With its overwhelming vote against the Israeli security fence/wall/barrier, the United Nations General Assembly has once again proven itself to be the enabler of Palestinian fascism in its theocratic and just plain thug/totalitarian costumes. Sometimes I think the UN’s motivation is actually unconscious sadism toward the Palestinian people because yet another UN ratification of the “righteousness of their cause” is exactly what they don’t need. It gives Arafat, the Sadist in Chief, more pseudo-moral rationalization (as if he needed any) for continuing to torture his own people, robbing them blind while encourging their children to emulate suicide bombers (an act of child abuse on the level of Saddam Hussein or Hitler… and in this case it’s not even much of an exaggeration). It also continues the blame-Israel psychosis that has eaten the Arab world alive, keeping them impoverished and locked in illiteracy. Shame on the Brits for playing along with this decrepit, immoral policy. At least the Aussies are waking up, able to see through it. Kudos to them.
I’m sure some “progressive thinkers” will remind us that the Israelis are not building their wall on the Green Line. Get real. Countries are not saints. (Even saints are usually not saints.) That horse ran out of the barn after the Camp David talks when the Israelis made a solid offer to Arafat and he never even countered. Then they started blowing up Israelis. But even so, would I build closer to the Green Line? Yeah, I probably would. I’m a softie (probably too much). But I’m not the Prime Minister of Israel, in case you haven’t noticed, and I don’t have his population to deal with. I also don’t have to deal with school children being blown up on buses. As I said, get real. The UN certainly isn’t…. But then we knew that, didn’t we? (Oil-for-Food about destroyed the UN’s moral credit forever.)
[Wow, that was some rant.--ed. Well, somebody asked.]
Not building the fence on the Green Line also gives Israel a potential carrot to offer to the Palestinians later (post-Arafat, post-civil war.)
Roger,
The passage of this atrocity was a forgone conclusion. But the magnitude of the vote was a terrible thing.
Only Australia, among what could be called a major country, had the balls to stand up and be counted.
The force and power of transnationalism, anti Americanism. anti-Israel(semitism) was like a death blow to any hope for a near term solution to the fanatic jihad crusade against the infidel western Christian nations.
Everyone should read or reread Lee Harris’ Civilization and Its Enemies.
Be afraid, very afraid. A very bad decade lies ahead. And only a part of America cares.
Well, I think that, while not necessarily agreeing with, you have to give credence to the other side sincerely believing in what they say. The far left seems to have done a weird melding of Marxism and the old colonial economic model of Mother Countries enriching themselves at the expense of colonies. As a result they view U.S. Capitalism as cynically and greedily deepening the poverty and misery of the Third World. Thus they believe the Third World has legitimate grievances against the West, and it is incumbant upon the West to address those grievences. In short, the war has been caused by the West.
I don’t agree with that line of thought at all, but I can follow the logic of it. The Collectivists in the EU and the UN can ignore the Sudan, because addressing that issue doesn’t strike to what they see as the root of the problem. On the other hand, Isreal is vastly more affluent than the Third Worlders, so they must be part of root of the problem.
I think a little patience is needed with our Western Collectivist knuckleheads, I believe they eventually will come around. I say that because I see three blocks orbiting each other in the conflict. The Conservative Capitalists, the Collectivists, and the Islamists. I believe the root of the war is not in Western actions or inactions, but in the decay of Islam as a world power. It is not surprising to me that educated Arabs are leading the Jihad. The can see most clearly the disparity between the Secular West and Islam. They can also see most clearly that Modernity both erodes their religion and seduces their people. Not wanting to surrender to the West, they create an eratz orthodoxy that will bring Allah’s favor back to them. Ghostdancers.
As much as we shy away from the notion, this is a religious war. As such, once the Collectivists realize they are kaffirs just like the Capitalists, who are they going to side with?
You could also remind the “progressive thinkers” that a wall or fence could be easily moved (or even removed) if the Palestinians cared to end their threats to Israel and seriously negotiate a peace agreement.
The double standard to which Jews are held is mind boggling.
When nations win wars, the victors can take the land.
When the Germans lost WW2, the Sudeten Germans were booted out by the victors. So too were those Germans who had settled in Poland and parts of the former Third Reich’s possessions. Entire families traveled on foot back to Germany.
France and Germany fought over Alscace-Lorraine for ages, with possession shifting back and forth, depending on who won and who lost the latest conflict.
Only the Jews — surrounded by a sea of Arabs dedicated to the destruction of their nation — are called on to abide by international borders never recognized by their enemies.
To the extend that any blame attaches to the Israelis, it is a result of them not being cruel enough.
Had they done like the Soviets, Czechs and Poles in 1945-46 and forced the vanquished across the river into Jordan, there would today be no PLO, for Jordanians *are* Palestinians. The refugees would have been absorbed into Jordan and Israel would have no group of embittered Arabs within its borders, claiming eternal victimhood.
ambisinistral,
It may already be too late for the Collectivists.
By the time they realize what is happening to them, modern industrial economies may have collapsed.
The war is now, not ten years from now. And we are in the hands of PR firms spinning lead into gold.
I used to marvel at the muslim myth of 4000 Jews being told not to go to work in the WTC on Sept 11th. And yet, here in our country we have large minorities believing other myths. Bush Lied. People Died. M.Moore and his myths. ad infinitum.
It is becoming very clear to me that the Nazi Holocaust was not a bizarre abberation, but an all-too-familiar satanic pathology of human collective behavior.
It is clear that today this same pathology is burning virulently through the minds of vast numbers of people around the world in the guise of Anti-American and Anti-Zionism (which are pretty much about the same thing).
I would not be surprised to see in the space of 5 or 10 years the alliance of the likes of Chirac and the Mullahs in a new conflict with the United States and Israel. The basic motivations of this new mental disease are a sense of lost past greatness, jealousy at the new order, and a deep sense of grievance against the hyperpower whose dominance through free markets has put their countries to shame.
In fact, it would not surprise me if the nuclear terror which we fear will strike our cities will use tritium-enhanced devices, courtesy of our “allies” the French. The hate is getting more and more out of control, and this level of hatred leads to insanity. We think of the Europeans as “refined” and “civilized” but the history of the past 100 years could lead to other conclusions.
Roger
I’m afraid the Brits don’t exist anymore,whilst Blair has used our armed forces to help free Iraq,Tony Blair has been busy selling us into the bondage of the Greater European Co-Prosperity Group.It will not be long before an EU representative sits in our place at the Security Council,no doubt the French will attempt to retain their seat. At worst there will be two EU powers of veto.
I agree with TedM that the decade to come will be frought with danger,there seems to be an unreal feeling in the air which can only be likened to the Weimar Republic or the “Phony War” in 1939.It is time for the political onanism to cease and for the West to stop tearing itself apart in this insane and unseemly manner.How we can contemplate letting one of our own,Israel,to fall to the barbarians for mere political manouvering is one of the most shameful events of the 21st century
The next step in this farce will be to move this ICJ farce to the Security Council. Of course, Israel will ignore them and the US will veto whatever insane resolution is proposed.
So why go through the charade.
It makes the Arabs feel good.
It reinforces the prevailing opinion that Israel and the US are the cause of all the world wide unrest. And if only the progressive nations could give (Czechoslovakia to Hitler) Israel to the Arabs, then all will be right in the world.
Meanwhile, all of the real threats to world peace are papered over.
This is yet another argument for confining the UN to its ideal location: the dustbin of history. OTOH, perhaps this is all a plot to discredit the UN — after all, how could any fair-minded person conclude that something this ridiculous would pass? BUT, we can dispense with that easily enough: the Left and Islam have one salient feature in common — their ability to preserve their respective mythologies at all costs, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary. This is not in the least bit surprising. Pathetic, but not surprising.
TedM,
Oh yea, I agree it is going to be a messy time. However, and it may be a small point, but you’ll notice I didn’t say the US and Europe, that’s because I suspect there still is a solid core of rightests in Europe. Many people seem to understand that the current strategy of Europe’s leadership will lead towards disaster. I have a feeling there is a segment of the population that won’t put up with that, and that segment will increase as events unfold. The worst things get, the farther right the population will get pushed.
BTW, from what I’ve seen of the Islamists’ strategy they’ll screw the pooch by attacking in Europe and hurring the process along.
Does the UN General Assembly demand investigations into Oil for Food? No.
Does the UN General Assembly demand investigations into the link between O4F and terrorist financing? No.
Does the UN General Assembly demand investigations into its peacekeeping forces’ involvement in the global sex trade? No.
Does the UN General Assembly demand investigations into the butchery and ethnic cleansing in Darfur? No.
Does the UN General Assembly demand investigations into the most successful antiterrorist program in the Middle East? Yes.
The UN no longer matters.
Roger;
I think you are too hard on the UN. After all, if it weren’t for the tireless efforts of Kofi Annan, there would be a humanitarian disaster unfolding today in Darfur. But thankfully Mr. Annan was able to get assurances from the Khartoum government thus averting further genocide. Likewise, due to the efforts of Mohammad ElBaradei and the IAEA, Iran is today a nuclear free country.
(Oooh! Now I have to wash my mouth out with soap.)
ben,
Every attack on western or infidel interests is blamed on us. You know the drill.
We are less safe because of the “cowboy’s illegal immoral premptive war”. The cave in of Spain and the Phillipines shows the lack of will on the part of so called allies. Companies are leaving Iraq under threat of kidnapping. And no where is there a hint of righteous anger. Only abject appeasement.
Peter made an interesting analogy to the Phony War. The book, While England Slept will have to be rewritten – While the World Slept
Well. This is certainly gloom and doom compared to the Berger Socks dialog.
We are suffering from a lack of focus, and a weakening of political will. We could have used our veto in the U.N. but did not. Too politically hot right now I would guess.
The decade ahead will see the changes of many governments. The Arabic states cannot hold. The complacent will be increasingly marginalized in world politics. Those who engage in world policing are going to be very busy, and be the target of multiple attacks from multiple sources.
We have not the ability to defend ourselves from the asymmetrical nature of the attacks and will be hit and hit hard. I wish it to be otherwise and hope that it is. Our intelligence is weak and our ability to strengthen it is undermined by our own distaste of the tasks required.
With weak intelligence, we will be subject to much internal dissent about actions outside of our borders. Only fresh memories of attacks will instill the decisiveness to take the attack to others.
This mess is going to require strong and compelling leadership. It is going to require effective communication. It is going to require a recalculation of our national priorities.
Lots of pre-war conceptions about priorities are going to be altered and the alterations will cause much outcry.
John,
We do not have a veto at the UN general assembly. We do have a veto at the security council (which holds pretty much all the power at the UN, such as it is). This resolution is non-binding, and we voted against it.
Roger:
What a shock! The UN condemns Israel.By the way the NAACP will back Kerry, the NRA will back Bush, and their will be a traffic jam tommorrow on the 405 freeway. This is just another in the long line of insults that the arthritic, useless UN will hurl at the state of Israel. Israel will ignore it,the fence will go up and if we are lucky the Palestinians will get the Hint that their beloved leader has brought them nothing but misery their whole life and maybe they will turn their bloodlust towards him and maybe, just maybe, a two state solution will come about. Arafat hoped that he could jerk Israel around forever and still keep the doors open so he could send a never ending stream of teenage nail bombs into Israel proper. I think Sharon is a political hack but closing the door temporarily is a good idea.The UN howled when the Israeli took away Saddams nuke sight by bombing it but thank God they did.This will be a ugly 5 to 10 years but the UN is all talk and no action.When the jihadis bring their version of diplomacy to Europe they will regret todays action.
