The Train Is Leaving the Station - By VD Hanson.

[Darth Wong]

Tell me, Duchess, this "the last 60 years was an historical aberration" theme of yours is strongly recurrent. Why does that mean that we're better off going to the way it was before? Are you suggesting that the way it was before is superior?

[The Duchess of Zeon]

You clearly are out to lunch then.

XPViking

No, I'm not. I just realize that all national credibility in the geopolitical realm comes from power, and power comes from the barrel of the gun.

[XPViking]

No, I'm not. I just realize that all national credibility in the geopolitical realm comes from power, and power comes from the barrel of the gun.

Are you Mao?

XPViking

[weemadando]

Of course. That's why I can state that with utter confidence.

You clearly are out to lunch then.

XPViking
8)

Everyone, on the count of three.

1, 2, 3...

FUQ.

[Darth Wong]

No, I'm not. I just realize that all national credibility in the geopolitical realm comes from power, and power comes from the barrel of the gun.

Are you Mao?

Actually, I believe she's quoting Lenin.

[Joe]

That is simply untrue. All three of these pursued aggressive expansionist foreign policy, far different from just minding their own business and telling the rest of the world to fuck off.

Mike pegged it perfectly, Durran. They pursued their interests. And so shall we. That doesn't mean, of course, that our interests can't be different from those of the other nations mentioned. Indeed, they're primarily economic as opposed to territorial.

The Swiss pursue their own interests, but their diplomatic style/foreign policy could not possibly be more different than that of Nazi Germany, the Roman Empire, and the USSR. It's obvious that every country is going to pursue its own interests primarily - that's almost a given - but you can't just write off that primary drive of foreign policy as being the same across the board, because these interests vary so widely from nation to nation, and the means by which they are pursued vary greatly as well.

[Steve]

In my opinion it's time the US starts looking out for it's real allies and tells the rest of the world to get bent. We're hardly imperialist but as soon as the US does something for it's own good we get mobbed like we're the Third Riech, USSR and the Roman fucking Empire all in one.

Interestingly enough, "looking out for its real allies and telling the rest of the world to get bent" was precisely the diplomatic style of the Third Reich, the USSR, and the Roman fucking Empire.

And of the British Empire ("Britain has no eternal friends nor eternal enemies, Britain has only eternal interests" - Palmerston), and of Richelieu's France (Richelieu, a Catholic Cardinal in de facto control of France, joins the German Thirty Year War on the side of Protestants against France's political enemies, the Catholic Hapsburgs, for the political gain of France, instead of helping fellow Catholics put down the "heretics"), of the Athenians, and of the Spartans, and of many nations throughout history.

It's a fact of life. Nation-States will look out for their own interests. During the Cold War, the world polarized because of the struggle between capitalism and Communism, which caused nations of both persuasions to align because of the common threat while Third World nations played both sides against each other for their own gain (much like Persia's Great Kings playing the Greek poleis against each other to safeguard their Asian frontier, which worked until Phillip and Alexander destroyed Greek autonomy, unified Hellas, and marched east).

How about Bismarck, who allied with Austria against Denmark, then moved against Austria with Italy, then marched against France and after the unification of Germany allied with Austria and Russia?

Then you've got the British, French, and Russians allying to win Greek freedom from the Ottoman Empire, then the British and French aiding the Ottomans against Russia in the Crimean War just three decades later.

Perhaps I should point out the Quasi War, just twenty years after the American Revolution kicked off, where the French fought their former allies in America in a naval conflict?

Alliances and policy changes with the times. All Nations act to further their own interests. Our interests during the Cold War coincided with most of Europe: keeping the Communists contained. Today, they're different, thus, points of contention can and have developed, and will continue to develop.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Tell me, Duchess, this "the last 60 years was an historical aberration" theme of yours is strongly recurrent. Why does that mean that we're better off going to the way it was before? Are you suggesting that the way it was before is superior?

Not necessarily - But rather that something better than it is historically unsustainable. It cannot be permanent. Just like Pax Romana lasted two centuries at best, or the British Empire's peace lasted a century. Peace is imposed through power on the geopolitical level and it cannot be sustained. The UN was a peace of aberration - It was created by the deadlock of two equal powers.

When one fell we have the chaos that now exists. That chaos is bound to last until a dominant power reasserts itself again to impose peace on the world. All things considered that will probably be the USA. And so things will continue as they always have throughout history.

