whether or not there is or, more importantly, ever will be a need for 
large European armies is at the moment a mute point, as good old Uncle 
Sam continues to bankroll European security.

> They've recently started work a new bridge for use by high speed trains, 
> which will finally replace one blown up in two world wars and the 
> Franco-Prussian war. Sounds better than more guns.
> 
>>>> Much the same for Korea & Japan, I'd be very much in favor of 
>>>> letting them fend for themselves also.
>>>>
>>>>> which is why America is desperately trying to
>>>>> expand membership with Georgia and Ukraine. The US is too spineless 
>>>>> to walk
>>>>> away from NATO, and generally so too is Europe but that seems to be
>>>>> changing, albeit slowly. America's bullshit and agressive posturing 
>>>>> over
>>>>> Georgia might actually be a helping had there although I realise 
>>>>> that the UK
>>>>> government has it's tongue so wrapped round Bush's colon that we'll 
>>>>> be the
>>>>> last to desert the sinking ship.
>>>>
>>>> I'm with ya, alliance with Europe is like trying to jog with a 
>>>> bowling ball chained to the ankle.
>>>> All talk, no action is a very good summation of European policy and, 
>>>
>>> Yes, that has been the whole point of Europe since the bloodbaths got 
>>> too deep - talking. The "action" approach was tried in the past but 
>>> all got out of hand. The USA is still learning this.
>>
>> Oh yes, the USA has never seen "action" until very recently, sure.
> 
> So where was the US Verdun or Stalingrad?

Uh well, what can I say about that ?
Are you referring to comparable examples of over-all casualties ... Of 
importance in single, decisive engagements ?
Apparently then you know next to nothing about our civil war, which had 
an abundance of both .. And also the viscous island hopping campaign 
against Imperial Japan, some of the dirtiest fighting recorded in the 
annals of warfare, not to mention of completely novel character and 
accomplished nearly single handed.
Verdun was nothing but a sad lesson in sheer, blind military obstanance 
- A crimson hell hole of carnage and slaughter, almost completely bereft 
of tactics, and the wonder is that the commanders on each side were not 
executed afterwards for visiting such complete and needless slaughter 
upon their charges.
I hope you are not pointing to that as some kind of proud military 
accomplishment, because it sure as hell was anything but.

In message <G25rk.528073$I42.201116@fe04.news.easynews.com>, Jesse 
 writes
>The Happy Hippy wrote:
>> "Jesse"  wrote in message
>> news:U6Jqk.344444$bC5.151041@fe07.news.easynews.com...
>>  [snips]
>>
>>> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>>> I'm with ya, alliance with Europe is like trying to jog with a bowling
>>>>> ball chained to the ankle.
>>>>> All talk, no action is a very good summation of European policy and,
>>>> Yes, that has been the whole point of Europe since the bloodbaths got
>>>> too deep - talking. The "action" approach was tried in the past but all
>>>> got out of hand. The USA is still learning this.
>>> Oh yes, the USA has never seen "action" until very recently, sure.
>>  Lost in Vietnam, losing in Iraq and Afghanistan. Thousands dead. 
>>Lesson not
>> yet learned.
>
>Action, won, lost or tied, is still action.
>I wouldn't expect a world class dunderhead like you to understand that.

The UK has seen plenty of action.  We just don't shout about it.  The 
first time most of the world knew about the SAS was in the Iranian 
Embassy siege.   The previous 40 years of their existence was not widely 
talked about. And most still do no know there are three SAS regiments or 
the SBS.

The UK does a lot but subtly. (Jesse get an adult to explain that word 
to you)


The point is that the US has seen and lost quite a lot of action Vietnam 
for example the US lost there, is loosing in Iraq and was loosing in 
Afghanistan until the UK focused on it to stabilise the problem now 
assisted by the French.

I will give you some idea of reality. Two of the Hollywood "delta force" 
films where they go into the Middle east were in fact French operations. 
Not that they made the press at the time.

The final point is Jesse my love: A little knowledge is only a dangerous 
thing when you don't know it is a little knowledge.

You Jesse, are clearly not very bright and poorly educated with little 
experience of the great world. The problem is you think you are clever 
and do know what you are talking about, it's sad really

Even fellow Americans here with military experience do not support you. 
In fact you tell them they are wrong. You are an embsrrisment to your 
country.

BTW what is your day job? What has your life amounted to? What have you 
achieved?