Can someone explain something to me? The UN is obviously dedicated to the destruction of Israel, yet 70-75% of my fellow Jews will vote this year for John Kerry, who thinks that the U.S., Israel’s key ally, needs to defer more to the UN. Why?
Matthew Cromer
Thanks for the clarification. I thought we had the ability to move issues to the Security Council and cause the vote there, but would let issues remain at the General Assembly if we wanted to shrug and say “Well we only have a vote in the G.A.” I admit a lack of understanding of the internal machinations of the U.N.
John,
In this case it is the arabs who want to move this to the Insecurity Council.
JBR. except for a small number, most Jews are still wrapped in the pro-labor FDR democratic party myth. I have pissed off some Jewish friends of mine by stating that any Jew who votes for Kerry is a fool. (I am Jewish so I can get away with it). They only see social issues as being important. See Samuel for an understanding of that.
jbr..probably because people are often slow to change their opinions to reflect new realities…they don’t understand that an institution (say, the Democratic Party) that was once perhaps a good thing is now something very different. To take an extreme case: many German Jews had a hard time understanding that their civilized, humanistic Germany had become a monster. (I have also read that in a remote village in Russia, the local Jews actually *looked forward* to the arrival of the German troops–they remembered the polite, “correct” officers of the previous war, who they preferred to the home-bred anti-Semites. Of course, things were different this time.) It can be very dangerous to assume that yesterday’s friend is a friend forever.
TedM– Interesting analysis. I’d put it just slightly differently than you did: Any Jew who cares about the future of the Jewish people who votes for Kerry is a fool. (There are a fair number of self-hating Jews out there; they almost universally support Kerry.)
The UN resolution is outrageous, but I can’t get worked up about it. Perhaps it would be a better world if resolutions such as this were actually important. This was sheer vanity and soothing the impotency and petulance of Arab countries. Knowing who voted what might be helpful information for other purposes, but the resolution itself is same old, same old. What’s the UN gonna do, stop the fence? They’re too busy overlooking 21st century slavery and genocide.
Barry,
you mention the key thing. Who voted. Except for Australia, not one major country voted with us.That is what is cause for concern.
The cultural hollowing out of Western society culturally and politically has been the most damaging movement of the last 50 years.Instead of being able to choose from a sorgesbrod of culture we have come up against an adamantine which triumph every occassion it comes into conflict with us.Islam take precedence over european religions,its social mores ar held up as being superior to ours.Having liberalised our own culture to ineffectuality.European Culture has been ground down and our traditions verbotten.
None of this has been done at the wishes of the natives and there is a very dangerous undercurrent running through Europe today
You’re right Ralph. Those damn Zionist Jews! Building a Berlin wall designed to cause misery and suffering for the Palestinian people. So what if proportionally more Israeli women and children have been blown up than Americans died during Vietnam in the past 2 years. So what if pregnant Israeli women get to watch their fetus get executed before being shot in the head. The Jews are subhumans and deserve to be exterminated, just like the Continental Europeans tried to do 65 years ago. You’re in good company, Ralph!
Now pardon me while I go — Ralph!
Off topic: Check out this article
http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=express&s=peretz072104
This is the most telling line of the piece:
“I confess: I do not like Sandy Berger; and I have not liked him since the first time we met, long ago during the McGovern campaign, not because of his politics since I more or less shared them then, but for his hauteur. He clearly still has McGovernite politics, which means, in my mind, at least, that he believes there is no international dispute that can’t be solved by the U.S. walking away from it”
This is the man John Kerry chooses as his chief foreign policy advison!
PeterUK,
Perhaps you are not the most disinterested person to ask, -_^, but I have some thoughts I would like you to comment on, as you are a bit closer to the action. 1) I have the impression that the European governments are not all that representative of the people, but somewhat overfilled with professional politicians. 2) There must be an undercurrent of prejudice somewhere. Assimilation isn’t that easy. For instance, I see polls that some 60% Germans are prejudiced against the turkish population. 3) The government media, German, French, and English (BBC), have been instrumental in arousing anti-Israeli and anti-American passions, not only in Europe, but worldwide.
Apart from that, I too feel that these are uneasy times. Just waiting for the other shoe to drop, so to speak. The Islamists are not that strong in objective terms, but the West seems totally split, even within the US. I have only a slight confidence that we can all pull together if the sh*t truly hits the propeller.
Ralph,
What is the bs that the world should stop puting up with? Why does the world care whether some Palestinian bomber kills a few Israelis or that some Israeli chopper pilot kills a few Palestinians. Why is that such a concern of yours? Is there some other bs that concerns you that you can’t live another day without being settled to your liking?
Kerry has been pretty smart since he sewed up the nomination; he’s basically not letting any light between him and Bush on the subject of Israel. Of course, before he became the presumptive nominee, he was telling quite a different story–the wall was provocative, Arafat was a statesman, Jimmy Carter could negotiate a deal between Israel and the Palestinians.
But of course, the question is, if we should concur with the UN’s wishes on Iraq as Kerry claims, why shouldn’t we concur with their wishes on Israel.
“if we should concur with the UN’s wishes on Iraq as Kerry claims, why shouldn’t we concur with their wishes on Israel”…exactly. Furthermore, Kerry has placed so much emphasis on multilateralism that he will be in a very difficult negotiating position with the Europeans et al..he is too desperate for a deal, and every experienced negotiator knows that this is a poor position to be in.
PeterUK is right about the poisonous culture that is pervading the elite of the world. It is a mix of multiculturalism, transnationalism and the Marxist oppressor/oppressed model of analysis.
There is no reasoning with it. As is too often the case with left wing ideas, it started in academia and first captured the organs of opinion making – schools, media, civic organizations.
I fear that Europe will irreversibly tie itself into the EU Constitution, the result of which will be authoritariansim, economic stagnation, and ultimately great strife and unrest – all at the same time that the Muslim population is exploding.
I would hope that at least Britain could somehow stay out of this spider web, but it appears not.
With the general principle that malefactors should pay for their misbehavior, we should be alert for opportunities to punish them. For example, if there is regime change in Iran, all assets of European countries should be forfeit. This is similar to the principle of odious debt, and if Europe is going to trade with the most dangerous nation in the middle east, and that nation falls, well… gee, that’s tough, Pierre.
We should also analyze the impact of general economic warfare against Europe. How much do we need their trade, when we have Asia to trade with? How much do they need our trade?
We should also get the heck out of the Balkans. Let the Europeans deal with it. If they don’t have the forces, well, that’s tough, Fritz.
This is not, btw, related to the latest UN vote, but to European behavior in general. They don’t like us? Then let them find out what happens when we just shut them out and stop contributing. Let them thing about that big old Russian bear, declawed at the moment, but still hungry, and who knows how well armed in the future.
Okay, so maybe we don’t do all of this now. But we had better have contingency plans for it, and perhaps Sandy Berger can help get them to the interested parties.
Oops… Two more things…
1) We should probably restart Radio Free Europe and have it reversed, broadcasting the truth to western Europe from eastern Europe.
2) The second big Islamofascist bomb plot against New York City was to blow up a couple of tunnels and the UN building. I suggest we let those guys out on a conditional parole: they can’t blow up any tunnels.
No mere rant. Your post is descriptively accurate in every detail mentioned and alluded to. This U.N., General Assembly vote along with the gutless, short-sighted and poorly founded ICJ advisory opinion it’s based upon is perhaps nothing more than additional evidence of the ancien regime, status quo, backward looking machinery of the UN that far too often supports, both actively and passively, regressive and even fascistic states. Arafatistan is a primary example thereof.
If things are going to change, their current condition has to be recognized for what it is, and then accurately and responsibly described as such. Trite but true.
The UN no longer matters.
Yes it does. It will matter until we withdraw our financial support. Our hard earn money keep those parasitic criminal “diplomats” flush.
Matthew Cromer,
This is the man John Kerry chooses as his chief foreign policy advison!
Kerry has provided what I consider to be an excellent rebuttal (via Instapundit)”
John Kerry to Tom Brokaw tonight:
Brokaw: “Did you know that [Berger] was under investigation?”
Kerry: “I didn’t have a clue, not a clue.”
Brokaw: “He didn’t share that with you?
Kerry: “I didn’t have a clue.”
I, for one, applaud John’s forthright acknowledgement that he is clueless. I admit to harboring suspicions of this fact since first seeing him but I think it very refreshing that the Democratic candidate for President of the United States states on national TV the profound depth of his limitations.
Let’s hear it from everyone – A vote for JohnJohn is a vote for the truly clueless!
Surely, no one can argue with that.
I was in complete agreement with you John and then you have to go and spoil the effect by saying “Okay, so maybe we don’t do all of this now”.
Hey, why not? We should only make sure that we keep the immigration door open for the European refugees.
John Moore,
PeterUK is right about the poisonous culture that is pervading the elite of the world. It is a mix of multiculturalism, transnationalism and the Marxist oppressor/oppressed model of analysis.
Before heading off down that road it may be wise to observe that the tranzis have become adept in lining their own nests with blood money. They are class traitors as well as being traitors to mankind. I have hopes of someday seeing a piece by Hitchens or Geras that combines vivisection with evisceration. Couldn’t happen to a nicer group.
Rick, you know this slogan: Proletariat drink champagne with mouths of it representatives?
Our tranzis see themselves as the Representatives of the Proletariat. Need I say more.
Rick
The leadership getting rich with blood money is part of any real Marxist system. But only the oppressor/oppressed madness explains the behavior towards Israel. Antisemitism is some of it, but I think these days the antisemites require fortification with the view that Israel is the rich oppressor and the Palestinians are the poor oppressed.
It is ironic that so many Jews are also attracted to that model, although most avoid applying it to Israel.
That model is pernicuous – it appeals to envy if one views onesself as oppressed, and an a vicarious version when applied to others. It allows an easy analysis of any situation – just identify the oppressor and the rest falls into place. It prescribes any manner of nasty solutions (tax the rich, kill the rich, pass resolutions against the “oppressors”). It seems as deeply embedded in the American (and other) left as Freud’s silly theories.
I am afraid that current anti-Semitism is very much fueled by anti-Americanism (which in term is a result of yearning for the Utopian Marxist state). Israel is being seen literally as the Little Satan to our Great Satan. It does not hurt that European nations have long and rich tradition of Judenhass.
Remember Ilka Schroeder, member of European parliament who said that funding of PA by EU was no accident and called intifada a proxy war between Europe and the United States? It was very candid and acute observation, but I dont recall any MSM picking up on her statement.
Here is original article written by Ilka Schroeder
http://www.eufunding.org/accountability/Schroeder2.html
John:
Great post. The pathetic part of Europes reaction to Israel is that I don’t think anti-semitism is at the base of it. I think it is more calculated cravenness. I think they have decide that they can buy the goodwill of the Arab states with the UN votes. They think it will keep Arab rage directed at the US and Israel. Then they will get the economic benefits that would follow. What they don’t realize is that they are just setting up their own fall. They have a rapidly growing Muslim population that is not assimilating well and will import the same Jihadi mentality over the next 10 to 20 years. Their acts of weakness now will hurt them in the future.
Katherine
That is quite an interesting link. The idea of using the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as a proxy for a US/EU conflict is striking, and remarkably cynical. I would think that the US should punish the EU, outside of that playing field, for such activities. Perhaps some of Bush’s activities in Iraq, in the awarding of contracts, are meant to send such a message.
