Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Timo · May 27, 2002, 03:36 PM

If y'all can tear your attention away from "ever been w/a 'freak'" for a moment (or thirty), you might consider what John Keegan has written about the strategic imbalance between the USA and the EU. He, quite rightly I think, points out how the military imbalance has led to radically different world views.

<a href="http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html" target="_blank">http://www.policyreview.org/JUN02/kagan.html</a>

some interesting hightlights:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Today�s transatlantic problem, in short, is not a George Bush problem. It is a power problem. American military strength has produced a propensity to use that strength. Europe�s military weakness has produced a perfectly understandable aversion to the exercise of military power. Indeed, it has produced a powerful European interest in inhabiting a world where strength doesn�t matter, where international law and international institutions predominate, where unilateral action by powerful nations is forbidden, where all nations regardless of their strength have equal rights and are equally protected by commonly agreed-upon international rules of behavior. Europeans have a deep interest in devaluing and eventually eradicating the brutal laws of an anarchic, Hobbesian world where power is the ultimate determinant of national security and success.

This is no reproach. It is what weaker powers have wanted from time immemorial. It was what Americans wanted in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, when the brutality of a European system of power politics run by the global giants of France, Britain, and Russia left Americans constantly vulnerable to imperial thrashing.<hr /></blockquote>And regarding Europe's six decades of mostly-peaceful existence:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />In thinking about the divergence of their own views and Europeans�, Americans must not lose sight of the main point: The new Europe is indeed a blessed miracle and a reason for enormous celebration � on both sides of the Atlantic. For Europeans, it is the realization of a long and improbable dream: a continent free from nationalist strife and blood feuds, from military competition and arms races. War between the major European powers is almost unimaginable. After centuries of misery, not only for Europeans but also for those pulled into their conflicts � as Americans were twice in the past century � the new Europe really has emerged as a paradise. It is something to be cherished and guarded, not least by Americans, who have shed blood on Europe�s soil and would shed more should the new Europe ever fail.<hr /></blockquote>Keegan goes on to point out the European miracle came about because of US security guarantees: the deus ex machina of the US military shield. He points out this interesting paradox:
<blockquote>quote:<hr />
The current situation abounds in ironies. Europe�s rejection of power politics, its devaluing of military force as a tool of international relations, have depended on the presence of American military forces on European soil. Europe�s new Kantian order could flourish only under the umbrella of American power exercised according to the rules of the old Hobbesian order. American power made it possible for Europeans to believe that power was no longer important. And now, in the final irony, the fact that United States military power has solved the European problem, especially the �German problem,� allows Europeans today to believe that American military power, and the �strategic culture� that has created and sustained it, are outmoded and dangerous.

Most Europeans do not see the great paradox: that their passage into post-history has depended on the United States not making the same passage. Because Europe has neither the will nor the ability to guard its own paradise and keep it from being overrun, spiritually as well as physically, by a world that has yet to accept the rule of �moral consciousness,� it has become dependent on America�s willingness to use its military might to deter or defeat those around the world who still believe in power politics.<hr /></blockquote>The whole article's worth a read. I don't agree 100% with Keegan's assessment, but he makes some interesting systemic assessments and grounds the current disagreements between the EU and the US of A in a historical context.

Millennium · May 27, 2002, 04:23 PM

Truly fascinating. So the guy is basically saying that Europe's managed to become peaceful because their own capacity to make war was basically wiped out, but because someone else is protecting them they don't have to protect themselves anymore anyway.

The guy's got a point. I'm going to have to think of this some more. I wonder: is this really a good thing?

Mastrap · May 27, 2002, 04:33 PM

Thanks for posting that, makes a very interesting read. I can't say I agree with everything Kagan writes but it certainly makes for interesting and informative reading.

It also shed some light on what is happening in this forum.

The thing it reminds me off is the ancient Greece/Rome scenario. The Greek saw the Romans as barbarians, the Romans went on to become the world power of their day. I wonder who will be the barbarians standing at the gates of the US when the time comes?

Mastrap · May 27, 2002, 04:38 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Millennium:
Truly fascinating. So the guy is basically saying that Europe's managed to become peaceful because their own capacity to make war was basically wiped out, but because someone else is protecting them they don't have to protect themselves anymore anyway.

The guy's got a point. I'm going to have to think of this some more. I wonder: is this really a good thing?<hr /></blockquote>Not necessarily. What he says (IMO) is that the Europeans have turned away from war as an instrument of power because of the success of non-violent policies. It would be relatively simple for the countries of the EU to match the US in military spending, it is just that the political will isn't there. This leads to a view of the US as a somewhat less 'developed' society.

This might have something to do with the fact that Europe's civilian population has experienced war to a far greater degree than the US's. There's something about bombed and burning cities that tends to stay in the collective subconscious.

