marcinmoka

Couldn't agree more. With this one (#3), I have some slight reservations. While they do believe there is a need for a counter weight, I doubt they genuinely believe they can be in that role once again. They've sunk far too behind. Like him or not, Putin is smart. He knows that China will be that very counterweight he is referring to. And thus the reason for this Sabre rattling. It is for reasons #1 & #2 above. To remove doubts amongst this people, and provide an excuse to speed up re-militarization to "insulate" itself more from the Chinese threat. But by denouncing America and Europe with such aggressive rhetoric, he is playing it safe since he know it will never escalate past the point of a shouting match, albeit a loud one. Thank God for MAD. And it is this conflict which permits him to show China *indirectly* that he will not bend for no one. Why not raise tensions with China instead? Simple. He cannot scare away some of his best customers, and key factor in keeping the Russian defence industry afloat. Et voila, my two cents!

I am curious how many of you will one day become Neo-cons? Remember, they all started out far more on the left (and in some measure, so have I), as Irving Kristol once said "liberals mugged by reality."

So your "research" consists of a collaboration from a writer of a Communist Satirical magazine (granted, it can be funny), and Toscier, who's main claim to "fame" is this article. Quite the intellectual heavyweights to be preaching who is an intellectual and who is not. But you definitely got the answer YOU were SEARCHING for. You should check out Toscier other articles, such as "Nicolas' Sarkozy's Big ears". In fact, that seems to be the main article of each issue of "Nouvelle Observateur", in between quibs on how evil the U.S., and how they oppress their minorities while thinking everything is rosy in France. The preferred News Source of RICH Parisian kids who sympathize with the kids in the "banlieus" (ghetto's) but have never actually stepped foot one. I still think I choose Mr. Levy over you, in terms of cred. It is how you sell a war to the masses if not all think it is morally correct. It can be difficult since morality always has been, and always will be a subjective force. But I must ask why get your panties in a whirl if a lot of soldiers follow their religious beliefs? There are four objectives in Foreign Policy (as I see it) Prestige, Sympathy, Resources and Power. All are a careful balance and not just mutually exclusive as some deem it to be. Though I would think even you would realize that sometimes morality (i.e desire for stability, democratic processes) go hand in hand with greater stability in the supply of resources. But yeah, what resources were our ladies and gents after in Afghanistan? "Grade A" smack? Or let me guess, a pipeline, right? Or what about in Bosnia? I know the Balkans have good food, but I wouldn't categorize it as a precious resource quite yet. So what he writes is opinion, and what you write is history. Insha'Kuzadd I guess. Say whaaaa???? And so does he. In fact, he routinely jokes about it. But I assume some people on this board also love the sound of their own voice (keyboard strokes). Especially if they consider themselves to be THE author(s) of history. ------------------------------------------------------- Granted. And this is not excusable. They did actively decieve. But again, it was just a sales tactic. I'm not arguing that what they did was right. Their deception is wrong. I am arguing (just as B.H.L) that they (certain Neo Cons) genuinely believed themselves to be doing the right thing, both for the stability of their own nation (increased stability in petrolium production a.k.a America is happy) as well the elimination of a dictator (a.k.a Iraq is happy). Unfortunately, it did not turn out that way. Even remotely. And thus the reason for the use of the term "naivete".

What I really cannot understand is your inconsistency. In another thread, you argue the Americans to be some Christian Zealots, dictated by God and following their morality. In this thread, you say morality is non existent, and it is but a quest for resources. Alors, c'est le temps de choisir!!

Agreed. But it is difficult to make a distinction between the two for a populations actions are never going to be uniformly spread out. It worked in post war Germany and Japan. It was overtly funded for decades in the old Soviet satelite states, until finally coming to fruition in the late 80's early 90's. But having said that, I do agree the U.S put in FAR too little effort in organizing and encouraging a democracy. On to the fun stuff, Kuzadd; Why not just do a deal, as with the Saudi's? It definitely would of facilitated production. Alright. So you try to discredit one of the worlds most respected intellectuals by copying an article you found on Wikipedia.

