The Train Is Leaving the Station - By VD Hanson.

[Shaidar Haran]

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.

No, it's about the US stop pretending that these countries remain our allies or that they should have a say in US policy. Both sides should pursue their global agenda without bothering to pretend any loinger that it's not enlightened self interest.

[XPViking]

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?

Then we're even in our dislike for eople who oversimplify the issue.

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!"

You bring up a good point in regards to the political spectrum. But this whole idea of "Amerikuh iz bad" is, as I see it, a result of "You're with us or against us."

XPViking

[Stuart Mackey]

Well that was a crock o shite.
I was not aware that other nations were obliged to lie back and think of home while America did what it wanted.

[Edi]

That article was utter bullshit.

I don't disagree that America should perhaps reduce its military presence in some parts of the world. Fine. But in general the message was that nobody should criticize America without America's permission or there should be economic or other sort of retaliation for daring to disagree, and to that my reply to the author and those who support that view is to go fuck themselves up the ass with an electric cattleprod. You'll either support us and do what we'll say (or at the very least shut the fuck up), or you're one of the enemy, is what the author is saying.

Nations will pursue their interests, that's a given, but as Durran Korr said, there are different ways of doing it. The US has recently been doing it in a highly aggressive, force-driven manner, stepping on everyone else's toes big time (sometimes intentionally, sometimes accidentally), and even in the accidental cases it's been, instead of a cordial apology, more of a "get the fuck out of the way or you'll get hurt" message. Even to those who would be friends. If I behaved like that toward my friends, I'd not have any. Taking a pure "might makes right" approach to things will only get you so far before it simply runs out of steam, and trying to mend fences after it gets to that point will be fucking painful if at all possible in the first place.

Edi

[Stuart Mackey]

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.

No, it's about the US stop pretending that these countries remain our allies or that they should have a say in US policy. Both sides should pursue their global agenda without bothering to pretend any loinger that it's not enlightened self interest.

And it never occurd to you that this attitude is why you have so many problems on the planet in the first place?

[Stormbringer]

And it never occurd to you that this attitude is why you have so many problems on the planet in the first place?

What? The acknowledgement that countries are run on the basis of enlightened self interest? American should acknowledge the fact that the political alliances of the Cold War are gone now and that we need to look after our own interests and those of our actual allies. If a nations want to go their own ways, fine, but we should no longer tie our foriegn policy to their wants and desires against our own best interests.

[Colonel Olrik]

Incidentally, those same U.S troops and bases on E.U soil that the farmer wants out came up to be really handy in this and other ME wars.

What? Does anyone really believe that we want americans in Germany because we fear they'll go into an invasion spree again? The guy is on heavy medication. Regarding others, the E.U is a stable block with the means of defending itself from any nation, including the U.S (big nukes <=> MAD).

[Stormbringer]

Incidentally, those same U.S troops and bases on E.U soil that the farmer wants out came up to be really handy in this and other ME wars.

Yes, they did. But why bother forcing our selves on nations that clearly don't want us? He's advocating leaving the bases we are no longer welcome at. The fact is we're distinctly unwelcome in a lot of places even if they ought to know better.

What? Does anyone really believe that we want americans in Germany because we fear they'll go into an invasion spree again? The guy is on heavy medication. Regarding others, the E.U is a stable block with the means of defending itself from any nation, including the U.S (big nukes <=> MAD).

He might be exagerating, but there is the same sort of nationalistic chest thumping which as it seeped into public policy contributed to both World Wars. Not that it's going to go down that road but the problems of even nationalistic posturing will certainly be something to bare in mind.

The EU is stable, for now, but it's not guarenteed to stay that way. You don't erase millenia of national identity overnight. What the future of the EU is remains an different discussion. That's also something to consider when bragging about any sort of defense.

And the US is hardly likely to invade the European Union much less start a nuclear war. To even suggest that is the same sort of paranoia that you point out in the article.

[Colonel Olrik]

Yes, they did. But why bother forcing our selves on nations that clearly don't want us? He's advocating leaving the bases we are no longer welcome at. The fact is we're distinctly unwelcome in a lot of places even if they ought to know better.

Most countries do want to cooperate with the U.S, in therms of friendship, protection and mutual interest. There's no question, for instance, of taking the U.S base out of Portugal. The author seems to have an isolacionist view of the problem:we're there doing them a favour, they criticize, then we pull out. As far as I know, there are no massive cries for the U.S to pull out of the E.U countries, at least in Europe. Of course, those troops are expensive and maybe a waste of money, but that's a different issue.