Millennium · May 27, 2002, 05:02 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mastrap:
Not necessarily. What he says (IMO) is that the Europeans have turned away from war as an instrument of power because of the success of non-violent policies.<hr /></blockquote>True, but he also seems to say that these policies could not have been implemented if someone weren't doing their military work for them. It was this outside force that allowed them to pursue nonviolence, and that if that force were to be taken away, they would be sitting ducks.

Timo · May 27, 2002, 05:13 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mastrap:
There's something about bombed and burning cities that tends to stay in the collective subconscious.<hr /></blockquote>I want to believe this, but Europe has been embroiled in wars for centuries, and is only recently that the memory of bombed and burning cities have become lodged in a collective subconsciousness, if they are all. (Side question: is there a collective subconsciousness?)

Perhaps one could argue that the memory of bombed and burned cities, combined with the emergence of relatively stable democracies, has allowed for the distaste for war to become policy.

Interestingly, I don't think one would find a great deal of divergence regarding aversion to war between citizens of Sweden and of France (e.g.), even though the former country hasn't seen its cities bombed or burning for 350 years. Or Switzerland. Etc. This either represents wisdom on the part of Swedes ("There but for the Grace of God go we...") or Keegan's analysis has teeth: geopolitcally, Sweden and France are more similar than different vis-a-vis the rest of the world.

edit: durn UBB code

[ 05-27-2002, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Timo ]

SimeyTheLimey · May 27, 2002, 05:32 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mastrap:
Not necessarily. What he says (IMO) is that the Europeans have turned away from war as an instrument of power because of the success of non-violent policies. It would be relatively simple for the countries of the EU to match the US in military spending, it is just that the political will isn't there. This leads to a view of the US as a somewhat less 'developed' society.

This might have something to do with the fact that Europe's civilian population has experienced war to a far greater degree than the US's. There's something about bombed and burning cities that tends to stay in the collective subconscious.<hr /></blockquote>This might be true (my Mother was bombed in WW-II, btw), but it misses an important point. The extent to which we can rely on treaties and agreements depends on the context you are talking about.

The North American continent became internally demiliterized long before western Europe did. The border between the US and Canada is completely undefended on both sides and (South Park jokes aside) war between say, Canada and the US is unthinkable.

The same is happily now the case in western Europe, and I think it is fair to say that it is increasingly becoming the case between western Europe and its neighbors to the East.

But this rosy view of the world has proven a dismal failure when believers in international agreements come up against believers in hard power. A classic recent example is the utter inability of the EU to bring a halt to the ethnic cleansing and bloodshed in the Balkans. In the end it took old fashioned power politics and bombing led by you-know-who.

That's really what we face now. I'm delighted that Europeans are settling their internal differences around the table, but it's not necessaarily applicable elsewhere. The idea that Saddam Hussein or other dictators are likely to be amenible to such pacific tactics is too bizarre and naive to credit. And the danger of doing nothing is also too severe to accept. There are some contexts where the only thing that matters is being stronger than the bad guy, and Europeans may have to start reaquainting themselves to that reality.

KellyHogan · May 27, 2002, 06:00 PM

Don't be so naive. This is incredibly bad analysis. There has been peace in Europe for what? How long? They are still fighting in Kosova but the journalists are fed up with it because it no longer sells papers.

Putin has a Swiss Bank account. He's on his way to becoming as rich as Gorbachov. But that doesn't solve the massive poverty in Russia that the media doesn't want to report anymore. Everything is rosy. Have faith. We are at peace now. Bollocks.

In western Europe there are racist beatings and squabbles in Germany, Italy, France and Britain. The ****ing 'Asians' I heard the other day in a restaurant said one guy to his girlfriend when he saw two Asian families passing, he and his bitch eating curry and wearing clothes made in Bangladesh and China.

The EC is giving hell to Britain, the latest reports are that taxes and prices will go up if Britain joins the EU. The EC also supports genetic modified crop and tried to cover up a report which indicated they were going to banish organic farming because it would be impossible for organic farms to escape contamination from genetically modified pollination.

Prices have gone up in every nation that adopted the Euro (without a referendum), so are taxes. Wages have remained the same though.

In Gibraltar the people are screaming for support against Spain and that bastard Tony Blair who is trying to hand over Gibraltar to Spain or share sovereignty. But the people of Gibraltar want to remain British. Tony is on his crusade to chop up Britain into smaller and smaller bits so that each little region becomes easier to control by Brussels. Just stick a little baron in each region and give him a Swiss bank account. The police will keep people in line eventually. It's pretty similar to the way monarchies used to work. Unelected kings found it easier to rule small principalities with a well-rewarded loyal baron in each one. Not democratic at all.

So fascism is rising and the some moron like Dubya praises Europe for being at peace. There is no more peace at the moment than there was during the Cold War. In fact, it was better during the Cold War!

Timo · May 27, 2002, 06:57 PM

Perhaps KellyHogan would like to address specific points in Keegan's analysis, instead of hijacking this thread with the usual "everything western is going to hell" thesis?

