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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (26246)	1/25/2004 7:02:10 PM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793903

US interests served Europe during that period because it was in our interests to keep the Soviet Union out of Europe, to have Europe as a buffer. That was a perfect confluence of interests. kholt, Accepting that statement requires some convoluted thinking. You cannot sell that to me. Europe did indeed become a buffer, but certainly not for the USA. Since Lenin, the Russian Bear has always been frantically protecting its own borders. Stalin continued that policy. Eastern Europe, occupied by the Soviets, became the buffer. And it was established not to protect the USA, rather to protect mother Russia. The minefields, barbed wire fences and concrete walls surrounding Berlin and along the East German, and Czechoslovakian borders with the west and the Hungarian border with Austria were not built by America to protect America....They were built by Soviets to protect Russia. You wrote, "it was in our interests to keep the Soviet Union out of Europe." If true, we failed miserably for a long time. The Russians occupied one helluva slice of Europe; Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Poland, Hungary, Czech, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, etc...for one reason. Western Europe was not a buffer to protect America. Eastern Europe was established as a buffer to protect Russia. How many Russian leaders can you name who stood at the wall and demanded America tear it down? uw

To: Lane3 who wrote (26246)	1/27/2004 1:31:24 AM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793903

It was in our interest to prevent the Soviets from dominating Eurasia, and it was in the interests of Europe to not be dominated. Rather than Europe being subservient to our interests, it was the exact opposite. The cornerstone of the Atlantic Alliance was the United States sublimating our national interest for Europe's. The alliance depended upon the promise that America would deny itself, and sacrifice New York to save Paris. Europe was in the driver's seat for 50 years. And now that they are not the center of attention, they are miffed. Europe does not have to be subservient to our interests, as a general rule. Just as Europe benefitted from 50 years of having Americans defend them against both the Soviets and the possibility of a resurgent Germany, so they also benefit from America asserting itself to defeat aggressive regional powers, terrorist networks, and proliferation of dangerous weapons. They have much to gain in security, from so little effort on their part. They are, in effect, free riders on the American defense budget yet again. Derek