Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The 'elder statesman' can't stop the brash young cowboy, if his mind is made up, unless the elder statesman also carries a gun.

Interesting statement. Obviously, H.C., what you mean by "if his mind is made up" is "if he is so bloody determined to do it that nothing short of a credible threat of war will make him reconsider, not trade sanctions, not diplomatic noncooperation, not loss of influence over the world's richest and most advanced economies."

This analysis misses a level of interaction. If Europe were armed to the point that they could, in theory, make a serious armed effort to block American action, that simple fact would compel America and everyone else to take their views more seriously, without the actual threat of war. It's a half-subconscious element of international relations.

The same principle, BTW, applies to the other means of persuasion. America takes Europe's views on things like trade policy quite seriously, and vice versa, because each side knows there's a risk if they don't. Bush backed off on the steel tarriffs precisely because Europe had a way to retaliate, and there was no percentage in escalating the dispute.
Europe likewise hesitates to push their hobby horses on trade past a certain point for similar reasons.

OTOH, neither Europe nor America has an incentive to take the trade views of governments such as India or Egypt altogether seriously, and they don't. Witness the endless (and largely futile) protests of the 'Third World' governments on the subject of agricultural supports.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

There is a difference in between US and Europe's level of militancy. After World War II, the United States decided that being a superpower was neat, and jumped into the role with considerable enthusiasm. Europe was far more traumatized by WW II. Our lesson learned was a need to contain tyrants. Their lesson learned was that war of aggression against powers with similar military power is a bad idea.

My experience with Europeans is that they kind of chuckle inside when they see big Hollywood movies about 'Pearl Harbor.'
Here is this day immortalized as the tragedy of tragedies, and how many guys did we lose? We certainly didn't lose a quarter of our population!
Many Europeans are reminded of the abysmal hell that was their lives from 1933-45 daily. Take a drive through downtown Warsaw and count the old buildings. They don't exist.
That ads up to an uneasiness with international conflict that American Boomers like Bush don't have. I have never thought Bush to be the guy who really understood war and how badly it fucks people up (I'm sorry but it's the only appropriate word.) He seems like the type of guy who has led a rather isolated and protected life who has internalized a steady diet of American propaganda. He hasn't led a life worthy of respect, he isn't a great orator, he doesn't come across as remotely intelligent, he is not able to speak off the cuff, unless he is letting some Davy Crocket: King of the Wild Frontier/Football Coach folkisms slip from his tongue like 'evil doers' and 'bring it on.'
Why should anyone in the international community be expected to treat him with anything other than cordial civility and private disdain?
He is an embarassment and has been treated by the world community as such. Europe is notoriously pompous and intellectual. They are also a little jealous that they have lots of brain power, and the world is run by some pea brained cowboy who spent the month before 9-11 on vacation, and who commands the support of wild army of obese gun toting, death penalty endearing, Bible thumping (most Europeans are quite secular, even the Italians) idiots - the kind who got pushed overseas so long ago because they were just so damn annoying.
Would you let Bush run free? Would you trust his logic? Would you let him start a war in a country far closer to yours than to his?
I wouldn't.

Originally Posted by Flicka

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

There is a difference in between US and Europe's level of militancy. After World War II, the United States decided that being a superpower was neat, and jumped into the role with considerable enthusiasm. Europe was far more traumatized by WW II. Our lesson learned was a need to contain tyrants. Their lesson learned was that war of aggression against powers with similar military power is a bad idea.

My experience with Europeans is that they kind of chuckle inside when they see big Hollywood movies about 'Pearl Harbor.'
Here is this day immortalized as the tragedy of tragedies, and how many guys did we lose? We certainly didn't lose a quarter of our population!
Many Europeans are reminded of the abysmal hell that was their lives from 1933-45 daily. Take a drive through downtown Warsaw and count the old buildings. They don't exist.
That ads up to an uneasiness with international conflict that American Boomers like Bush don't have. I have never thought Bush to be the guy who really understood war and how badly it fucks people up (I'm sorry but it's the only appropriate word.) He seems like the type of guy who has led a rather isolated and protected life who has internalized a steady diet of American propaganda. He hasn't led a life worthy of respect, he isn't a great orator, he doesn't come across as remotely intelligent, he is not able to speak off the cuff, unless he is letting some Davy Crocket: King of the Wild Frontier/Football Coach folkisms slip from his tongue like 'evil doers' and 'bring it on.'
Why should anyone in the international community be expected to treat him with anything other than cordial civility and private disdain?
He is an embarassment and has been treated by the world community as such. Europe is notoriously pompous and intellectual. They are also a little jealous that they have lots of brain power, and the world is run by some pea brained cowboy who spent the month before 9-11 on vacation, and who commands the support of wild army of obese gun toting, death penalty endearing, Bible thumping (most Europeans are quite secular, even the Italians) idiots - the kind who got pushed overseas so long ago because they were just so damn annoying.

They're free to look at Americans and Bush and American right-wingers any way they wish. But they have a problem, based in their very aversion to military power, unilaterialism, etc...