Seriously. You remind of of the saying, "When you're a carpenter, everything looks like a nail."

denim · May 27, 2002, 07:48 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Millennium:
I wonder: is this really a good thing?<hr /></blockquote>It keeps them weak and keeps us strong. If they ever cause us enough trouble, we can either abandon them or attack them and they can't do anything about it. Let them carp at how "unevolved" we are, making virtue out of their necessity. The sheep like to agree that the wolf is bad, but it's the shepherd who has the power.

Lerkfish · May 27, 2002, 07:51 PM

well, if the taliban and other terrorist groups that people like kelly hogan champion as "freedom fighters" actually succeed in wiping the US off the face of the earth, or at least eliminating their dominance in the world militarily, then it would be an interesting thing to see how the surviving countries handle the resulting political/military/security dynamics.

I'd imagine possibly:
...US is gone, so here you have a group(s) who have defeated them....now THEY are the largest threat to every other nation in the world. How would the rest of the world handle them? Or would they allow them to exist, always carrying the very real threat to destroy any country that they disagreed with by slaughtering their innocent civilians? Would the world then realign, including countries now democracies, behind the banner of islamic jihad and turn the world into fundamentalist muslim?
...Or if they decided to fight, how would they? Some, to be sure, like britain would have some actual ability to do so, but without the US as partners, could they in fact police the world as they once did?
....And how well do you think OBL would treat Kelly Hogan's (as an example) criticisms of his new world order? How long do you think people who oppose the new world islam would fare? how long would they live? would they even be allowed to criticize?

interesting. It's like what sometimes happens here...people can curse the police when they get a traffic ticket, but guess who they want around them when they get caught in a riot or gang war?

Millennium · May 27, 2002, 08:41 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by denim:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Millennium:
I wonder: is this really a good thing?<hr /></blockquote>It keeps them weak and keeps us strong. If they ever cause us enough trouble, we can either abandon them or attack them and they can't do anything about it. Let them carp at how "unevolved" we are, making virtue out of their necessity. The sheep like to agree that the wolf is bad, but it's the shepherd who has the power.<hr /></blockquote>But I don't see that as being a good thing either. No one should have that much power on an international scale; not the US, not the UN, not OPEC, not NATO, not OBL, and not anyone else.

And Kelly is right; things aren't as rosy as they might seem. It is true that we don't see much open international conflict in western Europe at this stage. But to deny that there's nationalist strife... I can refute that with only two words: Le Pen. It's boiling below the surface, even if it's not presently out in the open.

And even if that were not the case, Eastern Europe has a long way to go still. The Balkans have been at war for hundreds of years, stopping more or less only during the period when they were part of the Soviet bloc, and that was because of the threats of the totalitarian regime of the time. In that aspect the situation is little better -and arguably worse- than the ethnic infighting in Afghanistan, or the conflict between India and Pakistan, or the problems between the Kurds and almost everyone else in that region.

denim · May 27, 2002, 09:55 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Millennium:
But I don't see that as being a good thing either. No one should have that much power on an international scale; not the US, not the UN, not OPEC, not NATO, not OBL, and not anyone else.<hr /></blockquote>The power exists. Someone will have it. "Should be" and "are" are at odds here.

fulmer · May 28, 2002, 02:51 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
Putin has a Swiss Bank account. He's on his way to becoming as rich as Gorbachov. But that doesn't solve the massive poverty in Russia that the media doesn't want to report anymore. <hr /></blockquote>been to Russia recently? I have. Things are improving. the economy (GDP) has been growing (and continues to do so) and it isn't thanks to that drunkard Yeltsin. Russians like Putin b/c he is decisive and looks to be less corrupt than the others. for once, a change in leadership seems to contradict (to date) the Russian belief that changes in power are only giving a new group of people their turn to rob the populace.

the country is full of poverty, but at least it is moving forward. there is a starting point, and a government the US and Europeans can work with that isn't so obviously corrupt as Yeltsin's leacherous regime was.

as for the bank accounts: you can't put money in Russian banks and expect it to be insured by the government. The risk is all yours and the benefits next to none. Smart folks with money keep it in their flats (in dollars, at that. no rubles) or in western european accounts.

fulmer · May 28, 2002, 03:04 AM

western europe has been at peace, but europeans have not. the french and indochina, the french and algeria, britain and argentina, the Suez war (brits, israelis, and french attack Egyptian positions on Suez pen., riling the US, which opposed the action) and any others I might be missing. the thing is that we had the same situation: these countries weren't adhering to the nonviolence position b/c their interests were threatened. In France's case, it was trying to hold on to its crumbling colonial system. the aversion to war has only been *inside* Western Europe. step out of that bubble, and power politics were in play. what has changed is European abilities--powers that can no longer project force in any global manner. they were forced to come up with a different set of rules, new policies, and the current system (which the articles quotes discuss) is what we have. I'm glad this is what Europe has come to, and I'm happy to see a more unified Europe.