And your source? May I see these polls? *Funny, because I remember universal enthusiasm when they joined NATO* More poverty? You cannot be serious. Thank you. So why accept bases if they think the Americans would flee? You are going against yourself! But I take you are absorbed in the propaganda. After all, if the U.S just wanted oil, they would of cut a deal with Saddam, or the Guardian Council. Much cheaper, and less politically suicidal than the current war, and just give the people bread and circus'.

Clever. And very mature. Bernard - Henry. Author of American Vertigo which retraced Alxis de Toqueville's trip and analysis on American Democracy. An Algerian born French intellectual who was prominent on the center-left...but even he is not just tooting his own political horn but examining the situation from both sides. You should try it sometime.....

They have industry. But I think developing is proper term. It had to be updated critically. And the only way they can do so is oil and gas money. It is their core funding right now. If energy prices were to plunge, Russia would suffer enormously. Of course Putin is trying to avoid such scenarios, but for the time being, he cannot. No one has made the distinction. But have you heard of the European Union? East, West, Rich Poor, former vassal or colonial power are of little distinction. Where did you get this jazz? Besides, I do not know where you got the idea of a war. I am refering to a missile defence shield and diplomacy, and both are meant to protect ALL of Europe, not just Eastern Europe. One last question. Where did you get the concept that I am arguing E.E does not percieve Russia to be a threat. It would be stupid to say they do not and we both agree on that. I just want to know why you believe E.E believes America to be a threat? P.S. Where are you from?