It is odd that Europe would hope to contend with the US when we have a larger economy and an infinitely more powerful military. It would be a rude shock to the Europeans if they send German troops to intervene, because the IDF would destroy them on the way to breakfast. I don’t know if Israel is militarily more powerful than all of the EU, but it is definitely more powerful than any nation in the EU.
If one accepts that proxy-war viewpoint, it also explains European attitudes towards the Iraq war. Any place the US is successful will be seen as a defeat by these people.
Maybe you’re right – maybe we should do all I suggested right now.
It would certainly be fun watching the Europeans try to deal with Kosovo. Of course, we’d have to replace the Nato troops in Afghanistan, but I don’t think there are that many of them.
Maybe Europe would be forced to confront the reality that they cannot be a significant force in world affairs if they are unwilling to spend any money on military forces, and furthermore have an economy that is falling behind more capitalist countries.
Of course, given current European attitudes, I’m not sure I want them to grow their military, although I’m pretty confident that they couldn’t do much of it anyway. I am starting to wish the French didn’t have their stupid Force de Frappe.
And it would be nice if Britain would stay out of the EU. PeterUK can tell us if that is possible.
OT, but for those still awake, see this update on Berger from the WaPo, hot off the wire.
John Moore,
I dont have cite or facts for any of this, but as a european, I thought I should offer a subjective view.
I cant really see the Israeli/Palestinian conflict as anything remotely like a proxy war of EU/US, and I seriously doubt many in europe would, I have never ever heard it suggested before. (Ofcourse, there’s always loonies…)
When I read your post, I immediately thought of it as more of historic reasons. In the late 60s-70s, socialism was really “in fashion” here, the generation that grew up then was very revolutionary in their views; Marx, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, FNL(vietnam) and basically any revolutionary movement they could find, including PLO. They grew up, and are now in many high places, but still remember their “friends”.
And since they’ve backed the PLO as freedom fighters through the years, they still do so.
I really think it’s pretty much that simple, they picked their side over 30 years ago, and it’s too late for them to change now…
The same reason is also the basis of most of the anti-americanism, and the reason they object to anything the US does. They look at their map rather than the real world, and the map they have tells them the US is “imperialistic/bad”.
Of course, I cant really offer anything to back any of this up, other than the subjective views of someone that lived here all my life (more or less).
As for the European military, it’s mostly geared towards defending their own territory. Except possibly for England, and some smaller units (Foreign Legion, etc), I dont think they could offer much offensive capability on foreign soil. But I believe almost all countries still have conscription(?) and can call up every able person for military service, if they were attacked. In Sweden, that is certainly the case, military service is mandatory for men (although not all are actually chosen to do it)
After what I hear, european units do pretty well as peacekeepers where they are used, but doesn’t really have much offensive ability. I think they could handle the Balcans pretty well on their own right now, as long as none of the parties there decide to go on the offensive again.
Erik
I suspect it depends on which country as to the motivations. I took the proxy war from a link above.
I think that the support for the PLO isn’t so much habit as it is that the leadership still have the same ideas that led them to support the PLO in the first place. For example, the German Foreign Minister was himself a Baader-Meinhof terrorist, so it wouldn’t be surprising that he would feel a sympathy for the PLO.
However, some of Europe is definitely wrestling with the US. In particular, France has tampered with our war effort in Iraq in ways that are close to acts of war against us – costing us many American lives. France is clearly, at this point, an enemy of the United States (which disappoints me – I used to live there and want to go back and visit some day). If I were president, I would be tempted to destroy the Force de Frappe (as a former submarine hunter, I know how easily we could do that – with no warninig). France is getting too dangerous to be trusted with thermonuclear weapons.
European news outlets, from what I have heard, are full of anti-American propaganda (the BBC was so bad that the crew on a British ship during the war switched from BBC to Fox News). European polls show majorities believe that Israel and the US (depending on the poll) are the greatest “dangers to peace” in the world, a truly bizarre result. I suppose that if you imagine there are no threats, then you would worry about people who initiate fighting.
I have yet to figure out what a peacekeeper is. I think its a person in a blue helmet, often with a gun but not allowed to use it, in an area where everyone wants to kill everyone else, or in an area where one side has already exterminated the other side. I can see Europeans doing that okay, but Kosovo would probably require some significant firepower, and I have had those in the know say that Europe does not have the capacity to handle the current US mission there.
The fact that most countries can call up a lot of soldiers doesn’t mean they can equip them or transport them. By the way, the US has that ability also, although it would be a callup of totally untrained personnel. Switzerland is famous for requiring citizens to keep a military assault rifle and ammunition, and for having substantial fortifications and civil defense capabilities, but again, it’s defensive.
One of the odder views you mention, and which was popular among the left in the US, is the idea of the US as imperialist. It is bizarre because we have had only one colony (the Philippines), which we won in the Spanish-American war, and which we turned loose long ago. But we are the imperialists? It shows how bizarre the Marxist logic is. Of course, Israel is also seen as imperialist, for which there is some slight justification (the advocates of settlements). How any human being can justify the types of attacks the Palestinians were making against innocents is beyond me. That the EU can support the PLO, which allows and encourages those atrocities, indicates a level of moral decay that is astonishing.
John Moore:
Yeah, I’ve had those fantasies of a replay of Oran too. Nobody trusts the French.
John,
It is hard not to reach conclusions that you have enumerated, after one accepts the idea that the Europeans are currently waging proxy wars with the US.
You say that it is ìodd that Europeans hope to contend with the US when we have a larger economy and an infinitely more powerful militaryî. But I am very much convinced that majority of political and social elites over there believe their own press releases. If you recall there was this conference in Lisbon in year 2000 in which EU countries declared that by 2010 they will catch up and overtake American economy. This sounded like announcement of the next 10-year plan by the Central Committee and had just about the same connection with economic reality. Money quote: ìIt is widely acknowledged that the March 2000 Lisbon summit marked a watershed in the EU leaders’ rhetorical, if not practical, commitment to thoroughgoing ‘structural reform’ of their labour, product and services markets.î
http://www.ebusinessforum.com/index.asp?doc_id=1792&layout=rich_story
Even relatively decent publication such as Economist could not stop itself from gleefully opining the at the end of year 2000 that American economy was entering period on long term recession, just like Japan, while the prospects for Eurozone were great, with German economy to be growing to the tune of 3%. I suppose all this fantastic growth was to occur because American wealth was somehow unfair (or stolen) and Europeans were finally getting the deserved break.
In reality Eurozone and Germany slumped and we managed to pull through despite the terrorist attack.
(Channeling Europeanís collective thinking: Again, this is so unfair! But wait, the Americans pulled through because they waged a war and everybody knows that wars are good for economy. Such a relief! Yanks pulled another dirty trick and we donít have to change our economic models after all!).
I also recall very serious discussions how, after admitting the new members, the EU would become bigger than the US, with more citizens (or should I say subjects), greater GDP and more numerous army and is destined to finally stand up tall and beat the Americans at their own game.
Clearly, they bought into Leninist concept of quantity being transformed into quality.
Nobody seemed to have noticed that countries that were joining, though fairly energetic, had similar baggage to shed as East Germany when Germanies got reunited. I recall that years following that event were not terribly good in economic terms for citizens of former West Germany.
The EU also has some curios regulation such as one that if a member country runs into deficit exceeding 3 or 5% of GDP (donít remember, too late for googling) they have to hit themselves even harder and pay a humongous fee to the ìcommon poolî. With one size fit all interest rates and money supply, regardless of economic reality of member country, this is nice recipe for economic disaster. (Of course, when it happened to Spain they paid, when it happened to France, they weaseled out. Big dogs, small dogs.)
Other obstacles to robust economic growth are general continental culture of entitlement and deep distrust of American free- market concept. Europeans are determined to do practically anything to avoid coping the wild capitalist uber-liberal (thatís their term for free-market) American economic model. So they prefer to drink their own Kool-aid and come up with excuses how everything is Americaís fault.
Interestingly, for the citizens of newly joined EU countries the immediate benefits for joining are elusive, but prices for such staples like butter, beef and sugar went up by 50%.
I have no idea whether Europe will have a will to build a defense, but I donít think that they will do so. Security forces, such as mobile, heavily armed groups of police, can handle all the anticipated internal problems and unrest. And they probably think that when the worst comes to worst they can conjure enough nukes to eliminate external threat. So, they are sitting pretty. I wish them well. I just want our troops out from there.
I am going to ever so slightly direct the topic of the UN to the growing anti-Israel sentiment among Democrats in the United States. It is my overwhelming suspicion that the polling organizations are hesitant to do this because the results may very well severely damage Senator Kerryís campaign. Has anyone else noticed the superficial interviews of the people loyal to Howard Dean? They barely touch upon their environmentalism, concern for the poor, hostility towards Americaís military might—and displeasure toward Israel. In the end, the viewer is lead to believe that the Deaniacs are really nothing more than innocuous flower children. I would, however, bet every dollar in my puny bank account that more detailed polling questions and media interviews would reveal that Deanís ardent followers are close to being anti-Semitic. And yes, I include the Jewish members of his coalition! Self hating (or thoroughly guilt tripped?) is a rapidly growing phenomenon among American Jews.
Katherine
I think that’s a good analysis. I don’t know if they will take the Russian defense approach (who needs troops when you have nukes?), but they may. Their welfare state soaks up any money that would be available for a real force, even though in the US it takes only about 5% of our GDP.
One of the sad things is that the ex-Warsaw Pact countries are going to be part of this. They are jumping from the frying pan to the fire.
One question: Where did you grow up? I believe you said it was under communism.
It is the economic rules, and the smothering effect of a remarkably unresponsive bureaucracy that I think will destroy the economies. Speech codes (like those in Canada) will be the first stage of authoritarianism.
David Thomson
You are right, no doubt. Note that when she became First Lady, Hillary was pro-Palestinian. It wasn’t until she decided to run as a carpetbagger of New York Senate did she change to loving Israel. That lady is dangerous (sociopath?). But what amazes me is all the Democratic Jews in her area that voted for her. Don’t they have any memory. Don’t they remember her kissing up to FrogFace Arafat?
The same patterns of thought discussed above apply to many democrats – the Marxism derived oppressor/oppressed model. And that means that many on the left in the US will apply that to Israel, ending up antiIsrael and pro-Palestinian. There is no doubt this will include Jews, and not just self-hating Jews. That Marxist model is extremely powerful to those who belief it – it has the power of a basic religious tenet. It forms the basis for all thought on many topics.
This attitude is visible in the left in Israel, although less so as a result of the latest Intifada. Arafat has never seen an opportunity which he didn’t screw up, and this was one of them. The terror attacks deeply damaged the left in Israel.
The one thing I do not understand is why Israel put up with all of that so long. I would have been blowing the hell out of the West Bank and Gaza after each attack, and announcing the expansion of Israel by a certain number of square miles per death.
After all, what would the world do – fire up the ICJ? They did that anyway. The Arabs would be angry. No change.
That Israel, the third most powerful country in the world militarily, would tolerate those attacks on its innocents is something I truly do not understand. I don’t think America would put up with that at all, unless Kerry was in, in which case he would ponder the nuances.
John Moore,
Must have missed that link…
I really dont dispute any of what you said, I think you describe it pretty well. I just thought I had another angle of insight to offer. (from “the inside” so to speak..)
I think the main difference in what you and I wrote is in the outlook and intent. I really dont think there’s any kind of strategic masterplan at work here from the EU side (as for the Soviets in the cold war).
I think it’s basically just them being them, acting from the way they see the world. And in a few cases, acting from their own self interest…
EU is still far from an entity, it’s still very much a lot of squabbling nations, and a few nations pretending to speak for all on occation.
