Europe - Thy Name is Cowardice

[WhatAbout?]

What about high noise to signal ratios?

[ACPlayer]

Almost every religion (perhaps Buddhism is an exception) start with the precept that they have the knowledge of the "correct" way and that the others are wrong and in some way lesser unless they see the light.

THis is the fundamental basis of the intolerance in every religion.

In fact, I would convert to the religious group if the three major judea-christian leaders got together and did a merger of interest and formed one religion that saw all these groups as equal in the eyes of god (as defined by the religious). The recognition that all these people are essentially the same and have the same path to their "salvation" would make me think that perhaps there is a god and a place for religion.

I excluded, the other religions just to make it easier for these people.

[andyfox]

I don't know why I should continue a conversation with somebody who doesn't know who Foulke is, but since it's you, I'll make an exception. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] [He's the Red Sox closer.]

It's not an aggressive policy that I object to; it's the inability to temper an aggressive policy with any tolerance or accommodation or compromise or negotiation that I see as the danger in what the original cited
article posited and that I see in much of the neo-con worldview which guides the Bush administration. As Tom pointed out, Reagan, for example, negotiated arms reductions with the Soviets. It doesn't mean that he wasn't tough (or, to continue our analogy, an effective closing relief pitcher); it means that he was pragmatic, that there were times when accommodation, even with the Evil Empire, was +EV.

A comparison that may be more apt than the Hitler/Hussein (or the Hitler/Bush) comparison: Before Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat negotiated their peace agreement, Egypt had been the most fanatical opponent of Israel. Sadat himself was a military man who had had extreme right-wing sentiments earlier in his life (bordering on Nazi sympathy) and Begain was the mastermind of the terror campaign of the Irgun that drove Britain out of Palestine. Two more unlikely peacemakers, both in personal terms and in terms of the emnity between their countries, could not be imagined. Yet precisely through accommodation and tolerance, they made an improbable peace that has lasted these many years.

Sometimes there's a more nuanced policy that leads to better results than just shooting your enemy at dawn.

[partygirluk]

[ QUOTE ]


Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmmmm, which were the first countries to declare war on Nazi Germany? When did America join the war?

[Jim T]

" Unlike Americans who can bomb moslem cities without facing the concequences"

Which Muslim cities have we bombed without facing "consequences"? And what additional consequences do you presume Europe would face if it was willing (or able) to take similar actions?

"the European military capability is not impressive. This will change as the loyalty to NATO in the population has more or less disappeared while the loyalty to a new European army is strong."

Please. There is no real interest that I can see in increasing military might in Europe. There isn't any money for it either.

And I really don't know what you are talking about regarding "loyalty" to a non-existent "European army". The EU itself looks to be on the brink of failure with the upcoming vote in France, not to mention similar votes in the UK and other sceptical European countries.

BTW, what exactly would the purpose of a new, more powerful "European army" be? Especially as it would apparently be much more concerned with "humanitarian values and tolerance" than is the US military.

"Most Europeans see three main dangers to a progressive development in world"

I don't take offense at this statement, as I certainly hope that the American right wing continues to be dangerous to "progressive" developments in the world. As long as America continues to bring about (traditional) liberal developments instead, I will be well pleased.

I would be bemused by your lumping American conservative in with Muslim fundementalists, but the "American Taliban" idiocy has been commonplace on the left and in Europe for a while now.

Of course, you would think that you might be happy that two of your "ememies" were fighting each other. I guess that's a little too logical.

"Since there is a broad consensus of this there will also be possible to build a strong Europe as an alternative who will confront these three dangers more aggressively."

Ah, now the reasons for your prospective stronger European army become clearer! You obviously can't use it to "confront" Muslim fundementalists, because you earlier made it clear that you can't face the consequences of dealing with them due to your "substantial moslem minority". So you must want to use it to "confront" the US or Israel when you begin to "back up [your] policies by force".

Good luck with that.

PS I think that you might want to leave the realm of fantasy, and begin think of ways to deal with the very real problems and dangers that Europe will be facing over the next 20-30 years as it ages and it's statist welfare model becomes increasingly untenable. The party was fun while it lasted, but the bill is going to be enormous when it's presented.

[Jim T]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmmmm, which were the first countries to declare war on Nazi Germany? When did America join the war?