He might be exagerating, but there is the same sort of nationalistic chest thumping which as it seeped into public policy contributed to both World Wars. Not that it's going to go down that road but the problems of even nationalistic posturing will certainly be something to bare in mind.

The chest thumping before was WW1 was different. Each nation had its own little empire, and wanted to achieve world supremacy. Now what we see are some dumb politicians, once in a while, making uncalled for political remarks, while the E.U keeps on going.

And the US is hardly likely to invade the European Union much less start a nuclear war. To even suggest that is the same sort of paranoia that you point out in the article.

Yeah

I just meant that we don't need the U.S to protect ourselves. What we lack is projection power, not defensive power. We can't wage war on the other side of the world without being assisted by the U.S, but no one can touch us on our grounds.

[Joe]

Most countries do want to cooperate with the U.S, in therms of friendship, protection and mutual interest. There's no question, for instance, of taking the U.S base out of Portugal. The author seems to have an isolacionist view of the problem:we're there doing them a favour, they criticize, then we pull out. As far as I know, there are no massive cries for the U.S to pull out of the E.U countries, at least in Europe. Of course, those troops are expensive, but that's a different issue.

Of course there isn't, most of the countries with a U.S. troop presence benefit enormously by virtue of their presence. I mean, they get to essentially free-ride of the richest country in the world for a relatively low social cost; that's not a bad deal. Except for the Americans who foot the bill.

[Colonel Olrik]

Of course there isn't, most of the countries with a U.S. troop presence benefit enormously by virtue of their presence. I mean, they get to essentially free-ride of the richest country in the world for a relatively low social cost; that's not a bad deal. Except for the Americans who foot the bill.

Yes, of course. But you need those bases to control the airspace, and to be prepared to attack offensive countries. No one said waging wars comes cheap. But don't overestimate the benefits to our economy of having a few thousands americans troops in a small region of our territory. If they left, it wouldn't be a great deal, economically speaking (except for that particular Azores town, of course).

[Joe]

Of course there isn't, most of the countries with a U.S. troop presence benefit enormously by virtue of their presence. I mean, they get to essentially free-ride of the richest country in the world for a relatively low social cost; that's not a bad deal. Except for the Americans who foot the bill.

Yes, of course. But you need those bases to control the airspace, and to be prepared to attack offensive countries. No one said waging wars comes cheap. But don't overestimate the benefits to our economy of having a few thousands americans troops in a small region of our territory. If they left, it wouldn't be a great deal, economically speaking (except for that particular Azores town, of course).

I'm not referring to Portugal so much as I'm referring to countries where the need for defense is more apparent, like Japan, South Korea, and to a much lesser extent Germany. These nations benefit ENORMOUSLY economically by virtue of the U.S. footing their defense bill.

[Stormbringer]

Most countries do want to cooperate with the U.S, in therms of friendship, protection and mutual interest. There's no question, for instance, of taking the U.S base out of Portugal. The author seems to have an isolacionist view of the problem:we're there doing them a favour, they criticize, then we pull out. As far as I know, there are no massive cries for the U.S to pull out of the E.U countries, at least in Europe. Of course, those troops are expensive and maybe a waste of money, but that's a different issue.

I think in terms of the EU in general that yes, the US and the EU will reutrn to decent terms but there's no question our long term interests are diverging. That's not to say the US won't cooperate with you and you can't help us out. But both sides need to realize that national interests dictate govern policy, foreign and domestically.

I agree that we are unlikely to pull out of European bases nor are is there public demand for it. He's talking about places like Korea and Japanwhere they have made that sort of outcry. He's saying that the US needs to stop protecting them unwillingly. Simply do as they ask and let them screw themselves over with policies.

The chest thumping before was WW1 was different. Each nation had its own little empire, and wanted to achieve world supremacy. Now what we see are some dumb politicians, once in a while, making uncalled for political remarks, while the E.U keeps on going.

There's no question though that it's a different situation but nationalism is nationalism. Unrestrained nationalism was the cause of WW1 and WW2. It's not just bonehead remarks but a growing sentiment that could lead to any number of problems down the road.

And it isn't limited to the EU. Without the polarizing effects of the Cold War nationalism is growing worldwide.

Yeah

I just meant that we don't need the U.S to protect ourselves. What we lack is projection power, not defensive power. We can't wage war on the other side of the world without being assisted by the U.S, but no one can touch us on our grounds.

