<snip> Dan: >Frank: > > The US does not rule the world, the US is not a pappa, > > and the US is not a police force. The US is just the > > strongest nation today. An alliance of other nations > > can be stronger than the US, but at present these > > nations have different goals. If the US pushes harder, > > this alliance might form, which might start another > > cold war. > > You seriously think, that if push came to shove, Germany > would prefer a world in which China were the major power? > Europe decided after the Cold War to continue to expect > the US to look after its security interests. There is a > lot of difference between apeasing China while knowing > that the US can be counted on to ensure that the > government of China does not conquer others (such as the > people of Tawain) and living in a world where China calls > the tune.
Germany would not prefer such a world, nor would France. But China would. Can you imagine an alliance between China, Russia and several islamic states? Mutual disgust drives them apart, even inside the islamic world, but if push comes to shove... > > >Which would mean a higher risk of nuclear annihilation. > > There would be so many ways to challange the US short of > that type of war, that I can't see this. These 'so many ways' existed in the cold war, too, but we still lived in fear of the mushroom cloud. <snip> > > I have hoped for such altruistic interventions > > several times in recent years, but most of the time > > they either weren't altruistic or there was no > > intervention... > > Let me ask you a question about the Balkans, then. Why > didn't Europe willing to do what it took to stop the > genocide? Why did the US have to twist arms in Europe, > when the US's interest in a stable Europe could be no > greater than Europe's interest in a stable Europe? Why > did Europe have to have the US take care of it's house? > If you want a less imperial US, wouldn't it make sense > to take responsibility for those areas where the US was > glad to just help out, as in the Balkans? > > Dan M. Because Europe was deeply split over the Balkans. Germany on one side, Britain and France on the other, the smaller nations on the third. When the civil war in Yugoslavia began, unified Germany had just turned from officially being occupied by the Four Powers to being a sovereign state. German chancellor Kohl had apparently decided to change the foreign policy from humble negotiations in which everyone gained to openly show Europe that Germany was powerful now, and assert support for Slovenia and Croatia. These states were part of Germany's ally Austria-Hungary in WW1 and firmly under German control in WW2 when Hitler encouraged Croatian massacres on Serbs. So Germany's step raised fear in Britain and France whose last memories of a powerful Germany were also extremely bad, and allowed Milosevic to present himself as an old brother in arms. So whenever Germans pointed out Serb atrocities, this was dismissed as German propaganda. It would probably been wise if Germany had let the smaller nations step forward and let them explain to France and Britain what was really happening, but the mood was too confrontational for that. So when as one of the last people Mitterrand realized that the Serbs were *really* the bad guys (when they tried to shoot down his plane), the civil war had become so intense that everyone feared if they stepped in *now*, a lot of soldiers would return in body bags. So in the end, the US was called in, and the Bosnians and Croats got better weapons, until they were strong enough to strike back. If you wonder why I haven't mentioned Russia: at the beginning, Russia was rather trying to reach a peaceful solution, only over the years, ties to Serbia formed and became stronger. If you ask when I would have wanted an intervention: when the fighting in Croatia was over, and an agreement between Croatians and Croatian Serbs was made, Bosnian Serbs began their actions. The Bosnian government asked the EU for help, but the answer was the EU could only help if Bosnia split off Yugoslavia like Croatia did before. After that step of declaring independence, the intervention never came. And back then, many Bosnian Serbs were still demonstrating together with Croats and Muslims that they were all one nation (late in the civil war there were at least three). What's your perspective on this? (for the above I relied on my memory, which may be faulty, not on research. I might accidentally misrepresent facts) -- Frank Schmidt Onward, radical moderates www.egscomics.com +++ GMX - die erste Adresse für Mail, Message, More +++ 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