Mastrap · May 28, 2002, 03:09 AM

This thread makes interesting reading indeed. I am hypothesizing here, unlike KH I am not an expert on this so please bear with me.

Looking back 50 years, Europe was hugely militarized:

Britannia still ruled the waves.

Germany had idea of developed the blitzkrieg, using fast, mechanized forces with air support.

Italy was hugely militarized.

France had just spend enormous amounts of money on the Maginot line.

Spain had just come out of a bloody civil war.

Norway was too small to avoid invasion, the Swedes managed to stay neutral and the Finns prepared themselves to give the unsuspecting Russian bear a jolly good kicking.

But Europe also had not yet recovered from the bloody trauma that was WW1. WW1 was the first mechanized war where casualties of a magnitude had occurred that was previously undreamt of. It is probably safe to say that the vast majority of the households belonging to the warring partners had been affected by death or injury.

Note that the US casualties were rather small in comparison to especially the UK and Germany.

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/aduess/.Pictures/ww1.jpg" alt=" - " />

There was little of the bravado and enthusiasm on show that marked the break-out of WW1, little of the "It'll be over by Christmas" spirit. If anything the armies of Europe marched wearily into yet another bloodletting. Not even in Germany was there huge support for yet another war although internally the army relied on their superior equipment and tactics to bring the war to a quick end.

It was not to be.

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/aduess/.Pictures/ww2.jpg" alt=" - " />

It is interesting to note that yet again the US suffered far less casualties than some of the other parties, especially the USSR and Germany.

What I am deducting from this is the possibility that there is not as much of a collective memory of the death and suffering that war brings in the US than there is in some European countries. Add to this the fact that the civilian populations of both the UK and Germany suffered horrendous losses in a merciless bombing war.

Lets look at the bombing of Dresden as an example. This is a quote from a German wartime report. It is generally believed to be accurate:

The Times of London, July 7, 1966, p. 13. Letter to the Editor.

THE DRESDEN RAIDS

From Mr. David Irving

"Casualties: by 10th March, 1945, 18,375 dead, 2,212
seriously injured, and 13,918 slightly injured had been registered,
with 350,000 homeless and permanently evacuated." The total
death-roll, "primarily women and children," was expected to reach
25,000; fewer than a hundred of the dead were servicemen. Of the
dead recovered by then, 6,865 had been cremated in one of the city
squares. A total of 35,000 people were listed as "missing".

<img src="http://www.simonbone.com/dresden.jpeg" alt=" - " />

This sort of thing just didn't happen in the US. Add to this relatively small losses of life in the armed forces and a belief in one's own invincibility is easily fostered.

I don't really know how I feel about the current non-military intervention policy of most of Europe. On the one side we've been brought up with "never again", on the other hand it is becoming more and more obvious that we are missing a big stick. There is still a lot off scepticism about a strong army in countries like Germany - unfounded but understandable giving fairly recent history. My personal favourite would be a pan-European army under the command of a European defence council.

The view some people have of the US reminds me of the view some people have of the police: Hated until they get burgled. Then they call 999 and expect an emergency response.

[ 05-28-2002, 03:16 AM: Message edited by: Mastrap ]

Gee4orce · May 28, 2002, 03:22 AM

Bah ! Bollocks. The only reason the USA was 'protecting' Europe (gee - thanks guys, like we can't take care of ourselves) was because Europe was destined to be the battleground of WWIII between the USA and USSR. It was only with the collapse of the USSR that the USA has taken upon itself the role of global policeman.

I agree with several other postings here that intra-EU conflict is almost unimaginable now (save for breakaway republics like Northern Ireland and the Basque), but the UK, France and Germany especially are not afraid to defend against or attack aggressor nations if need be.

Mastrap · May 28, 2002, 03:33 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:

So fascism is rising and the some moron like Dubya praises Europe for being at peace. There is no more peace at the moment than there was during the Cold War. In fact, it was better during the Cold War!<hr /></blockquote>Kelly, you are rambling. Have you been drinking again?

Once, just once, I'd like to hear something constructive coming from you. All you ever say is how bad things are.

So, here's an idea:

Tell us your personal utopia, your personal view of a perfect Europe/World? I'd like to know, really.

[ 05-28-2002, 04:01 AM: Message edited by: Mastrap ]

SimeyTheLimey · May 28, 2002, 06:16 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mastrap:
What I am deducting from this is the possibility that there is not as much of a collective memory of the death and suffering that war brings in the US than there is in some European countries. Add to this the fact that the civilian populations of both the UK and Germany suffered horrendous losses in a merciless bombing war. <hr /></blockquote>Your data could easily reach the opposite conclusion. WW-II began began in Europe just over 20 years after WW-1 when memories were quite fresh. The U.S., which as you point out suffered the smallest casualties, managed to stay out for a couple of years. By no means did it rush to go to war.