Let me emphasize: It was an aberration mainly because it was created by the matching of two broadly equal powers. Had there just been the USA after WWII, we would have seen the exact same era of relative peace, but it would have been under the American Empire, and it would probably still last today. The UN was a mere byproduct of this aberration of matched superpowers, nothing more.

I fully expect another era of comparative peace and tranquility like that under it (the world is normally a much more violent place, as the 90s showed when the system began to collapse) - But it will come under the reign and domination of a single hegemon. These eras are always preferable to the eras in which many nations vie for the position of hegemon. But you cannot make an era of Pax permanent. It's not a new state in human organization - It's simply a transitory domination of the power structure.

[Stormbringer]

Tell me, Duchess, this "the last 60 years was an historical aberration" theme of yours is strongly recurrent. Why does that mean that we're better off going to the way it was before? Are you suggesting that the way it was before is superior?

It was a situation caused not by an true long term friendship (with a few exceptions) but rather by self interest. The nations which supported us did so because their choices were us or the soviets. With the collapse of the Soviet Union there is no longer the impetus to choose a side and instead we see things returning to normal; nations pursuing their own interests without regard to fuzzy psuedo-friendships.

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Actually, I believe she's quoting Lenin.

Actually, I was paraphrasing Mao. Sometimes despots - the intelligent ones - prove themselves useful sources of information on the operation of the power state and power diplomacy. They understand what goes wrong and how to make it go wrong, after all - They caused it to happen themselves to get where they were.

[Joe]

Actually, I believe she's quoting Lenin.

Actually, I was paraphrasing Mao. Sometimes despots - the intelligent ones - prove themselves useful sources of information on the operation of the power state and power diplomacy. They understand what goes wrong and how to make it go wrong, after all - They caused it to happen themselves to get where they were.

So true. Stalin's infamous quote about a million deaths being a statistic; it's barbaric, it's disgusting, but at the same time it is absolutely correct.

[Stormbringer]

Actually, I believe she's quoting Lenin.

Actually, I was paraphrasing Mao. Sometimes despots - the intelligent ones - prove themselves useful sources of information on the operation of the power state and power diplomacy. They understand what goes wrong and how to make it go wrong, after all - They caused it to happen themselves to get where they were.

So true. Stalin's infamous quote about a million deaths being a statistic; it's barbaric, it's disgusting, but at the same time it is absolutely correct.

For that matter Machiavelli, he's treated like a monster but he demostrates a far keener grasp on political and social reality than most political theorists.

[Joe]

Poor Machiavelli, he actually was a pretty decent guy who had a great love of liberty. Unfrotunately, the fact that people are uncomfortable with how insightful he was has led them to believe otherwise.

[Stormbringer]

Poor Machiavelli, he actually was a pretty decent guy who had a great love of liberty. Unfrotunately, the fact that people are uncomfortable with how insightful he was has led them to believe otherwise.

I've read The Prince and some of his other writings in class last year. The man had a very keen grasp of political reality and was certianly no monster. He just knew the system and didn't spare people's tender sensibilities when discussing the subjective. He didn't advocate atrocity or underhanded techniques so much as discuss them frankly.

[Joe]

The Prince is a great book, quite an eye-opener for a 10th grade history student. Brutally honest.

[Coyote]

Of course. That's why I can state that with utter confidence.

You clearly are out to lunch then.

XPViking

Are you in the same camp as "there are no US troops at the Baghdad Airport" types?

[XPViking]

Then you are misunderstood the quote. Mao meant that the Communists would have never been able to come to power without a successful violent revolution. You are adding in your own doctrine to the quote. Here’s the full quote:

"Every Communist must grasp the truth, 'Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.' Our principle is that the [Communist] Party commands the gun and the gun will never be allowed to command the Party."

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_c ... 2/mao.html

No one is denying Duchess that nations pursue their own interests, it’s how they do it which makes other nations sit up and take notice. That’s what Durran Korr basically said earlier and I think it’s necessary to quote it again to emphasize the point:

The Swiss pursue their own interests, but their diplomatic style/foreign policy could not possibly be more different than that of Nazi Germany, the Roman Empire, and the USSR. It's obvious that every country is going to pursue its own interests primarily - that's almost a given - but you can't just write off that primary drive of foreign policy as being the same across the board, because these interests vary so widely from nation to nation, and the means by which they are pursued vary greatly as well.

That’s why nations such as China get such a bad rap when it comes to “credibility”, especially in regards to foreign policy. Obviously Duchess you seem to come from the school of “Might makes Right” and try to pass that off as “Well, that’s how things are” or “That’s life”. For some reason I’m reminded of the part in 1984 when Winston Smith was forced to see 5 fingers instead of 4 or risk further torture. It doesn’t have to be that way. Maybe I’m just too idealistic.