Exerpt from an interview: You say you're close to the anti-totalitarian thought of the neo-conservatives, who you also defend. I don't defend them! Or rather: I only defend them against the demonisation they're subjected to - that's very different. I defend them against the inane reductionism of people who cast them as imperialists eager to wage war with Iraq to steal its oil. I say in my book: "No! It's not that simple! Their reasons for starting this war were neither base nor immoral! They started it for the reason they gave: the naive idea that in doing so they would spread democracy in the Arab world! If it had only been a question about oil they could have simply made a deal with Saddam Hussein, who asked for nothing better." That's the extent of my defence, because the war in Iraq isn't the only issue. There are also questions of domestic policy where, in my view, they don't act like intellectuals in the sense of free spirits. Just because you support an administration on one issue, does that mean you have to toe their line on all the others? When you go to a restaurant, are you obliged to eat everything on the menu? I've had this debate with several of them, and it's a major source of contention between us. And the war in Iraq? That's something else again. That was a catastrophe. And it had to be one, bearing in mind how they conceived of it. On the political level they committed absolutely tragic errors. I'm convinced of that. My disagreements are of a political nature. I don't blame them for their immoralism, but for their political naivte. It's not that they didn't moralise enough (if anything they moralised too much!), but that they weren't actively enough engaged in politics (or more exactly, they were engaged in idiotic politics). As I said at the outset: this war was "morally right and politically wrong." Which means... Nothing is more moral than wanting to topple a dictator. But you have to have a plan for what happens next. You have to have solid allies on the ground. Like in Afghanistan with the Northern Alliance. And you're better off having a real international consensus behind you as well. That's not the work of intellectuals! But it is their work to think it through. Or to put it another way, the neo-conservatives' error was to nourished what I call the mirage of democratic messianism. That's roughly the idea that it's enough to decree democracy for it to come about, and that you don't need the patient work we call politics. These people don't believe in politics at home, and how could they? These are people who don't believe it's the job of politics to tackle poverty, the lack of medical care, the decline of the cities, and so on. How could they think so when they're busy constructing a democracy in a country that's emerging from decades of dictatorship? What we do share is the idea that democratic values are universal. Like them, I believe these aren't occidental values, or more exactly, that the fact that they were conceived in the West doesn't make them Western in an exclusive, fatalistic way. However I believe that to convince people who are not spontaneously convinced takes time - that is, politics. You were against the war in 2003. That's right. But for the reasons I've mentioned. Not moral ones, nor for reasons having to do with I don't know what sort of idiotic pacifism. What was needed was a multilateral alliance, and allies on the ground. And a plan for afterwards. In Afghanistan, at least two of these conditions were met. But not in Iraq. You know in 2003 I sepnt some time in Pakistan. Frankly it seemed to me quite clear that these people were doing themselves no favours. If the key question was radical Islamism, if our adversaries were Al Qaeda and similar organisations, then it was clear that the real target wasn't in Iraq but elsewhere, notably Karachi. Not in Arab Islam, but in Asian Islam. I wrote several articles saying that before the war. And I still hold to what I wrote back then. What consequences will the debacle of the neo-conservatives have? The worst would be if the most worthy aspect of their thinking was discredited - their universalism, their refusal of relativism and isolationism and what Bernard Kouchner and others called the "duty to interfere." Despite the defeat of their thought, you are sympathetic to their anti-totalitarianism. Like some of them you speak of Islamism as a new totalitarianism, even as an "Islamo-fascism." I think I was one of the very first - but you'd have to check it - to use the term "Islamofacism". It's not a neo-con term, it's just a reality. Can we interpret this phenomenon, which is rooted in 1,400 years of religious tradition, in terms of something like fascism? Fascism was something completely different, with its mass formations and it's central power, il duce. You talk as if Islamism only had one source. The Islamists also draw on fascism, real fascism, the fascism of Mussolini and Hitler. That's very clear when you look at Mohammed Amin al-Husseini, for example, the "mufti of Jerusalem" and one of the founders of Arab anti-Semitism. He was a member of the SS and he mobilised the Arabs for the Waffen SS in the last years of the war. And it's also clear when you take a look at the political origins of the Muslim Brotherhood. These movements and these men were and are inspired by real fascism, not just a metaphoric one. Still, they function entirely differently. Of course. But, you have to understand that this phenomenon of Islamism takes place in a double context. There is, if I dare say, the "little" context, the religious one. But there's also another context, what I call the "big" political context, which is tied up with the history of fascism. Some people would have us believe Islamism is a purely religious affair, that the whole problem lies in the Koran and all you have to do to correct matters is amend it. That's not my opinion. Of course I believe the Koran must be amended. I believe we need a generation - of Muslims of course - who will undertake with the Koran the work of religious Aggiornamento that the Jews and Christians did with their own sacred book. And I believe, to put it brutally, that a part of the problem will be resolved when Muslims accept that the divine word must be subjected to commentary - when, to put it another way, a sort of "talmudic" tradition emerges in Islam. But at the same time, that condition is necessary but a far cry from sufficient. Because after that will come the major, perhaps essential work, of addressing the political sources of Islamism. Ian Buruma has made some impressive statements about this in his book on "occidentalism," as has my friend Paul Berman in "Terror's new clothes." And then there's the book "Halbmond und Hakenkreuz. Das Dritte Reich, die Araber und Palästina" (Half Moon and Swastika - The Third Reich the Arabs and Palestine) by Klaus-Michael Mallmann and Martin Cüppers, two German authors. It established an - alas - essential fact. The book tells the little-known history of the project for an Arab contingent