Europe has lost U.S. bond forever

[ethics]

Ultimately, it's Leon Keylin's nightmare as well and not the European aspect of it, but where this country is headed and will remain for many years: Isolationism.

This is a Pat Buchanan's dream come true.

I wouldn't dare predict the outcome of the presidential election in November, but there is one prediction I will make. Regardless of who wins, George W. Bush or John Kerry, an idealistic, interventionist foreign policy for the United States is over. In international affairs, our country will turn not to multilateralism but to isolationism. Partnership with Europe will be history.

The most immediate and obvious cause of this is the war in Iraq, and to a lesser extent that in Afghanistan. The baggage from these affairs — the costs, the difficulty and the controversy — will make Americans far less willing to take a leading activist international role anytime soon, no matter how compelling.

I've long criticised the US for the inaction and lauded the actions, even if the goals didn't exactly match that of the people we were saving.

From policy objections, the critique of America now has progressed to disdain for our values and society. We are often stereotyped, even in mainstream European media, as warlike, materialistic, religious zealots with contempt for others. Our claims of idealism are met with derision and cynicism. Never has there been such venom directed at the United States. It is deeper than anti-Bushism. It reflects a profound cultural divergence that is rooted in the enduring hostility of the influential European intellectual left toward bourgeois, capitalist and highly successful America. This will not change no matter who is in the White House.

Americans have also been disillusioned with the bulwarks of the international system, including the United Nations and NATO. Among Americans, the United Nations has never had the legitimacy ceded to it by Europeans, but it was revered as an idealistic symbol of the world's aspirations toward peace. Now it is seen not only as weak, but corrupt and hostile to our interests. The ongoing oil for food scandal, anti-U.S. manipulation by members of the Security Council and the United Nations' unwillingness to sacrifice for its own principles and declarations, will inhibit any serious engagement with it for years to come.

In another thread, there's a discription of how the Olympians of different countries were met by the audience. How Iraq and Afghans were cheered while the people, the country that sacrificed money, lives, were booed.

Read the rest of this compelling <a href="http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/0804/15europe.html?Found_Session=true&UrAuth=%60NYNUObNYUbTTUWUXUUUZTZUbUWU_U_UZUaU_UcTYWYWZV&UrAuth=%60NYNUObNZUbTTUWUXUUUZTZU]UWUbU%60UZUcUbUcTYWYWZV">piece here:</a>



User: Prime
email: leonkeylin@yahoo.com (my spam acct)
password: sure

[Sierra Mike]

I wouldn't look at this as a fault of America. I would look at it as others squandering away American goodwill, stabbing the nation in the back while taking money from its hands and security from its deeds and dedication.

No other nation with the possible exception of Britain has shown such determination.

But even determination has its limits.

SM

[Steve]

I disagree profoundly with this assertion. Having traveled much around the world, I have seen at the "grass roots" level the admiration of, friendship toward, and desire to visit America. Ordinary citizens of other countries are very aware of our problems; they're equally aware of so much that is right about America.

The "ugly American" exists, to be sure. I've seen him and her on more than one disgusting occasion. But for every ignoramus who thinks that shouting will make a non-English-speaking person understand him, there are ten who visit and live in other countries with open minds, avid interest in the culture, language, and customs of other nations. These are the quiet ones that no one hears about, the ones visiting the pensions, the gasthauses, attending cultural events, quietly taking in the rich history and diverse offerings that are as much our American heritage as they are any European's.

That is something the pundits forget, that we are a European country, not literally of course, but in origin. Of course, over time the democratic experiment (and experience!) of the American melting pot has shaped the nation into what we have become, today, but there is no mistaking nor denying the deep-rooted ties with Europe.

At the heart of the matter, lie a few simple realities: America is large, with room enough for all. America is rich, not just in material things but mainly in potential, in "what can be". Americans are less restricted by class boundaries than most other nations. These things continue to hold broad and enduring appeal for the millions of people who are not "Europe's influential intellectual left".

[ethics]

I don't see you disagreeing, Steve.

[Steve]

Perhaps my point wasn't clear. America's ties to Europe extend far deeper than governmental policy. Those ties will prevent isolationism from occurring.

[ethics]

Ah! Well, I disagree since the animosity is much more than governmental policies vis a vis the two continents. I don't see how Kerry nor Bush will be able to duplicate a Bosnian intervention -- for example -- any time soon.

[Coot]

Steve, whether your take on this pans out or not will have far more to do with whether or not France becomes the dominant political force in the EU. Their objective, and it's been so since WWII, is not to maintain any real ties with the US, but to lead a competing hegemony that will displace the US. For an interesting, albeit lengthy read, check out the piece linked to on this page. (http://www.americanthinker.com/comments.php?comments_id=460)


The current issue (http://www.policyreview.org/aug04/kojeve.html) of the Hoover Institution's Policy Review has the first English translation of a remarkable document ("Outline of a Doctrine of French Policy") written in 1945 by French philosopher Alexander Kojeve, and given to Charles de Gaulle. This appears to have become a guiding light to French diplomats and politicians over the last 60 years.

The thesis begins with an understanding that the post WW II world will be split into a US-dominated bloc and a Russian-dominated bloc. Kojeve called on France to develop a third bloc -- which he called the Latin bloc. This bloc would be composed of groups of nations bordering the Mediterranean and which share a certain cultural sensibility. He advocated for an economic alliance which presciently resembles the European Union. Tellingly, he also called for an accommodation and partnership with Islamic nations, and stated that this unity can be based on a mutual opposition to other trends (the enemy of my enemy is my friend).

[Steve]

France is going to be torn apart internally. There will be something akin to religious wars within the next 20 years. The Jews won't stand by while Kristallnacht II happens in Paris. Not only will the effort (wasted) given to prevent that detract from France's goal to displace the U.S., but the actual conflict itself will be...distasteful...to the rest of Europe, which will distance itself from French policies so as not to get caught up in the conflict.

I haven't the resources to quote to back up my feeling, but there it is.

[ethics]

I tend to believe what the author of the quoted article wrote regarding the future of Europe. I don't see anything positive coming out of there in years to come.