Robert Kagan, co-founder with William Kristol of the Project for the New American Century.
Jayzuss wept ed, still trotting out that PNAC stuff?
The idea that a Europe at a unique, genuine, productive and lasting peace with itself - in total contrast to our centuries of violent history - is
"weak" is an unusual view to say the least.
But let's be honest.
The root of this is little more than 'sour grapes' by a certain right-wing section of opinion in the USA over the fact that free Europe freely dares
to maintain a difference of opinion in regard to foreign policy.
(Just as many of us tend to take a less than narrow and one-dimensional view over the US's role - as well as our own and the USSR's - during the
cold war period too.)
'Europe' (almost entirely) is enormously suspicious of US motives in this era of so-called 'preemptive defence' and the entire PNAC
agenda......and rightly so IMO
(as indeed is a sizable section of US opinion too).
To try and dress that up in neat little, if grandiose, theories that centuries of warfare have left Europe "weak" is just a novel, if rather
self-serving and transparent, approach.
As FallenFromTheTree so nicely put it, you
try experiencing many centuries
of international warfare, slaughter, maiming, rape, repeated
invasion, occupation, looting and destruction and then see how "weak" you
find a settled unique period of real cooperation, genuine peace and
Then consider just how gung-ho that kind of centuries-repeated warfare is liable to make your
nation or whether you too would only consider
embarking on such a profoundly serious course with as much legality, certainty and absolute proof as you could get.
That's not "weak".
That's maturity and, to put it simply, it is clear-headed sanity.
The idea that it's "weakness" is an absurd notion as a few moments thought ought to make clear, no matter how much it 'chimes' with a certain
view-point unfortunately at large in parts of the USA right now.
Europe spends a fortune on weaponry (it might not scale the absurd paranoid heights of a USA determined to out-spend everyone else put together but it
is still a vast fortune).
Europe still sends her young men and women to risk all in trouble spots the world over, in some places as 'peace-keepers' and in others as
......and as for Ann's line?
Well, bl**dy hell ed, Ann Coulter, does anyone really
take that one-trick ignoramus seriously?
(tell us the one about the Canadian forces in Vietnam again Ann, that was hilarious,
It takes a spectacularly narrow POV to exclude all other facts, views and comment to distill things down to that ridiculously blinkered nonsense.
But that is her speciality, her shtick.
Right-wing music hall.
Nothing more and certainly nothing serious.
The 'war' 'we' are all now landed with may well have wider implications but to ignore the fact that it is primarily about securing mainly US
interests in the region is laughably blind.
To be so deranged as to attempt to promote this war as a 'clash of civilisations' is not only stupidly insane but criminally dangerous in the
extreme and so totally and wholly unnecessary.
It is not - so long as certain crazy people (on each 'side') are not allowed to try and make it so.
'Europeans' are quite right to point these truths out.
We're perfectly entitled to freely take an independent view of our own.
I thought that very 'freedom' was supposed to be the sacrosanct value we were all supposed to be defending?
'Europeans' are also correct in their view that if it were not for the actions of certain US administrations (who went out of their way to build-up,
fund and support these extremist fundamentalists when it was thought to suit them) none of 'us' would be having to fight these costly wars in the
first place nor face such a 'threat' from religious extremists at all.
That's not to say the 'we' 'Europeans' have not been involved and have ourselves gotten things very wrong there too but it does at least allow us
to say 'been there done that' and 'that really doesn't work in the long-run' and 'maybe it's time to try acting differently now'?
As for Iran?
Well some substantive facts about their so-called 'nuclear weapons program' might help persuade people here in Europe.
So far there's plenty of talk and no evidence - in fact lately we have had the shock of seeing the IAEA take the highly unusual step of criticising
the USA's presentation of their reports and information as highly slanted and agenda-driven.
All of which simply serves to high-light what 'Europe' sees going on here; shades of the Iraq pre-war propaganda job.
Any old tale will do so long as it serves the pro-war agenda and gets the war in Iran (and possibly Syria too) that some seem determined to see.
Some of us got fooled once, many in Europe didn't at all, much to the chagrin of some in the US administration.
Maybe this is just a part of how they intend to 'sell' the uncomfortable facts.
It'll take some doing explaining how come even amongst those who joined in last time there is absolutely zero support for this latest part of the
Maybe some will buy into this nonsense, I expect they'll shout this stuff as much as they can, 'our' history of war has made us inveterate
, maybe it'll 'switch off' a section of 'the people' back home so they don't have to think anymore about how come so many of those
who share basic democratic values disagree so vehemently.
At root it's a way of inferring that we don't really share the same values at all, isn't it?
But perhaps if the US 'war-monger'/PNAC element truly does believe this kind of stuff then they ought to be worrying that their actions and plans
don't have the same effect back home, huh?
[edit on 1-10-2006 by sminkeypinkey]