-- 
My bestest friend Jesse : http://tinyurl.com/6zwjnz
Join the Jesse Fan Club  at http://www.army-gays.com/gay-marines.html

Jesse wrote:
> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>> Jesse wrote:
>>> Arthur Figgis wrote:
>>>> Jesse wrote:
>>
>>>>> lock, stock and barrel since 1945 ... And Europe is showing no 
>>>>> signs at all of a desire to be weaned off the protecting hand.
>>>>
>>>> Protection from what? It is the US which seems to be sacred of the 
>>>> bogeyman living under the bed (upstairs from the elephant in the 
>>>> living room, perhaps?).
>>>
>>> Might want to ask your distant neighbors in "old Europe" about that.
>>> You have become comfortably numb with distance and having your 
>>> national security subsidized by the USA.
>>
>> Old Europe - France and Germany - are the textbook example of better 
>> ways to do things. Now there is no need for huge armies facing each 
>> other across the Rhine, everyone can do more interesting things.
> 
> It appears I meant "New Europe" ... Not much into political catch phrases.

So, erm, the complete opposite!

> So far, so good - And yes obviously the Rhine has ceased to be a hot 
> spot for quite some time now.
> Whether or not there is or, more importantly, ever will be a need for 
> large European armies is at the moment a mute point, 

As in silent?

as good old Uncle
> Sam continues to bankroll European security.
> 
>> They've recently started work a new bridge for use by high speed 
>> trains, which will finally replace one blown up in two world wars and 
>> the Franco-Prussian war. Sounds better than more guns.
>>
>>>>> Much the same for Korea & Japan, I'd be very much in favor of 
>>>>> letting them fend for themselves also.
>>>>>
>>>>>> which is why America is desperately trying to
>>>>>> expand membership with Georgia and Ukraine. The US is too 
>>>>>> spineless to walk
>>>>>> away from NATO, and generally so too is Europe but that seems to be
>>>>>> changing, albeit slowly. America's bullshit and agressive 
>>>>>> posturing over
>>>>>> Georgia might actually be a helping had there although I realise 
>>>>>> that the UK
>>>>>> government has it's tongue so wrapped round Bush's colon that 
>>>>>> we'll be the
>>>>>> last to desert the sinking ship.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm with ya, alliance with Europe is like trying to jog with a 
>>>>> bowling ball chained to the ankle.
>>>>> All talk, no action is a very good summation of European policy and, 
>>>>
>>>> Yes, that has been the whole point of Europe since the bloodbaths 
>>>> got too deep - talking. The "action" approach was tried in the past 
>>>> but all got out of hand. The USA is still learning this.
>>>
>>> Oh yes, the USA has never seen "action" until very recently, sure.
>>
>> So where was the US Verdun or Stalingrad?
> 
> Uh well, what can I say about that ?

Grid reference, perhaps?

> Are you referring to comparable examples of over-all casualties ... Of 
> importance in single, decisive engagements ?

Large scale slaughter of people with better things to do, to see who is 
left.

> Apparently then you know next to nothing about our civil war, which had 
> an abundance of both .. 

Verdun was 35-40 Gettysburgs.

Wikifiddlers reckon

US civil war
360,000 total dead
260,000 total dead
=========
620 000

Population 1860: 31,443,321
deaths <2%

Verdun
163,000 	
143,000
=======
306 000 dead

WWI France
population 39.6m	
military deaths
1,397,800
=2.5%

So one city in France saw the deaths of about half the total of the 
entire US Civil War. Or War of Northern Aggression, as I girl I knew 
called it.

And also the viscous island hopping campaign
> against Imperial Japan, some of the dirtiest fighting recorded in the 
> annals of warfare, not to mention of completely novel character and 
> accomplished nearly single handed.
> Verdun was nothing but a sad lesson in sheer, blind military obstanance 
> - A crimson hell hole of carnage and slaughter, almost completely bereft 
> of tactics, and the wonder is that the commanders on each side were not 
> executed afterwards for visiting such complete and needless slaughter 
> upon their charges.  I hope you are not pointing to that as some kind of proud military
> accomplishment, because it sure as hell was anything but.

Why would anyone think it was a proud accomplishment? Next to a battle 
lost, the greatest misery is a battle gained, as the chap with the boots 
had said a century or so before.
-- 
Arthur Figgis               Surrey, UK