The Road to America

[dean_acheson]

Originally Posted by AntEater

The US is just a nation like everyone else (ok, a tad bit larger), guided by self-interest and internal politics. If it is seen to be in the interest of the US government to be helpful, they will, if it is not, they won't. There is no benevolency here, otherwise the US wouldnt have become so powerful...

Again, if this is your opinion, and shared my a majority of Germans, than I find it tragic.

The United States IS NOT just a nation like everyone else.

Please, pardon my confusion, but can you name me any other state in which, at its creation, a Constitution was drawn up, expressly stating that all power lies with its citizens, who agree that the government will have certain responsabilites and duties, and that plan for government was then sent to the citizens of a then non-existent United States, through a ratification process, at which point though majoritarian rule, was such a government established. A government based on the idea that power should be decentralized thorough checks and balances so as to forestall a King or Dictatorship?

Does your country have anyone even comparable to a George Washington? Someone who could have grabbed the reins of power and did not, as well as clearly establishing the supremacy of the civilian government over the military? Did your country ever fight a very bloody civil war, which to a large extent revolved around letting those that were the most powerless be given the civil rights of the rest of society?

Please, if I'm mistaken on this, I'm sure that you will correct me.

I love my country very very much. In fact, I think it is the greatest country in the world. Not only because it is the land of opportunity, and because it is a country that changes itself anew every day, but because it is a place where it is considered in good taste to create a "Marshall Plan" or to help rebuild a Japan. I love the traditions the United States is based on; life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, and the fact that we are a country that does give a damn what other people have to say. In fact, policy makers here, as well as the public at large spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about what other countries and people think, for God's sake, does any other country, with the possible exception of Isreal, catch as much vitriol at the United States at the UN?

I agree with much, and disagree with much that happens in our country, and in the way that our country is presented to the world, and some of the actions that our goverment takes in the world (the war in Iraq is not one of them), but I would never agree that the United States is a country 'just like any other.' Such an exercise nhilistic realitivacy (sp) is not only depressing, it is wrong.

[FIREWALL]

Not even noon my time and the fur is already flying.:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

[AntEater]

Sorry, I didnt mean to offend your patriotism.

But to people who are not citizens of the US, the US is definitely just another country.
What is so wrong about being "another country"? Of course for US Citizens, it is not, but for me, and the citizens of other countries, the US is of course the most important country in the world in regard to economic and military power, but not their country.
To you, Germany is just another country as well.
I mean I am not a citizen of the US, so I do not expect the US government to do anything for me. Why should they? Their first responsibility is with US citizens like you are one.

The US government created Marshal Plans and the likes because it was advantageous for their own country in a lot of ways. It was a far sighted decision. Much more far sighted than anything the current US (OR the current german) government is doing right now.

(PS, here it is way past noon and i'm just in the mood for a civilized debate )

[FIREWALL]

Originally Posted by AntEater

Sorry, I didnt mean to offend your patriotism.

But to people who are not citizens of the US, the US is definitely just another country.
What is so wrong about being "another country"? Of course for US Citizens, it is not, but for me, and the citizens of other countries, the US is of course the most important country in the world in regard to economic and military power, but not their country.
To you, Germany is just another country as well.
I mean I am not a citizen of the US, so I do not expect the US government to do anything for me. Why should they? Their first responsibility is with US citizens like you are one.

The US government created Marshal Plans and the likes because it was advantageous for their own country in a lot of ways. It was a far sighted decision. Much more far sighted than anything the current US (OR the current german) government is doing right now.

(PS, here it is way past noon and i'm just in the mood for a civilized debate )

Your perspective I enjoyed reading.

[fatty]

Originally Posted by AntEater

The US government created Marshal Plans and the likes because it was advantageous for their own country in a lot of ways. It was a far sighted decision.

Of course, it's the Truman Doctrine; foreign aid with the intent of containing Soviet expansion. Correct me if I'm wrong but you're talking realpolitik, a view shared by a German or two but also by some prominent American thinkers and policy makers

[dean_acheson]

Originally Posted by AntEater

Sorry, I didnt mean to offend your patriotism.

But to people who are not citizens of the US, the US is definitely just another country.
What is so wrong about being "another country"? Of course for US Citizens, it is not, but for me, and the citizens of other countries, the US is of course the most important country in the world in regard to economic and military power, but not their country.
To you, Germany is just another country as well.
I mean I am not a citizen of the US, so I do not expect the US government to do anything for me. Why should they? Their first responsibility is with US citizens like you are one.

The US government created Marshal Plans and the likes because it was advantageous for their own country in a lot of ways. It was a far sighted decision. Much more far sighted than anything the current US (OR the current german) government is doing right now.

(PS, here it is way past noon and i'm just in the mood for a civilized debate )

Certainly you didn't offend my patriotism. It can't be offended. Even dirty hippies who have driven to rallies in their parents SUVs and burn flags don't offend my patriotism. They offend me, but my patriotism is really steady about such things.

I don't consider Germany 'just another country.' I don't really consider any country 'just another country.' Every country has a rich history that is unique to itself, and Germany has, to put it mildly, a very unique history, both before and after 1870.

The Truman Administration signed off on the Marshall Plan because it was good for the world to have functioning, liberal, republican governments. That would help create a world in which boys from the United States would not have to get on boats and travel to Europe and sort out European problems. After two generations, policy makers in this country thought that kinda thing was getting a bit old. They decided, in the Truman Administation, that if Europe was made up of rebuilt countries that had functioning republican governments that had strong ties to each other (the ECSC being the child of policy makers such as Acheson and Monnet) and traded with the rest of the world.

Policymakers in the United States believed that if the common European had their own stuff and could vote for their own leaders, and markets were tied together with the creation of an International Monetary Fund to help stabilize currencies and a IBRD to help rebuild infastructure that the old World could be a partner in making this a more sable and freer globe. Now if that is considered 'self-interest' in a pajoritve sense, than there is truly nothing that can be done that isn't 'self-interested.'

Almost, or it should be, needless to say, this is basically the same belief system that guided US policy makers leading up to the Iraqi war. Depose a despot, establish a multi-ethnic constitutional government, and help establish the first republican government in the Islamic world. It worked with much of Europe as well as Japan and South Korea.

The arguments about the war being simply over oil are patently absurd. As if the United States could not have found a modus vivendi with Saddam for cheap oil....for God's sake. I'll quit on that for now, this post is already too long.

There are some relevant articles below....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europea...teel_Community

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monnet_Plan

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acheson

[Ishmael]

Originally Posted by waste gate

This arcticle was obviously written for internal German consumption only, to make this woman look half way descent. The US doesn't give a damn what the German gov't or the German people have to say. The very thought that Germany is of parity with the US only shows the mindset that plunged the world into war twice in the 20th century. You folks should just recognize the fact that your nation is second tier. Your county's position on all things international should be your guide.

Germany
Hitler spooked them so bad they are afraid to have a Government. Germany is to politics what reformed alcoholics are to drinking - preachy and sanctimonious, but underneath you know they’re jonesing for another little jolt of the hard stuff, which is why they occasionally pass laws banning free speech and stuff. They probably have a President or something like that. Germans make the best creepy evil masterminds, and other vilians.

Of course, If we keep borrowing money from the rest of the world to finance our deficits(read China), we'll be joining Germany in the 2nd tier a lot sooner than you might think.

[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.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by dean_acheson

Again, if this is your opinion, and shared my a majority of Germans, than I find it tragic.

The United States IS NOT just a nation like everyone else.

Needless to say that the better part of mankind disagrees. What you consider to be patroiotism in that statement, or a description of america rweally having a unique role in history, others outside america simply perceive as pure egocentrism, and arrogance.

Please, pardon my confusion, but can you name me any other state in which, at its creation, a Constitution was drawn up, expressly stating that all power lies with its citizens, who agree that the government will have certain responsabilites and duties, and that plan for government was then sent to the citizens of a then non-existent United States, through a ratification process, at which point though majoritarian rule, was such a government established. A government based on the idea that power should be decentralized thorough checks and balances so as to forestall a King or Dictatorship?

You certai9nly know how massively the founding father's thinking was influenced by French forethinkers of thgeir time whose ideas were discussed and admired in the saloons in the cities along the Eastern coast!?

Also, your nation had totally different starting conditions han european nations had. Your history is much less complicated and muczh shorter, than that of europe. You had far less rivals. No wonder then that your way to reach a consitutioon and europe'S ways of gaining it'S own are different, and also led to different understanding of the duties of the state. One should be careful to say "this model is better than the others". One better says: "This model is the result of different starting variables in that place".

Does your country have anyone even comparable to a George Washington? Someone who could have grabbed the reins of power and did not, as well as clearly establishing the supremacy of the civilian government over the military? Did your country ever fight a very bloody civil war, which to a large extent revolved around letting those that were the most powerless be given the civil rights of the rest of society?

I recommend you start with reading the german Grundgesetz. german hostory is not the shortest, and it had many ups and downs. The downs usually are known and often described, or are evn used to shut up Germans in political debates, but the highs are not so often mentioned. Culture and cultural infoluence also has something to do with it. It would lead to far here to go into these things in detail, but you may want to remember that germany, as well as other major european nations, had a hugh scope of brilliant personalities, and that withoiut europe being formed by these, america would not be imaginable to exist in the way in which it finally was founded as an independant nation. It did not fall down from just the empty sky, I mean.

I love my country very very much. In fact, I think it is the greatest country in the world. Not only because it is the land of opportunity, and because it is a country that changes itself anew every day, but because it is a place where it is considered in good taste to create a "Marshall Plan" or to help rebuild a Japan. I love the traditions the United States is based on; life, liberty, and the persuit of happiness, and the fact that we are a country that does give a damn what other people have to say. In fact, policy makers here, as well as the public at large spend an inordinate amount of time worrying about what other countries and people think, for God's sake, does any other country, with the possible exception of Isreal, catch as much vitriol at the United States at the UN?

nothing wrong in loving the place where you live. but you must others grant the right to diasagree on your description of America being the greatest place on earth. because others, like you, may love the place they live in as much as you do. And like you have no obligation to follow thweir exmaple, they have no obligation to follow yours. You are just one amongst others, representing 5% of mankind, not more. the often mocked EU has a larger population that america, and manages to keep so many more former bitter enmies together peacefully than am erica ever had enemies in it's own sphere. I may criticise the EU as much as i want, but one achievement in major parts of Europe cannot be denied by enybody: that I today can go to Holland wiothout needing to fear to get lynched for the crimes of my ancestors, or that French and Spanish no longer shoot at each other when passing the borders, and British ships can anchor in continental harbours and are welcomed as friends, not enemies.

I agree with much, and disagree with much that happens in our country, and in the way that our country is presented to the world, and some of the actions that our goverment takes in the world (the war in Iraq is not one of them), but I would never agree that the United States is a country 'just like any other.' Such an exercise nhilistic realitivacy (sp) is not only depressing, it is wrong.

I think you too willingly oversee the many bitter realities that also exist in your country, and the many inner conflicts. The US is a nation like several others in the West: it has both light and shadow. europeans, by their own history, also have learned that it is very dangerous to think of one's own country being the only reasonable way to be a country. It has brought our ancestors a whole lot of trouble. and America brought the same kind of trouble to place like Vietnam, and Iraq, and I spare me more compliuctaed examples of indirect power projection by dominating international institutions which one helped to tailor to one's own needs. Good intentions only - are just not enough.

So, I have no problem with you loving your place where you live, and the people around you, and the way you people use to spend your life, if nit is not at the cost of others. It is what you know, and what you are used to. I just wish for more sense of realism, and the willingness to see the difference between what one wants things to be, and what they really are.

[AntEater]

Agreed


Btw, this political forum is addictive.
Such a bunch of well educated people with lots of different points of view.

[Skybird]

Almost, or it should be, needless to say, this is basically the same belief system that guided US policy makers leading up to the Iraqi war. Depose a despot, establish a multi-ethnic constitutional government, and help establish the first republican government in the Islamic world. It worked with much of Europe as well as Japan and South Korea.

That comparison is a very big mistake. Iraq in no way compared to Japan and Germany and Korea. the cultural preconditions are such that such comparisons should have been forbidden from the very beginning.

Some things simply do not go well together. Democracy and Muhammad's Islam, for example. Both are totally exclusive to each other. the one is democracy, the other is totalitarianism. but a different totalitarianism than that to be found in Japanese and german national-socialism, which in germany and Italy was labelled as fascism.

The arguments about the war being simply over oil are patently absurd. As if the United States could not have found a modus vivendi with Saddam for cheap oil....for God's sake. I'll quit on that for now, this post is already too long.

That is simplifying.

It is about controlling the flow of goods, being able to block access or grant access to ressouces, and strategical positioning of one's own pieces on the chessboard. It was about encircling both China and Russia. Securing the energy lines from the Kaspian region to the West, denying Moscow the ability to interfere with this, and another energy line through Afghanistan and to the Indian ocean. It was about raising potentials and strategical reserves with regard to China, and winning Iraq as a launching platform for the confrontation with Iran. It was about securing lucrative contracts for companies members and friends of the administration had and have personal relations with, and being able to enforce a privatization of Iraq's oil industry to foreign and american enterprises with which the Iraqi people could not legally interfere anymore. that's why some people called it the intended plundering of a country.

"Realpolitik"! the values of the constitution and general well-meaning towards mankind have nothing, nothing to do with it. Fighting wars just to do foreign people a favour by freeing them simply are too costly nowadays. Even WWII was not fought by america for altruistic reasons, (which should not decrease the meaning of the positive "side-effects" for europe). Roosevelt knew damn well that a United states deciding the war ineurppe and neutralizing Japan as a rival would free the way for America becoming the heir of the British empire'S heritage.

seen that way, the war in 2003 was about oil, and very much so. but not in the understanding of Washington planning to steal it at night and filling it into bottles and smuggle it out of the country. Gaining strategic platforms, and controlling international trade patterns and economical developements as well as the flow of oil is the name of the game. Blocking china, and Russia. Dont you play chess? It's all a chessmatch out there, nothing else but chess. Bush just happened not to be the most clever player around. He damaged the position on the board so much that for the future the match will be much harder to be played for america.

[dean_acheson]

Well, I am not really the 'blow up" type.

But, I still have disagreements with your prognosis, being in that it is slighly wrong-headed.

Why is it that economics has to be such a zero-sum game? What class is it that taught this? There are not economic 'rivals' there are simply competitors. That is the nature of free trade, and a rising tide lifts all boats, as long as you are willing to work a bit harder. I, nor do most of my educated conservative brethern consider an integrated EU as any type of rival, no do we expect an integrated EU to be a vassal. It is the left and the phobic Buchanan's of the right that argue for the walls and tarriffs to be put up. We on the right might snicker at the DeGaullists amongst those on the Continent, but we never expect the UK, or France, or Germany to follow Les Etats-Uni around like penitant children. When asked, as DeGaulle did, to get the hell out, we certainly did. When we disagree, as we stupidly did in 1956, we did so openly, because we felt that we might damage out 'reputation' with the Islamic world. Much of Europe disagrees with our Mid-Eastern policies today. That is fine.

The Trans-Atlantic partnership has died a zillion times. It collapsed for the first time in the 56' crisis, then again during the decision for force the UK to drop the Skybolt in the early 60s, and then again when DeGaulle pulled France out of NATO in '66, and then again over the Vietnam War, and then again over MRBMs in Western Europe in the early 80s, and then again at the end of the Cold War when, as Fukyama told us, history ended.... and here we are again and the alliance is over. Well, all of this is B.S., we need you and you need us. You need us to help clean up things like the Balkans, and we need you to remind us that bad things can happen to good people, seriously, the United States needs the EU on every level, from a strategic to an economic partner. Sometimes our interests may not be the same, but that is why we agreed to the arbitration processes at the EU, and we still both believe in NATO. Cast adrift from each other, the old World and the new, the world becomes a much colder place.

To steal a phrase, though events may have strained the ties streching forth from every patriot grave from Two World Wars, we must not be enemies, we must be friends.

We both represent the best hope of mankind, which is the ability to live out one's own destiny as one see's fit, and rising as high as one talents allow. While we were based on this idea, it was from European traditions that we here enscribed it; Americans must always remember this, and only an idiot would think that such a belief system came about only in 1848....