Europe, are you nuts?

Understood, but some posts don't reflect that...as I said, equating the GOP with "conservative"...implying a significant difference from the Democrats.

 

Both parties would be EXTREMELY right wing if they were involved in Irish politics. Most folks here only supported Kerry as the "lesser of two evils."

 

The right answer for us is libertarianism which does not fit the classic two dimensional spectrum of left-right politics.

Libertarianism says that both economic and civil rights should be maximized and government involvement should be minimized in both respects. It says that people are capable of self-governance and should be left alone unless they harm someone else.

 

People are not capable of self-governance though - we are all sinners.

 

I disagree. Self-governance is every bit as practical as being governed by other people who are likewise sinners.

Also when I say self-government, I am not referring to "no government" but rather government limited to protecting the nation and the right's of its people. By necessity, government must exist to prevent people from harming others. It is not necessary for government to meddle in the private lives and affairs of the people... even when the government or the people in question consider it for the "good".

Self-governance means allowing people maximum freedom but also the full responsibility for the consequences.

For instance, the US had a drug problem back in the 1920's. It was resolved before illicit drugs were declared illegal. People who became addicted bore the responsibility for their mistake... very publicly. It served as a deterent to others who might have tried drugs. The addicts themselves were cared for privately or else died.

As harsh as it may sound, fewer people suffered and the problem went away faster because these people were not relieved of the responsibility for their choices. No gov't programs or DEA or drug laws were necessary.

 

Scott
"Who are you (Europe) to say that we are going in the wrong direction?"
"
Bush is demanding that Europe goes in the same direction (throwing hissy fits when some countries disagree), that's why.

"'Trust me', if it was your Euros and blood that kept order in the world"
"
It is our euros and blood as well as your blood and dollars that keeps order.

 

Oh. So something is only in the national defense of the US if the EU thinks so?

The European intelligence agencies supported the notion that Saddam had WMD's. They, as revealed by Putin earlier this year, knew that Saddam had an interest in initiating or supporting terrorism against the US.

For about 45 years, America did more than any European country to protect Europe from the Soviet threat. That threat was at no time any more imminent than Saddam's threat to the US.

When you needed us, we were there. When we needed you, you started a philosophical debate.

We had every legitimate reason to expect your support.

It would be nearly impossible for Europe to ever pay back the dollars spent by the US to protect you. For more than a generation, you were able to institute things like socialized medicine because we were providing the bulk of your defense needs.

Only a few of us ever complained. However, quite a few of us are complaining now. We spent trillions to directly defend you. Now you won't even provide trainers to help stabilize Iraq's defense and police forces. Regardless of whether you agreed with the war to start with, it has to obviously be in your interests to stabilize Iraq.

Perhaps we were deluding ourselves about who our friends actually were/are.

 

Scott,

I agree that Europe owes us a lot, for what we did for them through much of the 20th century.

But I don't think it's fair to expect them to go along with a cause that they don't think is right.

It would be nice for us if it were France or Germany bogged down in a bloody, no-win war in Iraq. But, they have leaders who looked out for the interests of their own people. Lucky them.

 

I don't think it would be necessarily nice for us, if they did that. Like it or not, we are allies, and what weakens them, weakens us. If there are French and Germans gloating at our failures in Iraq, then they are very short-sighted.

 

Scott
"So something is only in the national defense of the US if the EU thinks so?"
"
Something is only in the national defense of the US if there is a real threat.

"The European intelligence agencies supported the notion that Saddam had WMD's."
"
Correction, the British ones did, afterwards it turned out for internal political reasons.

"We had every legitimate reason to expect your support."
"
Don't look at me, my country showed up and pitched in.
Although I suspect the Dutch government only participated because they wanted one of their own to become the civilian head of NATO.

"it has to obviously be in your interests to stabilize Iraq."
"
Some cynics would claim that it is more in the European interest to make sure that the US does not pull a stunt like Iraq again

"you were able to institute things like socialized medicine because we were providing the bulk of your defense needs."
"
It's closer to the truth to say that after missing the first half of the last 2 world wars the US stationed troops in Europe to be present at the start of number 3.

Pennsylvania Jim
France has that nice conflict in the Ivory Coast to get bogged down into.

 

Oh? How is that to be determined? By ignoring the intelligence consensus and hoping for the best?