[/ QUOTE ]

Which "sphere of influence" was Germany in? Who had defense treaties and alliances with Checkoslovakia and Poland?

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
The usual mixture of half-truths,

[/ QUOTE ]

Which ones?

[ QUOTE ]
faulty comparisons,

[/ QUOTE ]

Which ones?

[ QUOTE ]
and bravado that passes for political analysis in the post-9/11 era.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please explain.

[ QUOTE ]
I am always amused when I see that "Reagan ended the Cold War." Usually, the phrasing is that Reagan won the Cold War. It is akin to saying Keith Foulke won the World Series because he got the last batter to ground out.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think this is at all a realistic comparison. Reagan's policies and political decisions were definately directly responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. Sure there were other influences, but none as powerful, or important, than the United States actions under Reagan.

[ QUOTE ]
In fact, it was the American statesmen who Reagan always accused of cowardice, appeasement, and malfeasance who won the Cold War.

[/ QUOTE ]

What?? Please explain this.

[ QUOTE ]
By the time Reagan came into office, the Soviet Union was broke both economically and structurally.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it was not. When Reagan came into office the Soviet Union was still alive and kicking. Granted it was never on a par with the United States power, but it WAS a threat. Reagans escatlation of the arms battle and his hardline stances that caused the Soviet Union to eventaully collapse. (Forget that the political and economic systems in place would inevitably fail without incredible technological advancements)

[ QUOTE ]
And, of couse, the fight against the "perfidious crusade" by "fanatic Muslims" is equated with the United States' invasion of Iraq. Didn't we learn our lessons from the appeasement of Hitler? The right is correctly incensed when Bush is ridiculously compared, by some on the far left, with Hitler, but sees nothing wrong with using the comparison between a prostrate and hemmed in Saddam Hussien with him, the better to deflect any criticism or move toward anything that smacks of tolerance or accommodation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not entirely sure what you are trying to say. I will say this, only an idiot would honestly attempt to compare GWB to Hitler. It is much more appropriate to compare the actions of Eurpoe in reference to their dealing with Hitler and Hussein.

[Jim T]

"In fact, it was the American statesmen who Reagan always accused of cowardice, appeasement, and malfeasance who won the Cold War."

While I have issues with much of your post, this seems to be the most objectionable.

1. Which "American statesmen" "won the Cold War" instead of Reagan? I would certainly like to be able to appreciate their accomplishment(s).

2. When did Reagan ever accuse those specific Americans of "cowardice, appeasement, and malfeasance"? I can't recall him ever making such statements regarding any Americans, and I certainly can't imagine him making statements to that effect regarding Americans who were apparently so instumental in defeating the USSR and it's "evil empire".

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


Appeasement cost millions of Jews and non-Jews their lives as England and France, allies at the time, negotiated and hesitated too long before they noticed that Hitler had to be fought, not bound to agreements.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmmmmmm, which were the first countries to declare war on Nazi Germany? When did America join the war?

[/ QUOTE ]

America was not in an appeasement mode, we were in the "it's on the other side of the planet" mode. Which was also a huge mistake that we haven't really repeated. This is not the case with continental Europe.

I think you need to reread the reasoning behind the leaders decisions, as well as the subsequent history, before making a comment based on pure dates/numbers. BTW, the US was very well involved in the war long before we declared war.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
A comparison that may be more apt than the Hitler/Hussein (or the Hitler/Bush) comparison: Before Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat negotiated their peace agreement, Egypt had been the most fanatical opponent of Israel. Sadat himself was a military man who had had extreme right-wing sentiments earlier in his life (bordering on Nazi sympathy) and Begain was the mastermind of the terror campaign of the Irgun that drove Britain out of Palestine. Two more unlikely peacemakers, both in personal terms and in terms of the emnity between their countries, could not be imagined. Yet precisely through accommodation and tolerance, they made an improbable peace that has lasted these many years.

Sometimes there's a more nuanced policy that leads to better results than just shooting your enemy at dawn.

[/ QUOTE ]

The key word there is "sometimes." In the case of the Cold War, clearly so, and likewise in the case of the Israeli/Egypt; but I don't believe the case with Saddam's regime to have been one of those "sometimes" when accomodation would have been the best choice (not for us, nor for the region as a whole, nor for the Iraqis themselves: all were harmed by Saddam's holding power).