The journalist went to the same schools in the 60s, they were the ones that wrote the pamphlets, and then went on to the newspapers, but they kept their worldview.
I agree with yours and Katherines views on the economy.
The welfare systems, with the tax systems that comes with it, is really hindering a good economic development. It’s just too many regulations to produce a real prospering economy.
I actually wrote a really long post, covering the other points, but I’m not sure it would add much for the discussion, so I dropped it for now.
ìBut what amazes me is all the Democratic Jews in her (Hillary Clinton) area that voted for her.î
It might be getting worse. The following news item is most disturbing:
ì Presbyterians divest themselves from Israelî
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/454513.html
I find it interesting that the liberals in the Presbyterian church could not control themselves until after the presidential election. It is imprudent to alert the naive general public on just how anti-Israel they have become. I strongly suspect that at least one third of all of John Kerryís supporters feel this way. We truly do need some pollsters to ask the hard questions. Too often in the past, someone might remark that they arenít really hostile towards Israel—but merely canít stand the Sharon government. This is bovine excrement! We have got to get past the superficial utterances and explore more deeply into their true beliefs.
What do others think of my one third estimation of Kerryís supporters? Am I getting carried away? After all, I admit not to possessing any hard data. Donít you think, though, that itís something that we should learn more about?
John:
Late Communist Poland.
Roger:
Are you ready to put that “US out of the UN, UN out of the US” sticker on your car yet?
If not, what’s it gonna take?
Welcome to the new fascist world order. Authentic fascism – complete with genocidal anti-semitism – is sweeping the globe. This time it takes the form of an alliance between socialists and islamists.
Don’t look for Great Britain for resitance this time. They’ve sipped the socialist, post-modern laced Kool-Aid. There will be no Churchill this time.
http://www.newhumanist.org.uk/volume119issue1_more.php?id=498_0_25_0_C
The gloom and doom of this thread is palpable. But, at the risk of sounding like a polyanna, think of the impact that would be wrought in the world geo-political equation by just one change.
I’m talking about Iran. We all know that the overwhelming majority of Iranians yearn to throw off the mullah’s yoke. If, after the election (and a Bush victory) we can help them pull that off…….
” Can someone explain something to me? The UN is obviously dedicated to the destruction of Israel, yet 70-75% of my fellow Jews will vote this year for John Kerry, who thinks that the U.S., Israel’s key ally, needs to defer more to the UN. Why? ”
With respect,this is easily explained.It represents a TOTAL lack of historical perspective and a complete inability to understand the events actually happening to you.Does anyone recall a similar situation occuring within our own lifetimes? Now we perhaps have some idea WHY it happended so effortlessly.
VERY VERY FRIGHTENING !!!
No chance yet to go through the discussion regarding this piece, Roger, but the piece itself was – if you’ll excuse the colloquial turn of phrase – baddabing! upside their head wittapipe! Thanks!
But the UN and its worshipping cultists are unlikely to ever wake the bleep up until the US yanks the rug out from under them and leaves them lying there wondering WTF happened and why can’t breathe so good no more.
David Thomson…you suggest that “at least one third of all of John Kerryís supporters (are hostile toward Israel”…this estimate is supported by the fact that almost one third of Democratic Congressmen (28.3%, to be exact) failed to support a recent resolution condemning the ridiculous “International Court of Justice” action. (The corresponding figure for Republicans was 7.8%)
Details here:
http://photoncourier.blogspot.com/2004_07_01_photoncourier_archive.html#109007470767868939
There is a fundamental error in saying that Jews voters will continue to vote Democratic despite their surrender to anti-Semitism. The real question is to ask are many of these people really Jewish beyond an ancestral attachment?
My perspective is someone warped by that fact that my Jewish ancestry (last name) masks the other “ethnicities” as the multi-cults would say. Jews, at least of Eastern European origin, long ago traded away their core religious beliefs for socialist ideals. Their loyalty is not to their ancestors but to socialism. Sure, many will tell you that their socialist beliefs are a direct result of Jewish traditions but that is a combination of folklore and biblical ignorance. (See the Book of Samuel on why centralized government is bad) The Old Testament injunction to care for the poor, widows and orphans is not a call for state intervention but for individual action. Socialism always aims for the opposite, i.e., create a society of autonomous individuals who take no interest in their neighbors (unless it is to report them to the Secret Police) and shift all “caring” burdens to the Socialist class that runs the society. So I would say that Jews do not vote overwhelmingly Democratic, only people that society mistakenly identifies as Jewish vote that way.
There is another factor that keeps many Jewish voters in the D-Camp is a cultural heritage that combines fear and appeasement rather then courage and self defense. There is an attitude prevalent in the descendents of Eastern European Jews that seeks to appease the oppressor. The manifests itself as the tendency to stake out the most extreme position on the left. I think the Rosenbergs are a good example. They could have had their sentences commuted but I bet the reason that they refused to cooperate was to show Stalin what good communists Jews were. They, and the entire Jewish left, knew that Stalin was working up to a Holocaust Part II. By dying for Communism they demonstrated that Jews were progressive people with a worthy place in Communist Culture. Stalin probably laughed at them…they were just two less Jews to deal with.
A lot of people were surprised that Joe Lieberman didn’t get a lot Jewish support for his Presidential bid. I saw some polling data that explains it. The most frequent reason cited by Jewish voters was fear that the community would be blamed for anything that went wrong. Coming in a close second was Lieberman is “too right wing”. I am willing to bet that those who cited the first reason would probably agree to the second proposition. As well
If you look at observant Jews you find them spread across political spectrum. These are the Jews who should count as Jews not those who, like me have a name, but not a belief.
HA ó The UK just announced it is junking all of its RAF Jaguar strike planes as well as many of its Tornados.
The Royal Navy has scrapped all its Harriers, with no replacement up and running, many of its maritime patrol planes, and is downsizing its surface fleet.
The British Army is combining and reducing many regiments, and closing at least one base (Norwich).
The Blair government’s Treasury has still not released the funds to pay for their operations in Iraq.
We’ve seen the last major foreign deployment from the UK. From now on, it will be Philippine-sized 50-man face-saving detachments.
Why does the Left support Radical Islam against the USA? Why does it oppose Israel when any objective analysis would conclude that nothing can be done by way of crafting a peaceful resolution to this problem unless and until the Palistinians stop killing Israelis indiscriminately? Why does the Euro-Left support mass murdering theocrats over liberal democrats? Why does Europe fund the PA? Why do most American Jews support a candidate who supports deference to an organization that is apparently dedicated to Israel’s destruction?
I submit that all of this apparent insanity is easily explained by the point I made above. The Left believes that the USA is a greater threat to it than Radical Islam because it can side with Radical Islam while still maintaining its illusions, but it cannot side with the USA without undercutting the illusions which undergird its worldview. In other words, the Left cannot support the USA and Israel without admitting that its most fundamental views are not correct.
Jerry,
Excellent analysis. I submit, however, that some of the answers (and I believe there are -is? Heather, help! – more than one) to “why do Jews support people who hate them?” do not require such deep explanation.
A pretty sizeable number of people (Jewish and otherwise) support politcal parties and things like the UN with no more thought or analysis than people put into team they root for in a sports contest. A lot of people are Democrats or UN Supporters in the same way a lot of people are Packer Fans.
The explanations you gave help explain how the “family” arrived at being “Packer Fans” but is unnecessary to explain why many remain “Packer Fans” even though the “Packers” don’t like them and never did.
I’ve been puzzling over why the Otherwise Sane and Usefully Intelligent buy into some of the Demonstrably Moonbat nonsense they buy into. I’m becoming convinced that it has a lot to do with the Sports Fan mentality. They root for a team because they always have – its their team. There’s no “decision” in this matter, it just is whatever it is. And when confronted with “Yeah, I understand that part, but your team has become really rotten and violates all the rules and lies and cheats and steals” they are stuck with something they don’t know how to change and must, therefore, construct a fantasy to protect it – all other teams must be liars and cheaters and thieves and just aren’t being caught and any games they lose must have been rigged by evil forces. Its just part of human nature’s defense mechanisms.
I am happy to see that this thread has been attempting to analyze why Europe in particular has acted as it has not only in this General Assembly vote, but more importantly, how Europe is acting towards the US.
Robert Kagan has written a small book, which many of you have read. In it he posits that Europe is dealing from weakness and it’s behavior is understandable from that viewpoint. Many of you here, have referred to the military and economic weakness of Europe. That has led to the political weakness so evident to us here in the US.
The real question still remains. How and whether Europe can change. My opinion is that Europe is too bogged down to awaken to the peril it faces. Except for a few leaders, who seem not to reflect the current view of their own people, we are alone.
The UN is useless. NATO, without a mission, is outdated and only operates if the US and a small group of allies takes over. The EU is like a cancer spreading across itself. I see nothing on the horizon to cause a western, Christian, awakening. The barbarians are approaching the gateways to Rome and we sleep.
Ted:
Good point. I carry the medical analysis one step further. Europe is a like a terminals cancer patient nearing the end. It knows it is going to die soon and has stopped fighting. It has reached a point where it must be constantly sedated and is often in a dream state. Occasionally it comes to full consciousness and realizes what has gone wrong. Having established that there is no possibility of recovery it lapses back into passivity and awaits death.
Erik
I can’t speak for Roger or others, but the more “inside” Europe info you can provide, the better. The subject will keep coming up, so enlighten us.
It is too easy for me to see Europe as France and Germany, with all the other countries as hangers-on, and Britain in some sort of unknown state.
David Thomson
I was raised a Presbyterian and my father gives money to the church. I sent him the article several days ago, because he would not approve. See here for my take on this development.
Katherine
Thanks for the info. I have a friend who escaped during the communist takeover with a train load of refugees – the train itself had faked papers and they got out. His father was a Polish army officer, and survived the Katyn Forest Massacre by using his perfect Russian to convince the Sovs that he was one of them. My friend watched from the countryside as the Nazis trashed Warsaw after the Russians encouraged a revolt and then sat back and let the Nazis wipe out the resistance, so the Russians woldn’t have to do it. Oddly, he is liberal.
One question in the whole Europe mess is where do the recently liberated countries stand? They want the economic benefits of joining the EU, but one would think they would be justifiably afraid of strong central governments.
Ted, you are referring to ìPower and Paradiseî?
My personal feeling is that with regard to foreign policy Europe is indeed hopelessly weak, though it can exert a lot of influence by bribing and propping unsavory regimes. Europe has done it very skillfully with regard to PA, regardless whether their target was Israel or the US (probably a bit of both). We have France conducting military naval exercises with China, and though they cannot do much in practical terms they can tell the Chinese quite a lot. We have Germany, France and Russia selling Saddam military hardware and entering into long-term business relationships. I simply do not believe that they are doing all this without knowing that when fecal material hits the fan the US and Israel would be on the receiving end. Their politicians and diplomats may be delusional, but they are not all retarded. They want the US undermined and they are working hard to accomplish this be all means still available.