No, so long as the EU hold together you're fine for defense. But frankly if you want to actually be a credible military force, power projection is a must. Even more so if you want to stamp out all the bush wars; especially after alienating the US.

[The_Nice_Guy]

Yup, the EU was very effective in governing its own backyard, as evidenced by the Bosnian crisis.

Oh wait a minute...

The Nice Guy

[Colonel Olrik]

Yup, the EU was very effective in governing its own backyard, as evidenced by the Bosnian crisis.

Oh wait a minute...

The Nice Guy

Last time I checked, Serbia isn't E.U, nor was it attacking us. It was precisely the logistic involved in coordination and transportation of men and means to another country that was non existant, as well as a strong political will.

Or are you suggesting that Serbia could have invaded us?

Anyway, things are getting better. Very slowly, but it's moving in the right direction.

[The_Nice_Guy]

On its very doorstep, the EU was pretty impotent.

Perhaps the US should pull out sooner in order to give the EU that more impetus to build up their own defenses. I dunno, but they seem just a bit too complacent to me.

The Nice Guy

[theski]

Maybe The Colonel can address this.. The Eu is incredibly top heavy in politicians and with have the same types of problems in coming to a concensus as the UN..

[Colonel Olrik]

Maybe The Colonel can address this.. The Eu is incredibly top heavy in politicians and with have the same types of problems in coming to a concensus as the UN..

The UN is far, far worse. The choices for the security council are assinine (wtf are countries like Angola doing there?) and have no reason to cooperate (no ties, diferent interests, etc).

What you currently have in the E.U is that the major decisions of the council must be approved by all countries, and not by simple majority. Obviously, that brings difficulties to any decison making process. But all the countries share the same basic views, and are linked politically and economically.

The decision taking process is being reformed, along with the making of the E.U Constitution. Things will change, making it easier for the E.U to act in one voice.

As far as the number of politics are concerned, I don't think there are more here than in the U.S. The difference is that in the U.S there is a strong federal government which speaks much louder than other voices, while in a pre-federal E.U, with a weaker government, the countries have presidents who love to speak to the outside.

[Stuart Mackey]

And it never occurd to you that this attitude is why you have so many problems on the planet in the first place?

What? The acknowledgement that countries are run on the basis of enlightened self interest? American should acknowledge the fact that the political alliances of the Cold War are gone now and that we need to look after our own interests and those of our actual allies. If a nations want to go their own ways, fine, but we should no longer tie our foriegn policy to their wants and desires against our own best interests.

Concesion accepted.

[The_Nice_Guy]

Here's an interesting piece on the EU.
http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/c ... 040803.asp

I think Europe should streamline its bureaucracy. If anything, red tape is what's slowing them down and making them drag their heels.

The military spending described is also quite shocking. Of course, considering that no single european nation has the spending power of the US, this is only to be expected, but it's still an obstacle to the revamping of a common military force for the EU.

The 47% budget subsidy for agriculture is even worse. Do they really need those subsidies? With the nations of East Europe coming in, wouldn't it make more sense for them to rely on those nations(primary producer states) as the new breadbasket of Europe(giving them those subsidies, to a limit) and for the more developed nations to concentrate more on science, technology, and manufacturing?

The Nice Guy

[AdmiralKanos]

The 47% budget subsidy for agriculture is even worse. Do they really need those subsidies?

They're probably a response to Shrubby's drastic increases in American agriculture subsidies.

[The_Nice_Guy]

I think those subsidies were in place before Shrub got the presidency.

So there must be some other reason.

The Nice Guy

[Colonel Olrik]

I think those subsidies were in place before Shrub got the presidency.

So there must be some other reason.

The Nice Guy

French farmers are rich overfed lazy bastards. That's the damned reason.

Almost all the funds go to them, and they are a huge, noisy and annoying pressure group.

[Tsyroc]

French farmers are rich overfed lazy bastards. That's the damned reason.

Almost all the funds go to them, and they are a huge, noisy and annoying pressure group.

They seem to like to block up the roads every couple of years to get some new concession from the government.

[The_Nice_Guy]

But as large as their demographics are, surely they aren't as numerous as the non-farmers of France and the other EU countries. There's no reason why they(and other EU farmers) receive the bulk of the budget, which is drawn from the GDP of all EU nations. I suspect that is a significant faultline in the EU. Certainly, I can imagine the british screaming to pull out if they feel that they're giving nothing but money to French farmers.

Sure, France is a democracy, and the government might get voted out if they don't satisfy the French people, but why does the EU need to pander to the French government so much in the first place?

The Nice Guy