Skip to comments.
Victor Davis Hanson: Let Europe be Europe, You won’t be our friends? Fine, protect yourselves...
NRO ^
| June 18, 2004
| Victor Davis Hanson
Posted on 06/18/2004 6:10:03 AM PDT by Tolik
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-39 last
To: Tallguy
I think that he is merely suggesting that we recognize that European & US interests are diverging and we need to accept that new reality. Those interests have always been divergent. We should be concentrating upon dealing with "Europe" on a country by country basis and forget the EU superstate (and the UN with it). The principle of accountability Hansen is citing needs to be driven downward.
In that regard the French present a unique problem. It would seem that they gain their status only by "virtue" of their craven willingness to engage in abject perfidy. By disengaging them from Europe at large, we might just focus the world upon the depth of their depravity and thus induce some substantive change for the better.
21
posted on
06/18/2004 9:23:06 AM PDT
by
Carry_Okie
(There are people in power who are truly evil.)
To: Tolik
Imagine what would have happened if Paris or Berlin had mobilized to preempt Milosevic while the United States refused claiming with Russia in the Security Council that such unilateral, non-U.N. approved action was brinkmanship of the worst sort and then strong-armed other NATO countries to oppose European efforts.
Er, sorry to interrupt, but this ALREADY happened in 1956 when France, Israel and the United Kingdom intervened militarily in Egypt where terrorist-backing President Nasser seized the international Suez Canal.
Eisenhower DID strong-arm Paris and London even as allied troops had already stormed Port-Saïd, and he also said the United States would not neither help nor defend France nor Great Britain as the Soviets threatened to attack both countries...
To: Tolik
23
posted on
06/18/2004 11:36:55 AM PDT
by
aculeus
To: Carry_Okie
I like your approach to deal with all the countries individually. Simple and direct and avoids generalizations that are often wrong. Plus, no friendly act on their part should be left forgotten or unrewarded.
24
posted on
06/18/2004 12:01:35 PM PDT
by
Tolik
To: Tolik
Correct, it's like accountability among individuals: The more nebulous the entity, the more injustices are necessarily visited upon the innocents therein.
Note how Islam hates "depraved American culture" for which liberals are nearly totally responsible. Interesting that conservatives end up fighting to keep them safe while the beneficiaries work overtime to undermine those very efforts. It's a structural consequence of a heterogenous society. How to optimize size versus political accountability constitutes the details wherein the devil resides.
25
posted on
06/18/2004 12:11:01 PM PDT
by
Carry_Okie
(There are people in power who are truly evil.)
To: dennisw
Pardon, but I´ve to get some things STRAIGHT!
In the first place, the permission to have sexual intercourse within military bases is for heterosexual couples. Although homosexuality is not illegal in the armed forces, it means to get placed to a task where you have not much contact to others. There will be no gay Sergeant training recruits! I don´t know any gay soldiers, but I´m sure there are a few. Those are as silent as the gays in the US military are, and this is better for them and for us.
26
posted on
06/18/2004 12:51:51 PM PDT
by
Michael81Dus
(Deutscher, Europäer, Christ, Atlantizist und Gegner der Linken!)
To: Michael81Dus
27
posted on
06/18/2004 1:04:35 PM PDT
by
dennisw
("Allah FUBAR!")
To: dennisw
28
posted on
06/18/2004 1:45:58 PM PDT
by
Michael81Dus
(Deutscher, Europäer, Christ, Atlantizist und Gegner der Linken!)
To: metesky; Tolik
"Thanks for beating quidnunc to it.
:O)"
Amen.
29
posted on
06/18/2004 1:51:25 PM PDT
by
Let's Roll
(Kerry is a self-confessed unindicted war criminal or ... a traitor to his country in a time of war)
To: Tolik
The ethicists of Europe don't want to see success in Iraq, since it might be interpreted as a moral refutation of their own opposition to Saddam's removal...Liberating Iraq, shutting down Baathist terror, and establishing consensual rule, after all, was a dangerous and mostly Anglo-American idea, antithetical to all the Europeans have become.
bump
30
posted on
06/18/2004 1:56:07 PM PDT
by
Fraulein
To: Fraulein
31
posted on
06/18/2004 2:01:24 PM PDT
by
Publius6961
(I don't do diplomacy either.)
To: Blue Highway
To: Tolik
33
posted on
06/19/2004 3:02:29 AM PDT
by
lainde
(Heads up...We're coming and we've got tongue blades!!)
To: Atlantic Friend; Michael81Dus; Fraulein
The continent is now the repository of Western heritage a beautiful museum or amusement park, if you will, of caretakers and custodians. I like this perspective, but I'm not so sure that the neutrality is so benign. As with the Cold War, it's a dangerous moment to be "neutral." However, VDH gets one thing wrong: German troops are in Afghanistan.
As with the crisis in the Sudan, I think we should be asking Europeans to take more responsibility for these areas while we work on the WMD proliferation problem and the spread of islamism.
If France and Germany were busier repaying their Marshall Plan aid by passing it on to other needy areas now, and helping to stabilize them, perhaps the spectre of 4GW (4th generation warfare) wouldn't be so menacing in areas like Darfur.
Plus, if they were more busy actually making a difference in the world, they might understand what we're putting on the line better.
Economic Assistance, April 3, 1948 to June 30, 1952
(in millions of dollars)
[France and Germany only shown.]
COUNTRY |
Total |
Grants |
Loans |
Total for all countries |
$13,325.8 |
$11,820.7 |
$1,505.1 |
|
|
|
|
France |
2,713.6 |
2,488.0 |
225.6 |
Germany, Federal Republic of |
1,390.6 |
1,173.7 |
216.9b |
|
|
|
|
Regional |
407.0d |
407.0d |
-- |
34
posted on
06/20/2004 6:27:54 PM PDT
by
risk
(France: $2.7 billion in American aid in 1945 USD! Repayment required: pass it on.)
To: risk
As a matter of fact both Germany and France have troops in Afghanistan, as is clearly stated on the Centcom website. Mr Hanson has not made his homework all that well, as it appears...
To: Atlantic Friend; Cincinatus' Wife; mylife; Fedora; KevinDavis; qam1; tame; swarthyguy; ...
As a matter of fact both Germany and France have troops in Afghanistan, as is clearly stated on the Centcom website. Mr Hanson has not made his homework all that well, as it appears... That's surprising A.F., and I apologize (pinging my FR favorites). VDH always comes across as knowing so much history and so forth. Thanks for making it clear. We appreciate France's help in Afghanistan.
36
posted on
06/21/2004 3:45:29 AM PDT
by
risk
(France and Germany are both in Afghanistan, despite VDH's imprecise statement implying otherwise.)
To: risk
Aw, shucks, just doing our job here ! lol
To: risk
To: Tolik; IncPen; Nailbiter
But isn't the Atlantic Alliance critical to American security? Sadly, no. Right now it de facto does not exist and we are in no greater danger due to its absence. Instead, the key is not to force Europe to be an ally, but to ensure by our absence that it is a friend or at least a Swiss-like neutral in the present fight against terrorists and their sponsors.Truly the heart of the matter....
39
posted on
06/21/2004 11:03:58 AM PDT
by
BartMan1
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-39 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson