Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (122995)	1/10/2004 7:55:04 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

The successfull European model for extending democracy and liberalism, is the European Community (and its precursors, the Common Market and Coal and Steel Community). That's what I was referring to. Before then, Europe tried all the wrong ways to create unity, and they all ended in bloody disaster. In fact, it is precisely the disasters of WW1 and WW2 and the Soviet Empire, which created the conditions necessary for the success of today's Community. Okay, so now the period of European success in democratizing itself is post WWII. That's better. But it still ignores one not so small feature of Post WWII European success - it wasn't evenly spread across Europe. In fact, it was distinctly better in Western Europe, where it was made possible by the American nuclear umbrella. Otherwise, Western Europe would have joined Eastern Europe in the Warsaw pact, and prospects for democratization would have dimmed considerably. The Soviet Union did not just dry up and blow away in 1945. The lesson you recommend seems to be, "Give up force. Let someone else is guard your bacon." Trouble is, free-rider arrangements are rarely stable, long-term. Our troubles with Europe would not be half so bad if the Europeans were responsible for their own defense. They would not then have convinced themselves (& you) that they had achieved peace themselves just by talking about it, and everybody should do likewise.

To: Jacob Snyder who wrote (122995)	1/10/2004 8:04:40 PM
From: aladin	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Jacob, A few points on your comments: 1) In the absence of an external threat I am in agreement with you, but the Europeans could never have achieved this without US opposition to the Soviets. At best they could have hoped for a Findlandiztion type accomodation, but the model of Soviet influence was more likely to be Hungary or East Germany. 2) Todays threats are not entirely state sponsored, but their not entirely a simple criminal matter either. Law enforcement style response to Al Queda would be inadequate without the threat of war - and if we never used war - such a threat would be completely discounted. The 'European' models response to Osama would have been negotiations with Mullah Omar for his arrest and they would still be talking today. To consider all use of force futile is a non-starter if your adversary thinks differently from you. The pacifist model, like its Eurpean cousin, is naive when faced with less sophisticated or downright sociopathic cultures. It fits a model for economic and political competition between otherwise similar cultures - US/Europe/Japan/China/Russia. 3) Germany is a great example (Japan another) of countries learning a lesson on militant nationalism, but Europe as a whole still has a long way to go. Since WW2, we have seen French action in Algeria, South East Asia and many, many African countries. Belgium and Portugal also had some nasty encounters in Africa. More recently the Balkans have suffered a series of wars that again required US intervention. Now if some of these post-Yugoslavian nations emerge into the European Community - it will be because of armed intervention, not negotiations. John