[Skybird]

Originally Posted by dean_acheson

I'm very sorry if this is your opinion, or if it is shared by a majority in old Europe. If so, it is a very bad omen for co-operation between the republican west and the remaining dictatorships of the world.

Do you remember the rumsfeld agitation concenring the old europe versus the new Europe? :hmm: Well, Rumsfeld may be gone, and the policy which led to such nasty smearings - and worse - in 2003 maybe was not representative for the 40 years of history before, but it has left it'S marks in Europe. Maybe forgiven. But certainly not forgotten.

If Europe thinks that we in the States, or the folks at the State Department, or rock-ribbed conservative Republican jingoists like myself consider the fracture of the EU as a good thing, then you are sadly mistaken.

I always made a strict differerence between what America should be by the ideals, described in it's constitution for example, or what americans dream it should be (an utopia, which may not be real but nevertheless in itself is a positive vision), and what the US is in a "realpolitischem Verständnis" (in a realistic understanding, politically). And also take note please that I also differ between talking about Americans (individual persons), and America as a political actor and abstract entity. By the ideals I could become American immediately, and always have been . By reality, I feel urged to be extremely careful with regard to the US. and when I talk of "America", I almost never mean the indiovidual people, but the political body that this nation is. And I agree with Nietzsche when he said that nations are the coldest of all monsters. America, Germany, and all others alike. Nations are abstract, lifeless systems, only the people inside of them do live. Living people can makie friendship. Nations never are friends, never.

This as a preface, so that you hopefiully do not blow up when I say that america has an intesrt in a united europe only if that Europe is a vasall, a deputy to the global visions of America. Europe is also an economical rival, and a very strong one, with quite some potential threats in the aresenal, amongst which the often laughed-about Euro is one of the biggest. If Asian economies, nations and finances ever start to replace their dollar reserves with euro (and signals are strong that China for example is strongly in love with that idea), this would deliver a devastating blow to the American economy. This as just one example. The times of the close alliance are over, they are gone and will not return. In the future, America and Europe are rivals for the most, and depending on the cultural changes that are to be expected for Europe, the old world even could be regarded as an enemy by america, one day in the future, maybe. So, the best recipe indeed is that oold motto: divide et impera. If europe is no more an obedient vasall, try to stir unrest amongst them, so that thex do not unite, being an even stronge rrival on the global strategical as well as economical scene. It's a pity that it is like that, but unfortunately all american governbment that I have seen so far tend to see america not as an equal amongst euals, but as the leader whose example others must follow, and that is on a mission to impose it's own system onto others as well. and ironically this mission is what has made america more and more enemies. America is just one poessebility of people forming up a system of state and nation amongst others. you like it, that is okay. But others have no obligation to follow your example.

Folks like myself don't always agree with everything that the EU does, or symbolizes, but you will find that we spend a hell of a lot less time critizing the EU than Europe does in criticizing the United States.

Look at this topic and the linked essay:
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=113045

europe is not as much covered in american medias than America gets coverage in European medias. But where america is covered in european medias (so says the essay, but I agree with it when patrolling some online editions of amerian newspapers myself), reports feature sometimes critical views on america, but soemtime salso focussing on the psoitive sides of it. But american medias are more certred in america alone and do not care so much for other nations (as long as one is not at war with them), and europe. Where their is coverage of europe - so says the article, but I happen to agree - it has a focus on Europe not complying with american views of the world, not being supportive for military efforts, making mockery of the EU and the euro and the UN and in this bias is a bit one-sided and always looking at bad things, while I must say that the wider and more numerous coverage of european medias concerning america may produce the critical view of America as well as well-meaning and friendly reports as well. All in all I like the european media covergae far better than the american one, which is limited, and narrow in scope.

A unified, liberal, republican EU is in the interest of the United States, every serious policymaker in the United States from Harry Truman and Dean Acheson to the present day would agree with that. However, some of my ilk are not as supportive of a superstate run by beaucrats interested in aggrandizing their own power outside of a representative elective process.

In other words a Europe that is flfilling certai9n key criterias of American defintion of ho9w a state should be run: for example, liberal, and republican. Well, the history of America may depend on that of weurope, but since the founding of America it went a very difefrent way. You were confronted with sometimes the same challenges liek europe, but thse challenges nevertheless had different qualities. For example I sometimes hear americans wondering why europe does no come along with it's immigration, when America is doing so well with it. Well, we have a totally different kind of immigration. Your problems are immigrants that nevertheless are close to your religious-cultural background and by that do not really put your constitutional order at risk. We need to deal with an Islamic immigration that in principle is totally different and is a threat to our constitutional state structures. Your ways thus cannot be ours, necessarily. Just an example.

I find, calling Poland a 'east european proxy' highly offensive. Here is a country that has spent centuries fighting and dying to be independent, and subject to the high power politics of neighbors that today claim to act at such a higher moral standard than the United States. I hope that all the Poles that died fighting for the allied powers in World War II for a free Poland, only to have their country forced into submission by the evil tyranny of the Soviet Union are somehow cursing such a sentiment.

The strange twin power at Poland's top has given especially Germany repeated reasons to be irritated and feel offended by sometime ultra-nationalistic broadsides fired, so that even Polsih people living in Germany sometimes feel like being given a start. Americans traditionally are seen by Polish people as Supermen, and I mean that literally, it is an utopia, a vision they are looking forward to. you can find a nice atmospheric description of this general attitude in Herman Wouk's famous trilogy about WWII. That after Poland's start in the EU and NATO they calculated to get some advantages when being the obedient vasall of Bush'S foreign policies maybe is doubted in America, but noone seriously doubts that in europe. and I even cannot blame the Polish for it. However, I just think it is a miscalculation. Like Britain did. Spain did. Italy did. Instead of gaining the huge contracts, more or less they got stuck in Iraq and have nothing but investements, but no wins.