After WW-II, European countries were quite willing to use military force. Not only did they build up large armies at home for NATO purposes, but they also used them abroad in places like Vietnam, Malaysia, Korea etc. All of this was when memories of WW-II destruction were quite fresh.

It really wasn't until much later that Europeans started becoming disenchanted with the idea of power politics. That trend began as first hand experience with war became rarer, not when it was common.

I think this has a lot more to do with a lower perception of direct threat than with pacifism per se.

denim · May 28, 2002, 07:48 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mastrap:
This thread makes interesting reading indeed. I am hypothesizing here, unlike KH I am not an expert on this so please bear with me.<hr /></blockquote>You could've fooled me. That was excellent!

KellyHogan · May 28, 2002, 08:22 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Mastrap:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by KellyHogan:
[qb]

Tell us your personal utopia, your personal view of a perfect Europe/World? I'd like to know, really.<hr /></blockquote>1950-1960s western world was the best it has been since anything called the 'west' existed. We had it all. Men with bowler hats, great musicians, hippies, spirituality, rebellion, classy movies, good command of language, etc

It was even great for Russia and the eastern bloc. Their education, art, science and sport were all better than what they have been reduced to now.

That's why I don't think a one system world can work. In a one system world free for all the most powerful and most elitist nation will use their iron clout to enforce its vision upon others and to the expense of others.

We need a multi-tiered, regional economic system in which different nations take part in different economic league tables depending on the culture, productivity, etc of each nation. It would work like a football league system. For example, in the first league you would have something like this:

USA
UK
France
Germany
Italy
Japan

In the second league you would have developing nations providing services for the first league:

India
Bangladesh
China
Russia
Taiwan

Then you have the third league:

Saudi Arabia
Iran
South Korea
Argentina
Chile
Finland
etc

They are partnered with a fourth league:

Iraq
Somalia
Ghana
Algeria
Albania
Afghanistan

Ideally there should be no more than four leagues. League one and two are in partnership and not allowed to have any economical exchange with league three and four, even though people are allowed to move freely between any nation in the world. This means that nations such as the US cannot take advantage of a nation in the fourth league, such as Iraq, that would rather be in partnership with a third league nation with a similar culture and economy.

The nations would decide for themselves upon self-evaluation and evaluation by a global body which league they would be in. Each nation would only have one real requirement from a global body and that would be for democracy to exist, free speech to exist and other certain universal rights such as free education, a national health service and protection from privatiizing national resources. Nations can progress up the ladder if their economic status changes or the culture changes over time. Very much like football teams qualifying to higher leagues. They can also regress down the ladder. This is very important as it means that if they become failures in league two they can at least become successful in league three. Prices and the cost of living would change accordingly. Therefore bankrupt nations would exist far less than now if at all.

Then there would be a fifth league or a better term 'zone'. This would be a protected zone, uncontaminated from the global economy in which any exploitation would not be allowed. This zone is made up of regions of the earth in which wildlife is in danger of extinction and nature can be threatened by pollution. These protected zones can exist in any nation. It can be Yellowstone Park, it can be the mountains of Kashmir, it can be the rainforests of Brazil. Just about anywhere archaeological treasures or tribes have to be preserved.

First we need a global protectorate to make it happen and to ensure that every nation signs to protect all human rights and freedoms. Sadly the UN is just a bumchild of the US and is not doing the job it is supposed to be doing.

denim · May 28, 2002, 09:06 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mastrap:
1950-1960s western world was the best it has been since anything called the 'west' existed. We had it all. Men with bowler hats, great musicians, hippies, spirituality, rebellion, classy movies, good command of language, etc<hr /></blockquote>You weren't around yet, right?

Timo · May 28, 2002, 09:16 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:

We need a multi-tiered, regional economic system in which different nations take part in different economic league tables depending on the culture, productivity, etc of each nation. It would work like a football league system.<hr /></blockquote>Um, who is going to ref?

SimeyTheLimey · May 28, 2002, 09:19 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by denim:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mastrap:
1950-1960s western world was the best it has been since anything called the 'west' existed. We had it all. Men with bowler hats, great musicians, hippies, spirituality, rebellion, classy movies, good command of language, etc<hr /></blockquote>You weren't around yet, right?<hr /></blockquote>I like the part about how great things were in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union. Ahh, uprisings in East Germany, Poland, Hungary and Czechoslovakia. Tanks in the street, secret police, the Gulags, Stalin, Beria and Molotov. The Berlin Wall and Peter Fechter bleeding to death. Yes, those were the days . . .

Millennium · May 28, 2002, 09:25 AM

While your "league system" is an intriguing construct, Kelly, it has some rather severe flaws.

First, you speak of how a one-system world cannot work, yet that is exactly what you establish. Not to mention the imposition of various values on the member nations. You speak of democracy as a requirement, but have several other requirements which are quite incompatible with true democracy.

Second, by disallowing economic interaction between certain leagues, you emcourage separatism. This is not, I think, what you want to do, but by discouraging trade that is the end result.