Regarding internal situation, I believe that Europe will not allow itself to be Islamized. Their police forces are adequate to the task of rounding up people and either deporting them or stuffing them in jails (for description of French jail I refer you to very amusing book Catch Me if You Can on which the movie with the same title was based; in short ñ you really, really donít want to experience hospitality of the French penal system). Europeans may seem to us weak and effete, but what we see is only the shell of diplomats and intelligentia. There are enough sturdy lads over there, who will not only gladly help the police but will take the initiative. Europeans, for all their hate speech codes and policies of non-offending anybody looking different than the original natives, can be whipped up into nice racial and/or xenophobic frenzy. I will posit that the speech codes are making things worse, because when the governments do not allow citizens to use a safety valve of a debate, no matter how rude and offensive it may turn out, the exact feelings of the citizenry that the codes are trying to suppress may explode into uncontrolled violence. Currently these feelings are carefully channeled into anti- Semitism and anti-Americanism, but they can easily turn against Turks in Germany or North African Muslims everywhere, plus anybody perceived as the Other.
I do not look forward to these developments because the results will not be pretty. But Europe will not turn into Caliphate. Question is, what kind of Europe will emerge.
Katherine:
I believe you said that you are from the “East” so you have a different view of European Backbone. However, the demographics do not support your contention. Italy and Spain are already lost. Their birthrate is so far below replacement that even without the Islamic threat they are socially doomed. The French have already effectively surrendered and gone over to radical Islamís cause. That leaves Germany and the UK as the only major nations whose fate is not yet settled. I fear Germany will go the same way as Italy and Spain. Their population is already declining. I have little faith that the “little Adolph in every German” still lives. I don’t foresee a new SS banging on doors with cries of “musselman raus.” If the UK stays out of the clutches of Brussels will probably do what it takes to survive otherwise they will get buried by the EU appeasers. The only people in Europe who are in contact with large numbers of radical Muslims who when push comes to shove will defend themselves are the Serbs.
“One question in the whole Europe mess is where do the recently liberated countries stand? They want the economic benefits of joining the EU, but one would think they would be justifiably afraid of strong central governments.”
John, this is not so simple. These people may not want Communist government (though you would be surprised by the level of nostalgia ñ just like for the Mussoliniís trains), but they do not mind strong central government at all. In fact, ordinary people hate the disarray of parliamentary system and yearn for political unity. Decades of depending on government, as lousy as it was, left a very heavy toll on the national psyche. Also, I think that the concept of the very freedom is different than ours. When we say freedom we mean ìindividual freedom, freedom from intrusive governmentî; they mean ìfreedom from a foreign occupierî.
Most people there, given choice, would not adopt free-market American style economic model, because the Eastern Europeans, just like the Western Europeans like their entitlements very much indeed. At this point there are still lots of national and uncompetitive industries and companies, and attempts at their modernization/liquidation are not welcome at all because it means loss of jobs. And itís hard to blame the individual people for the discontent, because in some regions unemployment is reaching 30% (or at least it was few months back). The entrepreneurship is at the toddler stage and corruption on all levels of government or industry is gargantuan. Even in case of medical service you better bring something with you for your doctor (from flowers to the US$$$$) if you want reasonable service. In fact, the main reason why informed and intelligent people wanted to join the EU so badly is because they were hoping that it would somehow reduce the corruption. It is still too early to judge if this will be the case.
I will venture to say that citizens of former East block countries are comfortable with socialism the EU style. Sweden was always the dream economic model to aspire to; the American model is conceived as ruthless and inhumane. The image of Americans and American society for an average Pole does not differ very much from the average Frenchman’s, though Americans are not hated; rather they are condescended to. The media over there is comfortably anti-Bush, repeating BBC line at the top of the voice; should Kerry be elected the nascent anti-Americanism may abate a bit, but then again, maybe not. The curious thing is that all the apologists of the old regime currently find themselves in the fashionable avant-garde of anti-Americanism. If Bush gets reelected it would not surprise me one bit if next Polish government decided to withdraw from military cooperation with us.
Regarding anti-Semitism, I am not sure where the young generation stands; the older one is pretty much on level with the rest of Europe.
The new stance of the Presbyterian Church against Israel and the support of the Mennonites for anti-American Islamist front-groups give me the willies.
It can happen here.
As for Europe, it is clearly in a death-spiral. But I don’t agree with John’s contention that they are all our enemy. It’s far more complicated than that. I think the truth is some agglomeration of what Erik and Katherine are saying.
In P.J. O’Rourke’s book “Eat the Rich” he has four chapters on good and bad socialism and capitalism respectively. For each of these he picks a representative country, Sweden being his example of good socialism. He shows a graph of the growth rate of the Swedish economy prior to and after the election of the Socialists in the forties. It is very striking. Prior to that event the Swedish economy was growing exponentially, faster than the US economy. Afterwards, it levelled off. As he points out, the real story here is the dog who isn’t barking: had Swedish economic growth continued at its prior pace, space would now be filled with Swedish space stations and satellites instead of American ones.
Too much socialism destroys economic growth. But freedom, particularly economic freedom, chafes and in the long run most of us would prefer to have somebody take care of us to having to fend for ourselves.
I agree that not all of Europe is going to lie down and die. But the elites want to. And they’re in control. Europe isn’t really the same kind of democracy we are; it is much more a bureaucratic state controlled by elites chosen by exam than a democratic state that responds to all, even the stupid. I think that the Le Pen group will probably grow across Europe, out of sheer frustration.
jerry,
My opinion, and of course thatís all it is, and I may be utterly wrong, is not based on any European backbone ñ I donít think that such a thing exists ñ but, (and this will sound awful, but here it is) on the egoism, viciousness and brutality of an average European peasant.
Though I admit that in some countries these survival traits may already have been bred out from the population.
And now I better retire into undisclosed location.
TedM,
I read Kagan’s book and found it convincing with the exception of his apparent conviction that the “relationship” between the US and Europe can and should be “saved”. (I appriciate Roger’s effort to provide a forum where any old knucklehead can dare to state the the likes of Robert Kagan have drawn incorrect conclusions! What a country!)
I don’t believe Europe is weak in the sense that they are going to fall over and become yet another teeming mass of huddled poor. It is a huge economy, not completely heterogeneous as far as markets go, and fully prepared to do most anything (like deal with and payoff any really scummy bastard anywhere) to shovel more coal into their economic boilers. An economy of that size can suffer MANY years of stagnation without collapsing and that means there is the potential for recognizing and fixing problems over time.
But Europe seems bound and determined to embrace the things that cause them whatever difficulties they have. They (and here I include the people themselves) seem to really WANT a massive bureaucracy put in place to PREVENT any sort of course changes. They’ve picked their Social-Democrats path and they want it codified into permanent, irrevocable policies and procedures. They seem hell-bent on burning the lifeboats, welding the rudder into position, and tossing the helm overboard. That’s the part that baffles me.
They are wealthy enough to build up, even quickly if needs be, sufficient military power to defend themselves and to help others when possible and in their own self-interests. But they won’t. It would require course correction and they will stubbornly refuse to even consider course correction.
As Kagan points out, they believe they’ve found the recipe for paradise. JMO, but from what I see of it what they’ve found is the recipe for “keep it all neat, tidy, and quiet so we can all pay proper attention to our hobbies.” It only looks like Paradise as long as you don’t look out past any distant horizons. And if they really have convinced themselves they have found the recipe for Paradise, then anything that suggests they haven’t will be dismissed out of hand.
Long period of stagnation as per Japan followed by decline and refusal to change and, far down the road, another nasty blowup as they lash out to blame some scapegoat as violently as they can manage. This presumes that Islamofacism doesn’t force them to react much sooner. I’m not convinced that it must happen that way since, after all, the US must either fight this battle or slam the doors shut and hide behind our oceans. And when we win the battle for ourselves and by ourselves there is some good chance we’ll have removed the threat to Europe at the same time. That doesn’t seem guaranteed to me but is a somewhat likely outcome.
Katherine:
A pretty good description of the Serb character…even if they are have a fairly urbane and educated population. One thing about the Serbs though is that you don’t want to be on their short hate list, i.e., Croatian, Any kind of Muslim or an Albanian. Otherwise they are fairly open and hospital people. Look how the Jews and Roma of the FY flocked to Belgrade.
Chuck sorry to get back late but the insomnia wore off.
1) I have the impression that the European governments are not all that representative of the people, but somewhat overfilled with professional politicians.
There has been a considerable voting backlash Europe against the EU especially in the UK,but the elite are determined that the will be,”ever closer union”,they obviously didn’t study physics.
To give you an example the Prime Minister’s,Blair is a real EU junkie, closest advisor stated that” the time of representative democracy was over”.
Brussels is a Hydra headed entity and the bonds are slipped on via a multitude of ambiguous directives,negative votes are ignored or put before the voters until positive.
The whole ethos is like the French aristocrats who sqabbled over which of them took precedence over climbing the scaffold.
2) There must be an undercurrent of prejudice somewhere. Assimilation isn’t that easy. For instance, I see polls that some 60% Germans are prejudiced against the turkish population.
There is a point at which the immigrant population is large enough and concentrated enough to obviate the need for assimilation.The multi culturalists have encouraged this to the disadvantage of the immigrant community.
3) The government media, German, French, and English (BBC), have been instrumental in arousing anti-Israeli and anti-American passions, not only in Europe, but worldwide.
I don’t see this as a proxy war,more of a spoiling operation,which reduces US influence in what Europe regards as its traditional sphere of influence
Peter:
Does Europe see America’s traditional sphere of influence as our ability to ride to their rescue wheh brilliant continental leaders screw up? If they do, then they are going to be in for a rude awakening when they call 9-1-1 and the cavalry doesn’t leave the barracks.
I fear this thread has long since run its course but I hope not since I just caught up with it and find the discussion so far, well, really-really (I like big words like “really-really”) interesting.
In case you check in again, Katherine, I’d like to toss out some stuff for your inspection and thoughts. I don’t suppose for a moment I’m telling you anything you don’t already know.
It seems to me that Europe (and big parts of the US population) has rejected faith. I don’t mean faith in the religious sense but I imagine that is part of it. I mean faith in the sense of making a “leap of faith”.
Here’s what I’m trying to get at. You mentioned that Europeans believe capitalism is mean and inhumane (or words to that effect). In a sense that is true. Capitalism is unkind. It is a self-correcting system that does not care in the least who or what gets tossed overboard when it corrects for some past mistake.
The leap of faith those of us who believe it is the “better” system make is that over time, relentlessly, mistakes will be corrected and the overall system will relentlessly and, oddly enough, heartlessly provide the most benefit to the most people. Individuals will suffer, often through no fault of their own, but the result over and over and essentially forever if left to function properly, will be the most happiness for the largest possible collection of people (that might sound darned libertarian but I believe there are some subtle differences and that government is necessary to prevent “libertarianism” from veering into its ugly sister, anarchy).
Since Europeans (and their American “social democrat” cousins) have lost the ability to have faith they, instead, want all uncertainty wrung out of their lives. And they are willing to pay a high price to achieve that. I suppose that there is an odd little irony here in that believing that uncertainty can be wrung out of life there is an inherent leap of faith of one sort of another, but it’s somehow different (Idunno, don’t ask). The Euros want egalitarianism and security above all things. They’d rather everyone be poor as long as there is no conflict (no “lack of security”). They’ve lost faith in themselves and each other – they don’t really believe they can “compete” and that “competition is healthy”.
Just thoughts. Like I said, if you check in I’d very much like to hear your critique. You seem to have an unusual and valuable perspective.
Knucklehead,
Katherine may have views significantly different from my understanding and will undoubted make us aware of them. I very strongly take issue with your statement that Europeans have “lost faith” unless it is narrowly defined in a religious context. They have, in the majority, lost religious faith and a belief in Christian principles.