Would you let Bush run free? Would you trust his logic? Would you let him start a war in a country far closer to yours than to his?

That's the point: they have no say in the matter.

The very militarization that they so loathe means Bush gets to ignore their wishes when it suits him. If they're unwilling to play by those rules, then their objections don't count.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

That's the point: they have no say in the matter.

The very militarization that they so loathe means Bush gets to ignore their wishes when it suits him. If they're unwilling to play by those rules, then their objections don't count.

Nobody's objections count other than a handful of Bush family members and those with mutual business interests. And I think that's what some exasperated people all over the world were so miffed about.
We have no control over our own lives, and our annointed idiot may be just on the verge of leading us into a bloody crusade which we, not he, will pay for.
Wouldn't that make you just a little bit upset. The feeling of powerlessness. Lack of control over your life? The very man that supposedly represents your best interests making your life worse, possibly inciting more violence against you?
It's moments like these when you really feel you have a lot in common with those perfidious gauls, or Italian stallions, or Argentinians. We are all just ordinary people watching the idiots tear our world apart.

Originally Posted by Flicka

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

That's the point: they have no say in the matter.

The very militarization that they so loathe means Bush gets to ignore their wishes when it suits him. If they're unwilling to play by those rules, then their objections don't count.

Wouldn't that make you just a little bit upset. The feeling of powerlessness. Lack of control over your life? The very man that supposedly represents your best interests making your life worse, possibly inciting more violence against you?

It would it that were the case. Luckily, it's not.

But that does go back to the basic divide between the two common views of human nature.

That's how I interpret it, bro.
And there's nothing we can do about it, except vote - and who would even trust the results of a vote here anyway?
So, we're screwed. All of us.
We're all supposed to trust in the sanity, wisdom, and restraint of a man they call Shrub?

Oh well, I guess that's the end of the game.
Ho hum. :cry:

Originally Posted by Flicka

That's how I interpret it, bro.
And there's nothing we can do about it, except vote - and who would even trust the results of a vote here anyway?
So, we're screwed. All of us.
We're all supposed to trust in the sanity, wisdom, and restraint of a man they call Shrub?

Oh well, I guess that's the end of the game.
Ho hum. :cry:

Actually, my basic point operates independently of who is in the White House. It would still apply if Kerry wins, or if Dean had won. The Europeans might find that a little less annoying, but it would still leave them facing the same dilemma, in that their reluctance to rearm would leave them unable to do more than protest any American policy they didn't agree with. The 'deciding' power would remain American (to the degree that any one government has such power).

The presence of Bush, and their loathing of him, brings a basic trouble in the American/European relationship to the front burner, but it predates Bush. Having Bush in control of such power is like rubbing salt on an open wound from the point of view of many of the European elites, but without Bush, the power differential would still exist.

Muted complaints about their lack of influence on events were heard as far back as the Kosovo Operation, when it suddenly became apparent how far American military power had moved past Europe's.

I have a great deal of sympathy for Europe's revulsion at the use of force. The mass death in World Wars I and II dwarf what America experienced. But the dilemma isn't something that someone else imposes on Europe, it's just a part of the nature of the world.

The 'deciding' power would remain American (to the degree that any one government has such power).

This is true, H.C., but I question your belief that American military power is the only or main reason why. The U.S. also has the world's biggest economy and is a market for an awful lot of trade goods. Our military gives us clout really only with those countries that fear we might go to war with them, which includes no western European country (barring paranoia, which I suppose might happen from time to time). But our economic clout is almost as great, and usable in a lot more circumstances.

I also would like to observe that your parenthetical clause is well put, and that no one government really does have such power -- and pursuing policies based on the illusion that we do is quite dangerous.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Would you let Bush run free? Would you trust his logic? Would you let him start a war in a country far closer to yours than to his?

That's the point: they have no say in the matter.

The very militarization that they so loathe means Bush gets to ignore their wishes when it suits him. If they're unwilling to play by those rules, then their objections don't count.

There are limits on what Bush can do... if only self imposed. He has been very reluctant to raise taxes. After his father's experience, I suspect this will hold at least through November. If he isn't going to raise taxes very strongly, he is limited to his current sized military. Given the current sized military, he can't invade any more countries until he has gotten out of Iraq.

Europe's refusal to provide peace keeping troops is a significant break on Bush 43's preemptive unilateral policy. Bush 43 is aware of it. His language and attitude towards the UN and Europe have changed significantly since the difficulties of the occupation have become clearer.

Direct confrontation with military force isn't the only way to stop a brash young cowboy.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The 'deciding' power would remain American (to the degree that any one government has such power).

This is true, H.C., but I question your belief that American military power is the only or main reason why.

No, it's not the only reason, but it is the largest single reason, in the political arena. As I've noted in earlier posts, Europe wields influence in economic arenas to match or near-match America, and their voice is taken seriously as a result. But the military imbalance creates an unavoidable set of choices for Europe in political relations.