in Rommel's army, which was supposed to spread the final solution to the 600,000 Jews living in Palestine. This book pulverised one of the major arguments, if not the argument, of the leftist Islamicists, namely: "We had nothing to do with the Shoah; we had nothing to do with the history of Nazism; why should we have to pay for it, a crime committed by the Europeans, by tolerating Israel?" But in fact there was a real Arab Nazism. Some identified with the project of the Shoah. And if certain Arab regimes at the time, certain intellectuals, agitators and preachers rallied behind Hitler, it wasn't not just out of their hatred for the Anglo-Saxons or the desire to liberate themselves from colonialism. No. It also sprang from an ideology, a conviction. How should we react to Islamism? In two contexts. First of all the religious one, as I've said, and that's up to the Muslims: the time has come for commentary! Let 100 Talmudic flowers blossom! Secondly the Arab-Muslim world has to go through the mourning that we have in Europe. As long as the Arabs maintain that the history of European fascism doesn't concern them, nothing will get better - that's my conviction. Let's get back to the intellectual panorama and the very particular relationship between France and America. Where does their love-hate relationship come from? Each is indebted to the other. France participated to America's national liberation through Louis XVI, La Fayette, Beaumarchais and many others. And two centuries later, the Americans liberated France. That's hard to excuse! I'm sure you know Jules Renard's bon mot: "I've got no enemies because I've never helped a soul." That's exactly it. Add to that the countries' commitment to universalism, an almost messianism of the universal... Is America moving away from Europe? I don't think so. Or, more precisely, I think that as long as the United States remains the United States, the connection to Europe will remain very strong. Perhaps it will become more discrete, even clandestine. Perhaps it will express itself differently, more gently. But it's an integral part of America. What is America? It's a new Europe. I think Americans know that. They sense that it functions and olds, like Enée leaving Troy to found Lavinium: the new world instead of Europe. America is the fire of the European Enlightenment set alight on new shores. Without this idea, it would be nothing more than an amalgam of communities, a juxtaposition of bubbles, the sort of post-modern society some people dream of, but perhaps no longer the American dream. Jean Baudrillard, for example, thought that was where America was heading. I don't think so, however. I don't think, for example, that the Hispanization of society means a turning away from Europe. I don't think that America's commercial proximity to the Pacific realm is leading it away from the values of the Enlightenment, from Europe. Yet it's in a crisis with the debacle in Iraq. No more and no less than during the Vietnam War, or in the decades before, leading up to the civil rights movement. People seem to be completely taken aback by Bush. Why? Before Bush there was Nixon. And before that there was segregation, the Ku Klux Klan. And all that didn't stop American democracy from thriving, progressing and developing. And where are we today? People act as if America was going through a huge, irreversible shift to the right. But if you look at the last fifty years, you'll see that today America has progressed a lot. Bush's two victories, the triumph of the creationists and the religious fundamentalists is nothing compared with the – victorious! – battle for civil equality, for the equality between men and women, and the right to abortion. We've seen a democratic revolution the likes of which has happened nowhere else on earth. Compared with all that, the current shift to the right seems much more like the last shudder of a beast that knows it's doomed. People sometimes say that's what Islamism is like as well: a last convulsion against an unavoidable modernisation… Yes, I know. That's what certain Islamologues like Olivier Roy and Gilles Kepel say. But the two have nothing to do with each other. I'm afraid Islamism could have a strong future, with strong roots in religion and politics. What did you learn about Europe in America? I learned that it's possible. When I came to the USA I was in a melancholy mood over the question of Europe. It was the time of the French debate over the European constitution, the time when even the "yes" partisans didn't dare say you had to vote "yes" because Europe was a good thing in itself, but because it was good for France. I was close to thinking that the Europe was possible just an illusion of our generation. I said to myself: "I've spent my life thinking Europe was one with history, that it will come together no matter what happens, you just have to let it be. We could all go to bed and it would form, behind our backs. But perhaps it won't form itself at all, perhaps it's undoing itself before our eyes…" And America made you see things differently? Yes. I saw this federation of states, this national community made up of people who speak even less the same language than the Europeans and who are faced with problems of ethnicity far more weighty than those in Europe. And I think that miracles are possible, that the inorganic nation, the inorganic social body, can be constituted. I discover that constitutional patriotism, to speak with Habermas, is not just a philosophical reverie, that it's something that works. One can create an army, maintain schools, raise taxes, etc. When you cross the country as I did, when you see how a landowner in Alabama has nothing in common with a Mexican from San Diego or a European from Savannah or Charleston, and that despite all that America has been able to constitute itself, that rekindles your hope in Europe. What will the French elections bring for Europe? I've no idea. I hope above all that the next president – whoever it is – will accept that the most important task is to mend the broken thread of European hope. That's not exactly topic number one in the campaign. François Bayrou brings it up. So does Ségolène Royal. And you know Royal is probably – if not the most European of the three major candidates - certainly the one in the best position to bring part of the forces behind the "no" into the "yes" camp. That's one good reason to vote for her. It's not the only reason, but it's a good one. She's come out in favour of Europe? Of course. Many times. She was a partisan of the "yes". And today that's one of the major thrusts of her campaign. So there are grounds for hope. You know, the last time I was embarrassed about my country was a couple of weeks ago, when Madame Merkel gathered together the European countries in Madrid. She chose for this meeting the French name "Amis de la constitution." Yes. "Amis de la constitution" was the name of the Jacobin club during the French Revolution. But one country wasn't there that day. And that country was France.