We must remember that much of what passes for European thought derives from the elevation of “Reason” to the staus of godhead at the time of the French revolution. “Reason” has been worshipped in Europe since that time and an entire priesthood trained at L’ecole polytecnique has assumed the positions of moral authority once held by the Princes of the Roman Church. Currently, the center of European faith is found in the “New Rome” in Brussels. The fact that Europeans embrace the logical fallacy inherent in an appeal to authority is unsurprising. They are little different than Americans in that regard.
Knucklehead…you say: “they, instead, want all uncertainty wrung out of their lives. And they are willing to pay a high price to achieve that.”
I am reminded of these lines from Arthur Miller’s great SF novel, A Canticle for Leibowitz:
“To minimize suffering and maximize security were natural and proper ends of society and Caesar. But then they became the only ends, somehow, and the only basis of law–a perversion. Inevitably, then, in seeking only them, we found only their opposites: maximum suffering and minimum security.”
I know I have this a little wrong, but I recently read that our economic system is based on sharing wealth. Socialist Europe’s system is based on sharing poverty.
All Ponzi schemes eventually collapse. The demographics of Europe bring the day of collapse closer and closer. And human nature being what it is, the people do not want to give up their benefits. Years ago, in England, the popular expression was “I’m all right Jack.” Now that is the saying of old Europe.
I visit the UK 3 or 4 times a year. I always get the feeling that there is a bit of jealousy of how I live. Somehow, I am an overconsumer and that is not good. I have a big car(2) and a big house and overheat and overcool it. I am not being fair to the rest of the world. The friends and relatives who tell me this will also tell me how expensive it is to have those things in England. I then point out to them that all their “free” benefits have a cost.And not to blame me for that. The conversation usually changes at that point. As Katherine and others point out, those people just don’t think the way we do. A lifetime in a socialist country leads to the situation Knucklehead refers to. And that mind set just will not change. More food for thought.
The desire for removing uncertainty (or gaining safety) is universal. I think it increases with age and is modulated by economic circumstance.
I have a problem with the US medical payments system (the industry I work in). It has holes in it that allow normal people with decent net worths to be turned into paupers. This is due to the inability of people, especially older people, to purchase health insurance if they have pre-existing conditions, or to have those conditions excluded. There are some bureaucratic patches to this, but the hole remain.
When I was younger, I wouldn’t have considered this issue (and I wouldn’t have had the pre-existing conditions).
The Europeans and Canadians can crow that I wouldn’t have that problem there, and they are right, although the alternative in many countries is scary. I actually have just signed up for an alternative here – the Veterans Administration – just to see how true socialized medicine works.
It is European hostility towards America that I find the most puzzling. French hostility is the worst, because they actively caused trouble that cost American lives. I lived in France during the first Gulf War and the attitude was radically different. People were warm and friendly, and this was in Paris, of all places.
Things will get really hairy if the immigrant suburbs of Paris become breeding grounds for terrorists that strike America. After all, a number of 9-11ers came from Germany, and logistical support was provided from there.
Hopefully those nations will continue to monitor and capture these kinds of threats. As far as I know, even the French cooperate with us on terrorism, they just do it quietly.
I suspect that Europe would actually have quite a bit of trouble building up forces. I don’t think there would be many volunteers, and who knows what sort of Brussels created politically correct nonsense that force would have to obey. Why should spoiled, laid back Eurokids join the military? Where do the mid-rank officers and NCOs come from? You don’t produce those overnight. Also, its not clear what level of weapons production capability exists, although this paradise on earth seems happy enough to sell devices that kill to the rest of the world.
However, I’m in favor of letting them try, right now. It’s time to pull our forces out of Kosovo. We can give Europe 6 months warning, and even provide transport for their forces, but ours need to be someplace where they are saving our bacon, not European. Besides, we are protecting Islamic terrorists as they attack Serbs. Given the current state of the world, that is beyond bizarre.
/OT – can someone PLEASE tell me the magic keyboard incantation necessary to get italics and/or bold to work for this comments page? /end OT
Rick,
“I very strongly take issue with your statement that Europeans have “lost faith” unless it is narrowly defined in a religious context. They have, in the majority, lost religious faith and a belief in Christian principles.”
Well, strongly taking issue with what I said is, to my mind, a good thing
No, I had a larger scope of “faith” in mind than Religious. Since I do not consider myself religious in any way I am able to detect (at least not by any traditional definition of “religion” – I understand that various “isms” can become quali-religious), I was attempting to avoid, or at least transcend, the religious sense of the term “faith”.
“We must remember that much of what passes for European thought derives from the elevation of “Reason” to the staus of godhead at the time of the French revolution.”
Well, that’s what the knuckleheads get for following the French strain. What a bunch of dopes. Any impartial ovserbver can see that the Scottish strain had much greater promise and delivered more upon its promise.
“Currently, the center of European faith is found in the “New Rome” in Brussels. The fact that Europeans embrace the logical fallacy inherent in an appeal to authority is unsurprising. They are little different than Americans in that regard.”
Hmmm… it seems possible to me that we are talking about a difference without a distinction here, Rick. Bear with me a moment if you’d be so kind.
It seems to me (an outsider looking in) that there are two non-exclusive “flavors” of “Religion”. There’s the faith part – believing, without question, in the revealed truth of one’s religion. Then there is the “ritual” or “conservative” part. To try and illustrate my point here consider the Roman Catholic religion. A formalized heirarchical structure, dogma developed over many centuries and infrequently revised, ritualized sevices, etc. It is possible, I assert, that there are some who accept the “ritual” portion of whatever religion but do not have access to the “faith” aspect of it (clearly some religions strongly emphasize faith over ritual).
It seems to me what the Euros are trying to create, or recreate, is some modern version of the Holy Roman Empire (very loosely defined!). Its not the faith they are after with this but the structure of it that ritualizes and codifies. They have (at least in their own eyes) solved the daily material challenges of life and are now looking for some way to create a bureaucratic structure which removes from them the “political” challenges of life. They would very much like to be well kept peasants and skilled guild workers who served some “benevolent bishop” building cathedrals so long as everybody pretended it wasn’t a “church” and that nobody worked for the “bishop”.
I’ve probably confused the issue rather than helping anything. When all is said and done I think what the Euros want, deep down in their heart of hearts, is a Europe run by a very nice and caring person who was otherwise just like Hitler.
knuck,
(i) TEXT (/i) or (b) TEXT (/b) but use less than and greater than signs in lieu of the parens.
Click View then Source (in IE) and scroll to bottom to see this post and the HTML tags associated. If you use Bold and Italics then you must reverse the order when closing. So it’s (i)(b)TEXT(/b)(/i)
Jerry,
The Europeans don’t believe that there is a military threat to their security.The EU, which was devised as a solution to WWI, creates peace by political ties and trade, divesting itself of a military capability ensuring that it cannot go to war.Unfortunately it seems to be the wrong point in history and someone has come and cut the Gordian Knot.
The plan never envisaged an adversary which prefered you unarmed and even more preferably dead.However the ruling elite cannot admit error and will therefore continue down the primrose path,your country will know before mine because that same elite will start buying real estate there.We shall follow later of rafts and rubber boats.
<b>makes bold</b>
<i>makes italic</i>
it hasn’t worked yet, don’t know why it would magically start now ARGGHHHHH!!! It at first one doesn’t succeed, axe for help.
John Moore: (For the life of me I have no idea why this hasn’t worked prior. One of the great frustrations of being a danged knucklhead.)
The desire for removing uncertainty (or gaining safety) is universal. I think it increases with age and is modulated by economic circumstance.
Understood, but if we look at the good old “human needs pyramid” type of Psych 101 stuff we expect that when certain satisfiers are met humans move on to satisfying higher order needs. If you’re starving you don’t care much about whether your clothes are stylish, etc. If all your basic needs are satisfied and secure (which is, I believe, essentially true at this stage of the game for most of Europe) one would expect moving on to other “motivations” or pursuits. Art, music, whatever.
Now clearly this has happened to some extent but there is something different at work among the Euros. I call it “neat, tidy, and stylish syndrome”. The Swedes are a somewhat extreme example of this but the Germans are similar. With nothing important to concern themselves about they start making lesser issues “important”. Not that there’s anything wrong with clean streets and everybody’s house painted in a nice range of acceptable colors and everyong dressed nice and stylish, but Euros have taken this sort of thing to near fetish levels.
They have long gone over to “sweating the little stuff” very heavily. Its almost as if the more security people get, beyond some baseline, the more risk averse they become and the more they fret unimportant details and differences.
I assert that Euros have reached a level of “comfort” (all basic needs satisfied) that they have forsaken risk. Everything is as they want it and they’ve reached the point where anything that threatens change of any sort is seen as a HUGE threat. This is one reason, IMHO, that Euros are prone to anti-Americanism. Not that many Americans don’t exhibit the same symptoms, but Americans are, generally, less likely to sweat the details. The more secure many Americans become the more likely they are to suffer some risk or abandon any attention to minor details they deem unimportant. Witness the “uber geeks”, well paid and secure, who refuse to wear anything but grunge to their job, etc.
I don’t know if that brought the thing I’m grapsing at any closer to being fathomable, but there it is, in bold no less.
Knucklhead
Abraham Maslow strikes again. One of the few pop psychologists whose theories had any value.
To see the same effect in America, just be in a neighborhood with a homeowners’ association. Those people can be insane. Fortunately, my neighborhood is large and eclectic enough that those tendencies are minimized – I have had a (not very high) ham radio antenna for 17 years, something normally impossible with a homeowners association.
The odd thing is there appears to be an inverse correlation between the value of the properties and the insanity of the homeowners’ associations.
How this ties into other issue – the microfascism of aesthetic control of neighborhoods – is a mystery to me. I didn’t see any of this when I lived in Suresne – probably because they had no zoning and residential, commercial and industrial were intermixed.
Here is another possibility. With a declining birth rate, there are fewer kids around, leaving more people with more leisure time to spend worrying about little things.
Congrats on your bold
In France it is practically illegal to work over 35 hours a week. Because they are losing business due to this the French have an answer. Some unions are asking their members to work an hour extra a week off the books.
Europe in its own way may actually be coming to terms with its socialist tendencies.
Too little too late? We shall see.
Hmmm…. Home Owners Associations and Their Relationship to Twenty Century Totalitarian Collectivists. Sounds like a dissertation topic for a desperate grad student to me. Heck, I’ld read it!
TedM:
…our economic system is based on sharing wealth. Socialist Europe’s system is based on sharing poverty.
This is an interesting point. Several times, but not recently, I have the “socialism” discussion with friends who rail against “the rich” (believe, none are starving or in any way “poor”, it just seems to bother the heck out of them that there are wealthy people but they aren’t among them).
Anyway, I tried this several times (I should do the lookup again but I don’t have time). Find the number of millionaires in the US and find the number of people below the “poverty line”. Its also possible to make some course grained guesstimate of the total worth of the millionaires – say for discussion that they average a net worth of $5M.
If you were somehow able to sieze and liguidate the entire net worth of all the millionaires at today’s value you and distribute it equally to every person below the poverty line, you’d wipe out all millionaires reducing them and their families to below poverty line and you’d raise all the below poverty folks to above poverty by roughly half (IIRC) for one year and then they’d snap back. Give it 5 years and many of the millionaires would be “wealthy” again and many of the “poor” would still be poor.
What this indeed does amount to is distributing poverty rather than wealth.
You need to distribute the means of production, not the result of it.
Knucklehead wrote:
Several times, but not recently, I have the “socialism” discussion with friends who rail against “the rich” (believe, none are starving or in any way “poor”, it just seems to bother the heck out of them that there are wealthy people but they aren’t among them).