Third, what happens to a nation which violates the rules of your league?

Fourth, what about nations which do not participate in the system, that is, not in any league?

Finally, who decides what goes into this "fifth zone"? Who gets say over it?

KellyHogan · May 28, 2002, 09:27 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Timo:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:

We need a multi-tiered, regional economic system in which different nations take part in different economic league tables depending on the culture, productivity, etc of each nation. It would work like a football league system.<hr /></blockquote>Um, who is going to ref?<hr /></blockquote>All nations 'vote' just as they are supposed to during a meeting of the general assembly.

I would also like to say that taxation in its current form is no different to the system of stealth that existed when monarchies were strong. We give our money away blindly.

Taxation should work like this. Using modern technology I can see, via the internet for example, what public services need money. Inland Revenue tells me I have to pay �10,000 tax this year. So instead of giving my money away blindly to the government who then spend 30% of it on the military (which is a profitable industry whose profits are not spent on us and hardly ever pay tax), I decide for myself where my tax is spent and get receipts to prove to the taxman that my money was spent on public services.

This way most people around the world would not spend a penny on the war machine that is so slyly used and abused by powerful men. People all over the world would spend their money on education and health and other useful services. It would cut bureaucracy drastically as money would go direct from the people to the services they need. The police, being funded directly by the community and not indirectly via the government, would probably respect the people and vice versa much better too. Too many times it seems the police think that their boss is the government and not the people.

I'm not going to say there will ever be a utopia. You'll still have quarrels with your neighbours over the dog ****ting on the lawn. But at least we'll have more personal power and fairplay.

Oh yeah, scrap all advanced weapons. Ban their manufacture too. Put the manufacturer's in The Hague for selling them to obviously rogue nations with little human rights like Pakistan. How dare the west supply weapons to Pakistan when it has been the epicentre of terrorism for a decade or more. If people want to fight they'll have to use sticks and stones. A little kung fu maybe. No wait. Martial arts tend to create more disciplined and honorable people!

Millennium · May 28, 2002, 09:28 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
We had it all. Men with bowler hats, great musicians, hippies, spirituality, rebellion, classy movies, good command of language, etc<hr /></blockquote>OK, now I know something is up. What game are you playing here? This isn't the Kelly from even two weeks ago. Several people here have alluded that something might have happened.

But the Kelly I know would never have said something like you just said.

And oh yeah; one more major weakness of your league system. It smacks of class stratification on a global scale, worse than what we have now because it's actually enforced by law.

M�lum · May 28, 2002, 09:31 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:

In Gibraltar the people are screaming for support against Spain and that bastard Tony Blair who is trying to hand over Gibraltar to Spain or share sovereignty. But the people of Gibraltar want to remain British. <hr /></blockquote>But maybe the rest of the Iberian peninsula prefers Gibraltar to be a a part of Spain.
You find it normal that in 2002 the UK still has these little "properties" here and there?

Judge_Fire · May 28, 2002, 09:45 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:


Then you have the third league:

Saudi Arabia
Iran
South Korea
Argentina
Chile
Finland
etc

<hr /></blockquote>LOL! I didn't know I lived in league 3, thanks KellyHogan!

I always thought Finland was the country that beat the US in competitiveness, being no.1, as well as in being the least corrupt country in the world, with a great environmental sustainability agenda.

I apologize for IRC, SSH, Nokia, Linux and a number of other third league products, and will participate in one of those green card lotteries that spam my mailbox immediately.

We will immediately cease the ongoing public discussion on the need to get more immigrants due to the decline in population, too.

Excuse the rant, there is only so much BS one can take

<a href="http://www.weforum.org/site/homepublic.nsf/Content/Global+Competitiveness+Programme%5CReports%5CGloba l+Competitiveness+Report+2000" target="_blank">WEF Competitiviness Report</a>

<a href="http://virtual.finland.fi/finfo/english/enviro.html" target="_blank">WEF Report on Environmental Sustainability</a>

<a href="http://www.transparency.org/cpi/2001/cpi2001.html" target="_blank">Transparency Internationals world corruption report</a>

J

[ 05-28-2002, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: Judge_Fire ]

KellyHogan · May 28, 2002, 09:48 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Millennium:
While your "league system" is an intriguing construct, Kelly, it has some rather severe flaws.

First, you speak of how a one-system world cannot work, yet that is exactly what you establish. Not to mention the imposition of various values on the member nations. You speak of democracy as a requirement, but have several other requirements which are quite incompatible with true democracy.

Second, by disallowing economic interaction between certain leagues, you emcourage separatism. This is not, I think, what you want to do, but by discouraging trade that is the end result.

Third, what happens to a nation which violates the rules of your league?

Fourth, what about nations which do not participate in the system, that is, not in any league?

Finally, who decides what goes into this "fifth zone"? Who gets say over it?<hr /></blockquote>Simple answers.