XPViking

[XPViking]

Are you in the same camp as "there are no US troops at the Baghdad Airport" types?

No. I don't believe that Might makes right though. Don't try to put me in the same group of people who are blind to the obvious or label me as an Iraqi sympathizer or something. It is possible to be familiar with how the world works and want it changed you know.

XPViking

[Coyote]

Hanson's article is correct-- there is no longer any need to tie ourselves down to France and Germany and ask them "mother may I" before we change our socks.

The EU should do its own thing and we don't need to look over their shoulder when it comes ot the Balkans, Baltic States, Cyprus or Turkey. Let them handle their own backyard. We should pull out our bases-- isn't that what they want?

That's why I say a lot of the critics of America cannot be taken too seriously-- they will kvetch about America no matter what we do.

[XPViking]

Coyote,

So you don't like people criticizing America? For fuck's sake, it's possible to offer constructive criticism, and I'm tired of some Americans lumping all people who actually do that as "anti-American" (not that you have Coyote but some folks do). I don't want to see America as a country burn or anything like that but I believe Bush needs to rethink how he handles things. Weemadando already offered a solution regarding American foreign policy earlier in this thread:

EASY. You take a nice moderate middle-of-the-road course of action. So far the US has alienated too many nations. Many more and it risks becoming a diplomatic pariah.

XPViking

[Coyote]

Viking, I'm not saying that "might makes right" myself but sometimes might is the only recourse. There are a lot of dictatorships out there thar abuse thehell outof human rights and they are not going to stop just because we send them a Hallmark card asking them to be civil.

There are people out there that can, and will , take what they want from people and see any attempt to reason, talk, discuss or negotiate as a sign of weakness. It was a compelling moment in the Carter presidency when he realized that, after giving the Soviets the benefit of the doubt and trying to cooperate with them, they still rolled into Afghanistan basically just because they thought they could.

Hanson doesn't advocate American empire per se, but a realignment of America's powers and interests. Along more realistic lines. This means fat cat Europeans who think they know everything and can make a living of pissing in our Cheerios are cordially invited to go their own course without any more influence from the US beyond normal trade relations.

[Coyote]

Coyote,

So you don't like people criticizing America? ...

I don't mind the honest and constructive; it is the mindless bumper-stickering that I am weary of. Things like "No war for oil!" and similar bleats. Not that I have seen this from you, personally. But Ando's reaction to the Hanson article made me wonder-- Hanson said we should pull out of a lot of areas, pull out militarily, and Ando criticized it as right-wing tripe.

That's when I have to say, what do the critics want? Really?

Weemadando already offered a solution regarding American foreign policy earlier in this thread:

EASY. You take a nice moderate middle-of-the-road course of action. So far the US has alienated too many nations. Many more and it risks becoming a diplomatic pariah.

XPViking

But what is "moderate?" Leaving countries alone and not staging overseas bases is now seen as "right-wing"? It really does seem, sometimes, that the only way for the US to be "moderate" is to do nothing in the face of treaty and human-rights violations... Hanson seems to propse doing exactly what the left wants and even that draws ire; hence my theory that it is not about issues, it is about "Amerikuh iz bad!"

[Crown]

Well that article was the closest thing I have read to tripe since... Well since the last time Duchess posted a thread really.

Far from making the United States hegemonic, the success in Iraq will have a sobering effect on Americans. Contrary to pundits the hard-fought Anglo-American victory will not make us into hegemonists, but simply less naïve about tradition-bound relationships and the normal method of doing business. I would expect military spending to increase, even as reluctance grows to get involved with any of our traditional allies. Given billions of dollars in foreign aid, the past salvation of Europe from the Soviet juggernaut, and a half-century of protection under our nuclear shield, the old way was supposed to work something like the following.

By definition hegenomy is a dominition of one power or state in a league. America has been a hegenomy in world politics for many years, today it has set it's authority by not even pretending to follow the context of international law and inforcing it's will on the world. Hegenomy? Check.

At worse France and Germany would quietly call Mr. Powell. They would explain their predicaments and then abstain at the U.N., ensuring passage of a second decree. The traditionally wise and savvy German diplomats — conscious of everything from the Berlin Airlift to the American promise to pledge New York to preserve Bonn from a Soviet nuclear strike — would cherish American goodwill toward the German people, grimace somewhat, and then say something like: “We believe you are wrong; but we are not going to ruin a half-century of mutual amity over a two-bit fascist Iraq. So good luck, win, and let us pray that you, not we, are right — for both our sakes.”