It won’t help to try to reason rationally with your friends. Reason has nothing to do with it. We’re talking religion here. Remember what Jesus said? Children how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.
The idea that to be rich is to be evil and the corollary that to be successful is to be evil is deeply embedded in Christian thought, right from the beginning. As Christianity per se fades away some of its core beliefs remain within the secular Christianities which are replacing it. Among these in particular is the belief that accumulated wealth is evil. Never mind that practically all Americans are “rich” by any historical measurement. Then all of your rich-people-hating friends would logically have to be self-loathing. Which perhaps they are.
This core religious belief, that success=evil, is also at the heart of Marxism (one of the secular Christianities) and the reason that Israel switched in 1967 from being the good guys to being the bad guys. The leaders of the Presbyterian church in the US have for some reason lost their fundamental core beliefs in Christianity per se and have replaced them with a very simpleminded secular Christianity centered around success=evil. The liberation theology wing of the Catholic church is similar.
This is one reason why anti-Israeli sentiment (because they are successful) can bleed over into general anti-Semitism (because the Jews are successful).
Hatred of wealth and power may have made sense in ancient Roman times when the world’s wealth and power were pretty much fixed. It doesn’t make so much sense in today’s fluid American economy. The flaw at the heart of this thinking is the belief that wealth is static, i.e., that there’s only so much of it to go around. If that’s true, then the only way that anybody could be rich would be for somebody else to be poor somewhere, and then there would be a moral culpability for being rich ipso facto. But that’s simply not true in the modern economy. We create new wealth every day in this country. What’s a computer? What’s a new movie that didn’t exist before? What’s a new painting by Syl? That’s why we’re rich. Not because we stole it from anybody. Because we created it on the spot.
This is difficult for those who believe in the theory of static wealth to grasp.
TedM,
It isn’t really socialism as such in the UK, but a method of bribing one sector to keep parties in power.”Vote for me and I will give you their money”.Unfortunately there are vast hordes of public sector workers unions in line for whatever Whitehall hasn’t managed to mop up so by the time the millions of intended recipients get whatever pittance due the money makes no difference whatsoever.
Consequently government expenditure increases but the problems remain,as for example the National Health Service.Which by the way was predicated on falling demand as people got healthier,now expenditure is out of control and the enterprise so large that it is uncontrollable.
Politicians are all short-termist and providing there is no disaster on their watch are quite happy making announcements and instituting moderisation plans and so the roundabout goes on its merry way.
General comment on the question of “faith”. To quote G.K. Chesterton “its not that an athiest [aka cultural nihilist/secular humanist] believes in nothing its that he will believe in anything.” Look at the rise of the new age movement, Wicca, or other forms of the occult. I will once again quote the last great leader of the 20th century, Boris Yeltsin, “A civil society is not possible without the belief in [the Judeo-Christian] God. Civil society in Europe is crumbling away at an ever accelerating rate.
Peter:
What makes you think that America will take in the fleeing Euro-trash. We want productive people here like hard working Latin Americans and Asians. We have enough native born parisites to contend with.
When this thread started, I was interested in the group reaction to the fact that only Australia among the major nations voted with us. This led to the malaise of old Europe and you all contributed your thoughts to that. What hasn’t been touched upon is this: What can the US do, if anything, to reverse the drift of old Europe away from the policies which we think are self defeating? I have no anwers. Lots of impractical ideas, but nothing I can put down as a long term policy of the US. Any thoughts????
Tedm:
Unfortunately, Europe passed a cultural and demographic watershed in the 1990′s. Unlike the United States, Europe has not had a baby boom echo. Demographic collapse is now inevitable. This coupled with Islamic cultural replacement means that Europe will begin implode at an ever increasing rate. While we have some of the same demographic problems our immigrants still come here to work and succeed as Americans. Muslims come to Europe replace European culture. In about 15 years Europe will face a choice: Civil War or surrender. If they chose to fight it will make the Balkan Wars, which are to the GWOT what the Spanish Civil war was to WWII, look like a minor disturbance. I don’t see Europe having stomach or the ability to do that. Europe will surrender. I know Katherine disagrees and relies on the mean spirited nastyness of the European Peasant. The problem is that there won’t be enought them to matter.
I think John Moore’s got it about right. Quit doing their heavy lifting for them. I’d in cutting back our funding of the UN to match that provided by the lowest contributor on the SC.
Last, but not least, keep kicking Islamofascist tail until they realize it is way too expensive to attack the US and turn to softer targets among the hated infidels (gee, where might some of those be?).
Make the Euros stand up and start paying for all the ancillary costs of being fat, dumb, and happy. If they don’t learn, too bad.
Jerry
“What makes you think that America will take in the fleeing Euro-trash”
Habit!
knucklehead:
We should have never gotten involved the Balkans. We bailed out the Europeans again. If we told the EU that Kosovo was their problem the Serbs would have kicked their a** and then maybe they would have decided that maybe they need a real military after all.
Jerry,
When you say that we still have immigrants who come here to succeed as Americans I have a feeling that may not continue to be so. I just finished Sam Huntingtons Who Are We. He lays out a picture of new Americans who have allegiance to their country of origin, not the US. I was amazed to find out that 14 or so Central and South American countries allow their citizens to become naturalized Americans and still retain their old citizenship. And the US allows this. I always thought that a naturalized citizen had to give up allegiance and citizenship to another country. Was I wrong on that.
If we have large numbers of legal voters whose interests are vested in another country how long will we be a “United States”? Read the book. It is another scary process that has been taking place without us knowing about it.
Jerry,
Nobody should have got involved in the Balkans they are the fissure line between East and West and were a source of conflict from before Roman times.It would have been better let them sort out the collapse of Yugoslavia and the encroachment of Albania themselves.
By what year will European countries begin to have an Islamic majority? I’d say by 2040 or 2050 for the first to go over.
Jerry,
I agreed with that take on the Balkans when it was happening. I suspect we eventually came to realize that they didn’t have either the will OR the capacity to handle it for themselves.
Its impossible to figure out the results of woulda-shoulda-coulda, but it is possible that if we had let Europe stew in the their own juices on that one they might have suffered the first decade of the pain they will have to suffer if they are ever going to come to their senses.
Its time to pull out of there and Europe. Match the minimalist NATO participation of France just to keep an eye on NATO while it dies and leave Europe to defend Europe. Redeploy those forces wherever it makes the most sense for US needs.
I wouldn’t mind, assuming there are suitable bases within whatever range we need to deal with that region, redeploying out of South Korea also. Leave the South Koreans – they are plenty wealthy enough and have enough of a military of their own – to defend themselves.
There is more to the cost of national defense than coughing up the necessary dollars. Let those who don’t believe they need military power (or have the luxury of saying so since they thrive under the toasty blanket of US military power) to find out if they are correct.
One way to get people to understand the consequences of tradeoffs and the costs of untenable ideas is to leave them free to make their own mistakes and suffer the consequences. Unfortunately we cannot fully escape the consequences of other nations’ fantasies, but we’ll have to muddle through as best we can.
Disengage from the defense of those uninterested in defense. I can’t speak to the full implications of that, but it seems like a reasonable approach and can surely be done to some extend that doesn’t unduly jeopardize our interests.
TedM,
“I always thought that a naturalized citizen had to give up allegiance and citizenship to another country. Was I wrong on that.”
I don’t know whether or not naturalized citizens have been historically required to surrender any other citizenship they hold, but I do know that “natural” US citizens are allowed to hold citizenship with other countries (there are probably some restrictions against specific countries) for which they are eligible. Dual citizenship has been allowed by the US for a good while if not always. I’m aware of restrictions but they have always been on the “home country” side rather than the US side.
Since a naturalized citizen holds almost all the rights of a natural citizen I can’t see why this wouldn’t apply to naturalized citizens as well. Not every moment of our existence, of course, but the US, in general, has always been an immigrant friendly place. I don’t mean to start a catfight regarding the poor treatement immigrants often met, but this was rarely done at the hands of the federal government or due to federal policy regarding citizenship. And we’ve been relaxing citizenship requirements for some time now. It probably doesn’t take all that much more study anymore than written test for a driver’s license (which can generally be taken in most any language).
Knucklehead,
A pull out would prove a salutory experience for Europe,I think that One.It would make it examine the reality of its circumstance,the choice would be the basic one of “guns or butter”.
Two.Would put a drag on the grandiose project that is the EU when the different nations actually had to provide men and materiel for a euro army.At the moment they are playing at it.
The best thing to do is announce a date for a pullout and carry it through.
TedM,
I failed to mention that, as far as I know, holding another citizenship does not exempt one from any particular responsibility of US citizenship. One may, for example, be able to retain one’s Polish citizenship (don’t know if Poland allows that – Katherine?) but would still be subject to treason laws even if only spying for Poland. I don’t recall the name but wasn’t there a US and Isreali citizen a while back who went to jail for giving secrets to the Israelis? IIRC the Israelis have been petitioning to have him released to their custody for years now.
Allegiance is another matter. That’s an odd duck. One may have taken some pledge to some original country and one may feel allegiance to that country but once the kids start growing up and fanning out and delivering grandkids I suspect those sorts of foreign allegiances may be difficult to hang on to in any meaningful sense. A few months back I had to take an extended cab ride and got to chatting with the driver. He had come from Ecuador when he was a young man or teenager. By the time he got done telling me where this son was graduating from and that daughter had moved to and what one brother was doing in one city and another in another city, I got the distinct feeling they guy may have some love for Ecuador but all meaningful allegiances were pretty much here in the US.
Hispanic immigration from Mexico and Central America seems to be our biggest influx right now. This is neither all good or all bad.
Different source countries have different ethics and backgrounds. As I understand it, El Salvadorians are more likely to be on welfare and commit crimes than Mexicans. I am sure there are many subtleties in all of this.
As mentioned once before, there is a second generation effect, where some percentage of the second generation of Mexican immigrants (here in Phoenix) join violent gangs.
These folks aren’t likely to turn to terrorism, but if they get into the gang lifestyle, they aren’t contributing to the country.
I’ve never read any studies on this – it would be interesting to know the percentages for various outcomes.
There are also nativist trends among immigrants – the aztlan and MECHA organizations could become violent or terrorist, with a political goal of restoring the southwest to Mexico.
I see many vehicles in town with Mexican front plates – not license plates, but the Mexican flag. I have no idea if these folks see themselves as Americans or Mexicans, or if they are here legally.
The illegals cluster every day near Home Depot, waiting for jobs. The ones I have met are very hard workers and nice people. The whole situation is painful to me – we should not allow law breaking immigration, and a lot of these folks die in the desert around here, but they seem like good future citizens.
America hasn’t really dealt with the immigration issue. Our immigration numbers are very high, and the Democrats boosted Mexican immigration before elections to get additional voters. But we have to decide what we are going to do.
Regarding the Balkans…
For some ethnic problems, “ethnic cleansing” may be the right solution. Of course, one would want it done without the rape, killing and plunder.
The only interest the US has in the Balkans is to keep it from becoming a terrorist base. Frankly, if we pulled out, the Muslim terrorists would be forced to engage the Serbian army and militias, reducing the number of terrorists in our world. Right now we have our troops keeping the “peace” where Muslims, including Al Qaeda, wage war against the non-Muslim residents.
Typical peace keeping!
There is no reason to believe that “peace keeping” reduces human suffering. It simply reduces the level for a while, but doesn’t remove the causes.
Knucklehead
The guy you are thinking of is Jonathan Pollard. He was a Navy intelligencec analysis and was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was not an Israeli, although he has since been given Israeli citizenship.
