Former Republican senator Jack Danforth has described the practical effect of these European attitudes bluntly: "What it really says is: We will follow the U.S. provided the U.S. doesn't want to lead anywhere." What does it mean to "do the right thing in world affairs"? For Europeans, this essentially means pacifism. A recent transatlantic poll asked whether the use of force can ever be "necessary to obtain justice." Seventy-one percent of Europeans said "no," while 71 percent of American said "yes." In general, Europeans believe that nothing -- not peace, or freedom, or security, or the rights of the weak -- is worth fighting for. It is an attitude Europeans can afford to hold because America has chosen to defend them. But it is not a view that an American president can share, or ultimately appease.
Hard power is essential. Soft power is useful. Star power matters mainly in Oslo.
In determining which of two worldviews is "right", I often ask myself which world I'd rather live in: a world in which all of the people believed in A, or a world in which all of the people believe in B. Here the choice is simple. I would much rather live in a world of pacifists than in a world of people who held in high regard the use of military or terrorist force as a means of solving problems. You can say I'm a dreamer who's only free to dream because a soldier took a bullet for me, but remember: the one who fired that bullet was himself a pawn of policies enacted by those who hold in high regard the use of military or terrorist force as a means of solving problems. The military mentality is ultimately self-defeating. The same goes for nationalism. Yes, sometimes it comes down to kill or be killed, but never celebrate that reality or heap scorn on those who cannot bring themselves to put a price on peace.
Originally posted by Crowley Refresh my memory. How many times in recent history has American bombs brought peace and prosperity to the country they have/had in their sights?
Originally posted by KazetNagorra In zeeblebot's world, a Nobel peace prize is representative of "what Europe thinks".
I only hope Europe goes in the path that zeeblebot describes. We should not use force in other countries to impose our justice, unless this is done by the UN and is shared by all kinds of countries. We simply shouldn't go where we are not welcome.
The EU should keep expanding by means of peaceful cooperation and increased membership. That's the role I'd like to see Europe do. If you give a country the opportunity to join by stating the conditions by which you will be accepted, then that the people in that country will have much more leverage over their governments to move in that direction, should they wish to have institutions similar to ours. War and force only creates an environment where the ruthless move to the top.
Originally posted by Palynka ...If you give a country the opportunity to join by stating the conditions by which you will be accepted, then that the people in that country will have much more leverage over their governments to move in that direction, should they wish to have institutions similar to ours. War and force only creates an environment where the ruthless move to the top.
..and if the people have never experienced the freedom to express civic virtue, and have never known peace enough themselves to resonate the right balance of expectations from those that rise to become their leaders, then to what extent should those with western values assume that belligerence in another nation stems mainly from a lack of parity?
The nature nurture argument may simply not hold for other cultures. More specifically our sensitivities as to the degree to which those levers can affect a change. Treating all men like gentlemen may not necessarily produce a universal transformation.
Originally posted by kmax87 ..and if the people have never experienced the freedom to express civic virtue, and have never known peace enough themselves to resonate the right balance of expectations from those that rise to become their leaders, then to what extent should those with western values assume that belligerence in another nation stems mainly from a lack of parity?
The natu ...[text shortened]... change. Treating all men like gentlemen may not necessarily produce a universal transformation.
If it doesn't hold, then our institutions are not adequate and imposing them by force wouldn't solve anything, anyway. I still see no advantage.
Originally posted by Palynka If it doesn't hold, then our institutions are not adequate and imposing them by force wouldn't solve anything, anyway. I still see no advantage.
It allows 'us' to enjoy our absurd notion of peaceful civilization just a little bit longer before the howling dogs of hell do their best to try and rip 'us' all apart.
Originally posted by kmax87 It allows 'us' to enjoy our absurd notion of peaceful civilization just a little bit longer before the howling dogs of hell do their best to try and rip 'us' all apart.
....okay okay,, just file it under that old definition of paranoia you thought made an amusing bumper sticker once..."......just because you're not paranoid, doesn't mean they're still not out to get you......."
Originally posted by zeeblebot http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/13/AR2009101302654.html
...
Former Republican senator Jack Danforth has described the practical effect of these European attitudes bluntly: "What it really says is: We will follow the U.S. provided the U.S. doesn't want to lead anywhere." What does it mean to "do the right thing in world af ...[text shortened]...
Hard power is essential. Soft power is useful. Star power matters mainly in Oslo.
Since you like links so much, then you click on the link that follows to the report of that poll. You would then see that the question was not about the use of force is ever necessary to obtain justice, but whether if, "under some conditions, war is necessary to obtain justice".
euroweenies disunite
15 Oct '09 06:05
Back to Top