A Turkish prime minister would learn from Tony Blair, and thus explain to his parliament the historic and critical relationship with the United States, while vigorously campaigning to win approval for our armored divisions to hit Iraq from the north to help shorten a controversial war.

Mexico and Canada would complain privately, but express North American solidarity. In other words, sober and sane Western statesmen would swallow their pique at a powerful United States acting unilaterally, seek to provide it diplomatic cover, and quietly accept that a removal of a mass-murdering dictator was in all liberal states’ interests.

Instead, just the opposite happened, and so we must eventually react to this radical realignment that brought it about.

At worst? AT WORST? Since when is a state that is 'not a hegenomy' allowed to dictate the behaivour of other democratic states, and their foriegn policy? At worst, America should have said we value the opinions of our allies, but in this instance disagreement will lead to in-action and this is not prefferable. However instead we got; You're either with us or against us, and 'Old Europe'. This cunt can go fuck himself.

I would expect that we all will smile, still extend some minor aid, but simmer on the inside and quietly and professionally take steps to ensure that we are never put in such a position again. We should, without fanfare, bow out of Turkish-EU discussions, and let Europe and Turkey on their own decide the wisdom of allowing an Islamic country into the “liberal” European confederation. The EU can handle Cyprus. Who knows, maybe Brussels will be forced to reward Turkish recalcitrance toward America with renewed subsidies and membership — and who cares? So in the eleventh hour of this war, the democratic government of Turkey must pass some decree, if only symbolic, that they value our friendship and wish us to win in Iraq.

Who the fuck asked to to 'bow into the Turkish-EU' discussion in the first place? Ohh and thankyou so much for having faith in our ability to 'solve the Cyprus' issue, and issue that was orchastred by non-other than you! An issue that had Kissengers dirty little hands in it. Thank you ever so.

And then there is the madness of Europe. It is time to speak far more softly and carry a far larger stick. France may be right that we all have really come to the end of history — and so we should give them an opportunity to prove it, to match deed with word by being delighted as we withdraw troops from Germany. Germany may or may not be embracing the frightening old nationalist rhetoric — but again that will be France’s problem, not ours. Let us hope that the more sober in Germany can still grasp at what Mr. Schroeder has nearly thrown away, and see that few superpowers have given it so much and asked for so little in return — and genuinely wish it to do well.

Germany invading the rest of Europe again... Tell me Duchess, did the formation of the EU (and all it's predecessors) totally go by this 'farmers' attention. Given so much and asked for so little? Lets see; Greece in 1941 was the only ally to the UK, while the US stood back and did nothing, this little poor un-developed country, resisted longer than any other nation in a land war against Germany. It delayed the German invasion of Russia by 2 to 3 months. All it asked for in return (after being abonded to fight a civil war from 45-49) was recognition. What did it get? The junta. Once again thankyou ever so much.

There are soooooooo many holes in this 'argument' but why bother?

Tell me, do you believe that people one day just wake up and say; I think I am going to be Anti-American from now on? No, the truth is American Imperialism has been going on for a long time, after the collapse of the Soviet Union (which was used to justify US policies), there was a brief lapse and some breathing space.

Now with the current administration, we are seeing an deperate reach into past glories, unfortunately a mis-calculation since most of the world is now aware of the US's dirty work in the past. For fucks sake, who do you think you guys are?

[Sriad]

At worse France and Germany would quietly call Mr. Powell. They would explain their predicaments and then abstain at the U.N., ensuring passage of a second decree. The traditionally wise and savvy German diplomats — conscious of everything from the Berlin Airlift to the American promise to pledge New York to preserve Bonn from a Soviet nuclear strike — would cherish American goodwill toward the German people, grimace somewhat, and then say something like: “We believe you are wrong; but we are not going to ruin a half-century of mutual amity over a two-bit fascist Iraq. So good luck, win, and let us pray that you, not we, are right — for both our sakes.”

Oh for fuck's sake. Apparently "wisdom" consists of "kowtowing to the obviously superior United States."

This article isn't talking about America no longer needing permission from other countries to do things, it's talking about other countries needing America's permission to disagree with American policy. At least, the part I could force myself to read was; I didn't get far beyond that paragraph.

[The_Nice_Guy]

And as an added caveat to the "America is bad!" statement:

"Everything Bush does is bad!"

Why?

"Because he's an idiot!"



The Nice Guy