His imprisonment is a cause. Israel and lots of folks crusade to get him released. I think he should stay where he is – perhaps joined by Sandy Berger. Israel complains that his sentence is too long historically, but ignores the fact that he was selling very, very sensitive material. He could have been executed.
As far as I know, a naturalized citizen has every right of a regular citizen, except that of becoming President. America is a nation of immigrants, so that is only appropriate.
Knucklehead (God, I hate addressing you this way!),
If you are still interested, her is my answer to you question.
I donít think that the reason that Europeans are reluctant to embrace free-market is due to lack of faith or ability to make leap of faith on their part.
I rather think that they are more comfortable with authoritarian economic models because thatís how their societies and cultures evolved. Whether they were kingís ministers, or members of cabinet, it was politicians who were setting the policies of their nations – always from the top. Europeans are still very class conscious and that is probably why their political elites do not pay much attention to the opinion of the common citizens. Peter is right regarding the ìever closer unionî: whenever citizens object and express that objection by a vote, there is another referendum until the elites they get the result they want.
We are in a very unique position. Our government derives its power from consent of the citizens; in Europe traditionally power was vested with the sovereign, defined as a monarch or a government. It is almost impossible to give enough credit to the genius of Founding Fathers; it is one of those unique historical events that shake up everything. Creation of American constitutional republic is one of the truly revolutionary evens in human history, and that is perhaps the reason why nobody, with exception of the Brits who gave us ideological foundation, and Aussies, with whom we share some of the ìcan doî mentality can comprehend American character, politics, culture and society.
Our new republic enshrines concepts of individual and economic freedom. We were lucky enough to develop basic oerating mechanisms because we were for so long underdogs and were under the radar of Great European Powers. By now, the concept of free-market is associated with American culture and since our economic model is so successful even its native ideological opponents must pay lip service to gain support of the electorate.
For a continental European, with all the baggage of the royal history, privileged classes and authoritarian governments American system is outside his/her experience and imagination. Trouble is, they are not interested in learning.
So, it is not faith that allows us to embrace the free-market, and not lack of it that makes Europeans so reluctant to implement it: rather, it is empiricism and long-term cultural political tradition.
BTW, I pretty much agree with Rick. Europeans may have lost religious faith (though this is not quite true regarding at least some former East block countries), but they are doing very well worshipping what they consider as Reason, though most people with two neurons firing would find nothing reasonable about it.
Re: naturalized citizen. In the oath that I took I renounced allegiance to the country of my origin. As far as I am concerned I am an American. No hyphens. Problem is that for many European countries it takes an act of Parliament to strip a person of the citizenship. I probably figure somewhere on the list of Polish citizens ìliving abroadî, though both I and American government donít consider me as one.
Sorry, if this post is a bit incoherent. I am tired (not much sleep last night) , but I wanted to still post it tonight.
Katherine,
Don’t concern yourself about the handle. I think of it as truth in labeling
Thanks for your detailed answers. It didn’t wander or ramble from my perspective. It was coherent and made sense to me. A very good example of how someone looking from the outside can come to a different conclusion than someone with direct life experience.
I’ll have to go look up the naturalization oath. I know several Swedish expats who didn’t quite get around to naturalizing until Sweden altered its laws and allowed them to keep the original citizenship. That was the impetus for them to finally get off the dime and become naturalized US citizens. I don’t want start a discussion of the semi-bassackwardsness of that, but that’s how it was.
They had all the other pros and cons long since considered but never took the Big Step and actually pulled the trigger until surrendering their original citizenship was no longer required by that nation. I suppose that’s a very real form of allegiance, but for most of the people I know who did this, and its a bunch not just 2 or 3, their lives are here in the US but for whatever reason they couldn’t make the final cut.
But Swedes were never in the same boat as Poles, so keeping or cutting allegiances could be a very different thing.
Knuck and Katherine
Please do get Hintingtons book.
There is something happening to our country which we are only semi-aware of. We get all in an uproar when we hear of San francisco trying to allow non citzens, both legal and illegal, to vote in school board elections. Or when we hear of a state granting drivers licenses to illegals. What we lose sight of is the rapidly growing number of legal aliens and naturalized citizens who hold both US and Mexican citizenship. The comparison is to French speaking Canada where there has always been a separatist movement. In 10 or 20 years we may face a situation where there are 2 Americas here. Spanish speaking border states, somewhat akin to the Kurds living across borders in the Middle East. Huntingtons point seems to be, if that is happening at least we should be aware of it and have a national conversation about it before it happens. Multiculturism , transnationalism, bilingualism, the education system, all enter into this discussion.
With elected officials and an important voting bloc, great influence will be felt on our national policies. The American Creed, which had been adopted by all previous immigrant groups, is in jeopardy. Not today, but in the coming generations. And that will have ramifications on our international policies.
I just feel this sense of unease about all of this. America and Americans are unique because of our historic development. And that will be changing. We have been discussing the attitudes of old Europe here. Perhaps we are following in their path? I don’t know, but I would hate for that to happen while we werent paying attention.
Roger,
I think we could use a whole new thread on this topic.
Ted
knucklehead:
What is really new is that the US now defacto recognizes dual citizenship. Historically, the UK and its dominions have always held once a brit always a brit. It caused no end of problems in the early days of the Republic. To American seaman the RN boarding party’s question of when and where were you born could have a major impact on your life. For someone born in Boston in 1781 it meant an immediate transfer from the US merchant service to the Royal Navy because you born a British subject and you would die that way.
BTW, Katherine, it just dawned on me that you don’t necessarily have the cultural reference to realize that “knucklehead” is not a particularly strong word. We knuckleheads are not chronically stupid but we are prone to acute bouts of recurring absurdity. We sometimes do things like search for the hat that is sitting upon our heads. We native Americans are rather fond of mild insults that are almost “terms of endearment” and have many “cultural references” that just don’t work with those who don’t share it. Stuff like, “‘splain it”, or “bang, zoom, to the moon”. We know knuckleheads when we see them, but you might not
Katherine,
You can fully expect that your grandchildren will be full Americanized. They will have little or no knowledge of the Polish language. Through marriage, some of them may have last names like Goldstein or Benedetto or Oreilly. Such was the case with all previous waves of immigrants. That is not longer the case. Again I refer to Huntington.
TedM,
I’ve been meaning to pick up Huntington’s book but haven’t tracked down my round tuit. I will read it.
We do need to have a national “conversation” about immigration but Americans have gone completely bonkers on this issue.
I am the ONLY person I know who was genuinely glad when Bush threw that immigration proposal on the table. Everybody else I had any discussion with about this went into spitting screed mode in ten seconds flat. I was astonished by the reaction. He got splattered and smashed from both sides of the spectrum and every point in between as far as I can tell. I did some quick scanning of the proposal and it seemed far from ideal, but it sure looked like a valid starting point for a discussion.
There are two things I know we, the United States, are not going to do any time soon:
1. Seal the borders. Its not going to happen.
2. Round up and deport all the illegal immigrants. Not gonna happen.
So let’s start figuring out how we want to handle the borders and what levels of immigration make sense and whether or not we want to profile or give preference. And we need to start figuring out what the heck we want to do about “documentation” and public services and welfare. I have no animosity toward any would be immigrant but I don’t see how making a dive into the endzone for a entry level touchdown entitles one to an education at taxpayer expense. And if one wanders down to wherever it is your local goverment handles things like “head start” and “language training” and “know your benefits” type agencies (this will typically be something like the county capital) you might be surprised to find that these programs are swarmed with immigrants and the “legal vs. illegal” is handled as “don’t ask, don’t tell”. I happened upon this in my area by accident and did a shallow little look into it and it was mind boggling how we handle this sort of thing.
Let’s figure out what we want to do about the illegals already here. From the Otherwise Usefully Intelligent I here nothing between “open borders” and “round ‘em up and deport ‘em”. The last numbers I heard for illegals already here is somewhere between 6 and 14 million. Anyone who believes for one moment that we’re going to start kicking in doors and rounding up between 6 and 14 million people is smoking some really potent stuff. We’ll have “hands across America” conga lines in 30 minutes flat. We’ll have millions of Americans lined up a dozen deep protecting illegal enclaves. I’d be sorely tempted to join them to be honest. Despite the fact that I’m a jackbooted, brownshirted, charter member of the VRWC I don’t actually harbor any desire to see jackbooted brownshirt behavior in my nation.
Our police departments apparently want no part of dealing with immigration issues. Our welfare services people want no part of it or, conversely, see it as their job to help illegals. Our border patrol people are catching something like a million a year and missing another million. When illegals get here they find easy ways to get whatever documentation they need to look like a legal for all necessary purposes. And we have people who think its a good idea to give illegals the right to vote.
Completely baffling and what my mom always called “one mell of a hess”. But NOBODY seems to want to have the discussion. Its straightaway to the screaming and accusations. Sigh.
Knucklehead,
I lived in the US long enough to understand why you choose your handle. But is may be my rigid Euro upbringing that makes me wince slightly when I use it addressing somebody whom I like and respect; I would rather address you as a Knuck if you donít object
Ted,
You may find it surprising (or not), but I very much concerned with the phenomenon that you describe. I perfectly understand the uniqueness of the melting pot concept. VHD too has a book on the subject, ìMexifiorniaî. I have not read it yet, because I did not want to get even more depressed. I am capable of working myself into very lively anxiety over these things, so I try to pace myself. But I will get to it and will also read the book you recommend.
BTW, full integration of my ancestors into the American society does not worry me one bit. I myself always get annoyed when people ask me: “where are you from” (damn bloody accent of mine always betrays me!). For years I was responding: I am an American, but this never stopped anybody from pushing: but where are you REALLY from. And we are not talking about friends or business associates: every clerk in the grocery store asks me that. I know ñ they are just trying to be friendly. But it never seem to occur to anybody that being an American is more important to me than the accident of my birth. Once I really got upset because an ITALIAN-american guy at a orchid show lunched into a lecture about how I should be proud of my ethnic ancestry at the expense of my American citizenship. It was not terribly good marketing technique because I left ñ without buying anything from him.
Other things that annoy me are ballots printed in 3 languages ñ I thought that passing knowledge of English was a requirement for citizenship. Apparently, not anymore.
Re: wackiness of San Francisco: I live here! It is my opinion that this place will only get better when all the old hippies will die out.
Katherine:
I don’t know if its still true but as recently as the late 90′s the Hispanic population showed the same assimilationist tendencies as previous immigrants. However, since we are in the middle of a large Hispanic immigration wave you tend only observe the newcomers. Hispanics come in, Americans come out. Polls of Hispanic immigrants continue to show that they place a high priority on their children learning and being schooled in English not Spanish.
The non-assimilation movement is sponsored by a combination of post-modern anti-western multi-cults, bureaucrats who see an opportunity for job security and the Democratic Party that would like to make Hispanics as poor and dependent as African-Americans on the Party so they get a lock on the vote. Polls now show about a 60/40 split D/R in the Hispanic electorate. That’s the same way that Italian-Americans split in 1960.
Katherine,
You are the epitome of what immigrants were in my youth. We all had either parents or grandparents who had a foreign accent. And when they said, God Bless America, they meant it from their hearts. Europe was behind a door they closed behind them. They called this country the Goldene Medina, the Golden Land. And they wanted their children and grandchildren to be Ameicans. Not hyphenated Americans. They just didnt think that way.
I share your “depression” about the future. And I too read some light stuff between doses of reality.
My grandparents came from Lumza, so we have a little bit of commonality.