We don't live in that world any more. We live in a world where airplanes fly into buildings... and the Saddams of the world host terrorist training camps and give scholarships and pensions to the families of terrorist "martyrs".

Maybe next time the plane will just fly low over Manhattan and detonate a nuclear bomb. Maybe next time they will put a biological agent in southern Lake Michigan.

All the "maybes" lead to the conclusion that when an enemy believed to be in possession of WMD's makes threats or has dangerous alliances to know terrorist organizations... the US can't afford to wait and see.

Some writers have it right. The terrorists have been at war with us since Carter. It took 9/11 for us to realize it.

"Afterwards" being the key operative. All of the objections have been raised "afterwards". But the votes were taken before... when no one was claiming that Saddam had come clean on the weapons.

Turns out that the French, Germans, Russians, and Annan had ulterior motives related to secret trade and the Oil-for-Food scandal.

Ah yes, the adults are going to chasten us children. Of course, the adults didn't see Hitler as an actionable threat until too late either.

So you think that European countries could have simultaneously provided their own adequate defense against the Soviets and built their welfare state? Surely you are not that irrational.

 

I agree Jim. It is almost as if there is a mindset that we only help nations to "buy them off" so that they will do whatever we want in the future.

 

So instead we should help nations so that when they no longer need our help they will violate sanctions that were mutually agreed upon against one of our sworn enemies?

Our loyalty to them was warranted when they asked for it but asking for loyalty in turn is wrong simply because we have been on the giving, rather than receiving, end?

 

My point remains, does lotyalty require nations to act against what they consider their self-interest? So are the nations of Europe committed to do whatever the US wants for the next 50, 75, 100 years?

If they had known that I think many nations would have said "Thanks, but no thanks."

Money does not give us the right to dictate their policies.

 

How was it strictly in the self interest of the US to post thousands of troops on the front to oppose the Soviets?

Committed to do whatever we want? No. But these issues go well beyond that.

BTW, they certainly think we should do whatever they want, ie. Kyoto, the Balkans, UN population control funding, etc.

 

Because you'd much rather that Europe was the first line of defence and battlefield rather than US soil? Or am I being unbelievably cynical? (Hint: I'm a Brit - we do that)

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

This remionds me of a time when we were having great financial difficulties. As Christians we were grateful when a couple came along and helped us out in several ways and helped us get through the crisis. Only later did I find that they had a purpose. When they wanted me to act in a certain way (leave the Christian school in which we were teaching and teach for them) they tired to use this as leverage. It was so bad that they kept the car of theirs that we were still using and we had to make our own way home from about 20 miles away.

Money can't you buy love, and it can't buy you allies.

<typo corrected>

[ December 08, 2004, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: C4K ]

 

I am not sure how you would calculate that. In the age of MAD, there was never a real threat that the USSR was going to invade the US. Was it calculated that we would get involved if the Soviets attacked western Europe? Yes. But our interests weren't directly linked to defending our own "soil".

To be honest, most of the justification was that we were your allies and had a common set of values concerning government and the rights of people.

 

So in other words, you think the US cold war policy of defending Europe was so that we could come back in the post-Cold War world and twist arms?

We were a good friend to Europe when they faced threats... even though many at the time didn't think those threats were credible. We said 'yes' to defending them without a direct threat to us. It isn't about the money.

It's about common cause and defense. We asked our allies to join us because we saw a threat to the US and its interests. Several said 'no'.

You can't buy friends but friendship isn't a one way street either. Not only did Germany, France, and several in the UN hierarchy not support us, they undermined our efforts and violated agreements.

 

So in other words, you think the US cold war policy of defending Europe was so that we could come back in the post-Cold War world and twist arms?

We were a good friend to Europe when they faced threats... even though many at the time didn't think those threats were credible. We said 'yes' to defending them without a direct threat to us. It isn't about the money.

It's about common cause and defense. We asked our allies to join us because we saw a threat to the US and its interests. Several said 'no'.

You can't buy friends but friendship isn't a one way street either. Not only did Germany, France, and several in the UN hierarchy not support us, they undermined our efforts and violated agreements. </font>[/QUOTE]Arguably, then, your interests were no more threatened in Western Europe by communism than they were in Vietnam - but you managed to get involved then. Something to do with dominoes, wasn't it?

Yours in Christ

Matt