First, it is not a one world system per se. The league can be called a one world system, but it is a system of systems. It is more about mutual respect for different cultures rather than the current way of thinking - all nations must leave traditions behind and live a western consumer lifestyle. In a league system, because nations choose their partners democratically and based on economic factors, if they don't want to have their culture contaminated by the US then they are free to trade elsewhere. Currently the US says 'open all your markets for us to abuse but don't try to sell your products to us at competitive prices'. That is a violation of free trade anyway!

Second, the league system does not exactly encourage separatism. You trade freely with the people within your league and partner league. If a third league nation finds itself wanting to trade with a first league nation then they can appeal to the UN to be upgraded to the second league as long as they qualify economically and the people vote for it in a referendum.

Third, what happens if a nation violates the rules of the league. This should be pretty hard to do since two nations and more are in partnership. Goods and moeny cannot flow between two unpartnered nations under the eyes of the UN. if it does then that is black market racketeering and there are already laws against that now.

Fourth, all nations will be in a league. The fourth league is for those who are the poorest and least productive. Does it make sense for Afghanistan to be in the same world economy as the US or UK? No. They are a different culture, different geography. Who are we to put a puppet dictator over them just to run a pipeline through their land? Are we paying them for this? No. There is no compensation, it is theft and non payment of use of land all backed up by military action. If someone wanted to run a pipe through your back garden you would charge them, right?

So the league system would protect against such a violation. The US would not even be allowed to touch Afghan soil unless they were partnered and Afghanistan recieved payment.

Fifth, who decides which nation goes in the fifth zone. Well, this is a decision made by different groups. Referendum for the people, scientists, environmentalists and so on. At the end of the day we all want democracy so the decision will be made democratically through a vote.

I also have one more thing to add that I didn't so far. We shouldn't have to vote for some ******** to be a ruler every four-five years. Government positions should be applied for just like any job and the best candidate for the job should take the positions available. if they are no good then they should just get fired. How will this be achieved in the developed world?

We have the technology, which is getting better all the time, to vote in regular referendums. Just like the way small tribes used to make decisions around a fire thousands of years ago. The technology has brought us closer together. We are using it right now on this forum - making our opinions heard and now using polls too.

Instead of voting for corrupt leaders who were chosen earlier in their careers by businessmen, we should vote on a regular basis on legislation! Yes, that's right, legislation. Why give ministers the right to choose when we have the technology to do so? Ministers and businessmen can tell us on TV the good and bad points of any given law and we can decide at a push of a button whether we want to pass, keep or reject a law. This is true democracy. It doesn't just have to cover legislation but also public opinions on many different topics.

One really great point about that is that it would cut bureacracy massively. The current Labour government in the UK is really great on rewarding ministers with jobs they don't deserve and spending in Whitehall has increased greatly since Blair took office. In the US there are so many damn agencies and departements it is a wonder why there is no money for public services and so much has to be privately run.

Timo · May 28, 2002, 09:48 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
All nations 'vote' just as they are supposed to during a meeting of the general assembly.<hr /></blockquote>WHO is going to enforce the results of the vote?

KellyHogan · May 28, 2002, 09:50 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by M�lum:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:

In Gibraltar the people are screaming for support against Spain and that bastard Tony Blair who is trying to hand over Gibraltar to Spain or share sovereignty. But the people of Gibraltar want to remain British. <hr /></blockquote>But maybe the rest of the Iberian peninsula prefers Gibraltar to be a a part of Spain.
You find it normal that in 2002 the UK still has these little "properties" here and there?<hr /></blockquote>They've been British for 300 years and they have never wanted independence during any period of democracy. Their voice counts more than Spain or the UK mainland.

KellyHogan · May 28, 2002, 09:52 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Judge_Fire:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:


Then you have the third league:

Saudi Arabia
Iran
South Korea
Argentina
Chile
Finland
etc

<hr /></blockquote>LOL! I didn't know I lived in league 3, thanks KellyHogan!

J<hr /></blockquote>I was just making quick examples...and sticking up for the Lapps!

theolein · May 28, 2002, 09:54 AM

I know that many older people that I've spoken to in Germany and France remember the war vividly. when I was in hospital in Berlin, Germany in 1988 (That city still has many buildings in the older parts of town that are pockmarked with bullet holes from the battle with the Russians in 1945 ) there was an oldish man in the bad next to me who told me stories about the war (He had been a soldier in a Flak brigade) and how he still had horrible nightmares about all the killing. I grew up amongst a lot of French, Spanish and Italian people and the Spanish would not speak about the Spanish civil war because it had been so bad and one of the French, my mother's boyfriend, had been a kid whose refugee family had been attacked by German planes and he had been a Legionaire in Indochina, which he also would not talk about. I don't know that much about the war in Indochina, but I gather that it had been very very bad.

