From: "John S. Dyson"
References: <3D7F71CF.A633A6D1@bellatlantic.net> <email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Transistor Switching
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2600.0000
Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:56:21 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 13:50:18 EST
"Jim Thompson" wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org...
> |There will be little difference in American policy between 2mos ago and 2mos
> |from now. The differences will mostly be the actions and jumping through
> |hoops that are necessary for 'European' sensibilities. If the 'European' leadership
> |was 'wise', they would already understand what is going on, without having
> |to be EDUCATED by George Bush.
> I think we should tweak the European "sensibilities" and do nothing in
> the Middle East but heavily arm the Israeli's.
> Then sit back and wait.
> As soon as Saddam lobs one at Israel, Israel will dispose of all the
> Arab countries in a one-day neato nuclear conflagration. Even the
> fallout will be useful, giving some population control just to the
> east ;-)
It seems like the position that you describe would initially 'feel good', but
might be too strongly unilateral, even for my own taste. One problem
with 'moderation', when used as an approach by the Americans, is that
SOME of the Europeans find it to be necessary to further remove the
teeth from a probably very effective approach.
There does seem to be an innate self-hatred on the part of SOME
Europeans, and they won't realize that moral 'relativism' is self defeating.
The same 'love and respect' that SOME Europeans think that they are
expressing towards their enemies, but seldom expressed towards their
American friend, will be used to destroy them. This 'love and respect' is
indeed effective towards those who have similar Western culture
(e.g. the US), but showing that respect is apparently contrary to the
aims and goals of SOME European governments. So, instead, they
show that 'love' towards those who would just as soon kill them (the
Islamists and/or Saddam.) Any kind of business dealing, or sale of
weapons to Saddam is contrary to any sane European interests (even
though I can understand Russia's need and desperate desire for cash
and income, so they really do have some valid and respectable motivations.)
The US does have similar problems in dealing with despotic governments,
where those governments tend to deflect the internal criticism against them
and direct it towards the US. However, in these cases (e.g. Saudi), the oil
that is shipped from those areas goes to Europe and other US allies, who
use our appeasement of Saudi as an example of our mistakes. Alas, those
mistakes are explicitly done for the flow of oil from Saudi to Europe and/or
other so-called 'allies.'
When the US acts purely in the best interests of it's allies, it is condemned,
when it acts proactively, it is condemned, when it acts too passively, it is
condemned. When Europe has a purely European problem, the US is
condemned when it doesn't immediately act to solve it.
For unilateral behaviors and attitudes, especially from those who accuse the
US for such behaviors, maybe those accusers should look MUCH MORE closely
at themselves for the impetus and encouragement of the US behavior that
is so disliked. Since the US isn't often encouraged or thanked, there is little
motivation than to look purely at self-interest...