The bombing of Dresden, which Mastrap talked about (btw Mastrap, David Irving is a very disreputable figure and a Holocaust denier IIRC), is interesting in that more people died in that bombing raid (around 200 000) than in the Hiroshima or Nagasaki atomic bomb attacks. The bombing was done with a lot of incendiary bombs and caused what came to be the first ever known "Fire storm". The air above the burning city superheated and started rising causing all the oxygen to be used up and the surrounding air to rush in at speeds high enough to fling elephants in the Dresden Zoo over distances of 30 or more meters (A grown african elephant weighs about 3 tons) which implied wind speeds of several hundred miles per hour.

A lot of people do remember things like this and while it obviously does go away with younger generations it remains there in the national memory somewhere.

Switzerland's neutrality is a direct result of centuries of war. Until the Napoleonic wars Switzerland was a very poor small country in central Europe whose main export was, believe it or not, mercenaries. Many of these ended up fighting on opposite sides in the hundreds of conflicts that raged in Europe. It caused great national anguish that brothers were killing one another in foreign wars and after the Vienna peace treaty in 1815, Switzerland was granted permanent neutrality. They took it and they take it still today very seriously and if you've ever lived in Switzerland (I think some of you have) you would know that every time the debate comes up to join the EU or the UN, there is a lot of counter argumentation that still brings up past history and "Der Bruderkrieg" the brother against brother wars.

I think no one in western europe wants war anymore. Raising military spending, while theoretically possible, given that Europe is in general not poor (unlike me) is simply not at all popular. In Germany, it is still a highly sensitive subject, given Germany's past, although that seems to be changing rapidly, and you now get militainment on German TV (Documentaries on German military stuff) and German troops in Afghanistan and the Balkans which would have been unthinkable even in 1990.

Britain seems to always have had a proud military tradition, and has nver shrunk from using it's military when they deemed it necessary (i.e. Argentina) but there has often been a lot of arguments against military spending, saying that the money could be better spent elsewhere, and a good percentage of the population agrees with this.

Although France is the perenial whipping boy on these boards, their military was and is one of the largest in Europe after the second world war. They formed a doctrine of complete self sufficiency after the second world war and their own nuclear force due mainly, to their humiliation in their defeat at the hands of the Germans. This same humilation is probably what caused them to get into regional conflicts such as Indochina and Algeria although they were thoroughly unprepared for it. But they also have a lot of people asking whether large military spending is worth it and France is busy reducing it's armed forces.

A lot of media attention goes to the US role in conflicts such as Bosnia, Kosovo, the Gulf and Afghanistan (the US provided the largest forces in all these conflicts), but there were a lot of countries involved, most of whom simply didn't want that much attention placed on their participation. The UK took part in all these conflicts as did France and although France is often accused of complicity with the Serbs in Bosnia, it is a little known fact that the French had the highest casualties there as they were the one of the only forces there under the UN peacekeeping mandate to actually use force to resist the Serbs advance on Sarajevo before the start of the air campaign that ended the war.

That doesn't change the picture completely. Europe is definitely less interested in solving problems with the military than the US is and their combined militaries are much smaller than that of the US and not as well equipped or as capable of large scale redeployment. I think that most European countries are also unwilling to risk using force because of the political and economic risks attached to this. The US has less to fear in this regard I think due to the size of their military and their position in the world.

However, I do think that with time, Europe and the US are going to drift further apart and the EU probably will eventualy have a european army. But I think anyone suggesting that Europe and the US will have a war with one another in the next twenty to fifty years is dreaming.

Timo · May 28, 2002, 09:57 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by KellyHogan:
I was just making quick examples...and sticking up for the Lapps!<hr /></blockquote>God help the Sami. BTW "Lapp" means patch, as in patched clothes, and Sami don't really like that name for their people.

theolein · May 28, 2002, 10:04 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by M�lum:
But maybe the rest of the Iberian peninsula prefers Gibraltar to be a a part of Spain.
You find it normal that in 2002 the UK still has these little "properties" here and there?<hr /></blockquote>I hate to agree with KH here, but from all I've read Gibraltar does want to remain part of Britain. And France is far worse in this respect. They have overseas departments and territories in all parts of the world, including North America: Miquelon, the Carribean: Guadeloupe, South America: French Guyana, the Indian Ocean: Reunion and the Pacific: Nouveau Caledonie and Tahiti.

KellyHogan · May 28, 2002, 10:23 AM

Gibraltarians are lovely. They have a great mix between Latin culture and classical British mannerism - those very manners that the majority of British have lost and have replaced with consumerism, violence, hooliganism and youth crime. Even India has a better education system, in the cities, than Britain, based on the Victorian and post-war British model. It's a shame to see Britain sinking and sinking to such low cultural depths.

kennethmac2000 · May 28, 2002, 10:57 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by M�lum:
You find it normal that in 2002 the UK still has these little "properties" here and there?<hr /></blockquote>That's irrelevant now though. Generations past have bequeathed us the current world political order. We can't just forget about the aspirations of the people that live in the dependent territories (or "properties" as you call them) for the sake of achieving some sort of utopian normality.