What source? There were soviet era "peace building" programs, but what does that have to do with diplomatic relations, past or present. African nations sent many, many students behind the Iron Curtain, but there are still minimal diplomatic relations between say Poland and Sudan. Source? I am curious why you believe that Slovakia cares more about Kosovo than N.Korea. Unless you've been sleeping, you should realize that certain eastern frontier nations now constitute the European Union, i.e big, rich and powerful. Umm.......whereas this comment is not. I would love to know what you mean here. And many also study in Canada and the US. Can you blame them for leaving. Not to mention, they are often smart and hard working, so why not. But how this insulates them from aggression, I'm lost. Economically? Russia has energy. Problem is they don't have many to extract it. And if they stopped selling it, they would starve. понимаешь?

Wrong. The Soviet Union had good relations. The central European states did not care, and their diplomatic ties were (and are) minimal at best. That's why Japan has a missile defense system, so does Israel. Now it is Europe's turn. Based on what? We can randomly pick each and every country, but that would be counter intuitive from a strategic p.o.v. If Iraq goes up in flames, so will Iran. There is a risk with S.A, but as if the Saudi's actually care about it's inhabitants? They are only scared the oil would stop pumping, and that would slow down the American economy, and thus cease lining up the pockets of the royal family. Not to mention they cannot face a Sunni backlash for attacking the holiest sites in Islam. Israel should be worried, and is, but it would have no reservations about retaliating with even greater force. But nations like Germany are easy targets. Rich and quasi-defenseless. They have 10 x the GDP of S.A. And unlike Japan, are not protected against the one or two missiles N.Korea or Iran could muster up.

North Korea really hasn't anything to do with anybody. It is but a nutty little character who will try any ransom any group with money he can. If KJI's missiles cannot reach the U.S, why not threaten the other moneyed group, which is the E.U. And seeing as Poland, Hungary and Slovakia form the outskirts, they should be concerned. The same goes for Iran. What they have in common is lack of technology, and Europe is about as far as they go. And if those nations cannot strike America, they will try to strike as far as they can.

Did God make divorce too?

And???? I'm also European and the perceived danger is Iran, China and North Korea. As far as I re-call, I am yet to hear of threats of an American attack. Granted, some people perceive threats to be Teletubbies...and their "sodomite" manipulations. We are free to imagine whatever we wish, no matter how irrational it may be. i think it depends on what kind of European you are, really:) for Polish, Estonians, Finland, for example, Mother Russia is the biggest perceived threat, for me, i have nothing to do with N Korea, Iran, more than Sri Lanka or Zimbabwe, just examples. Croatia, Slovenia, doesn't perceive any threat. Serbia is afraid of US, Germany is a friend of Russia, England is a friend of US, and of Russia's rich tycoons China, maybe, economically, with invasion of cheap workers and products. Okay. And Serbia's fear can be extrapolated onto the whole of Europe? I am just curious as to the basis of your original statement referring to the US as threat to Europe. Amd the Iran - Iraq war is just trivial event I assume. Of course, we must exonerate them, since only Americans crimes are valid. Nope, I see no bias.

BINGO!!! It is out of respect...at least in my case, for the Iranian people that my animosity is directed towards the GC and co. (I hate when people confound the two.)

And???? I'm also European and the perceived danger is Iran, China and North Korea. As far as I re-call, I am yet to hear of threats of an American attack. Granted, some people perceive threats to be Teletubbies...and their "sodomite" manipulations. We are free to imagine whatever we wish, no matter how irrational it may be.

I prefer Senator McCain's rendition. But alas, bombing it would be counter productive. Whereas a few surgical strikes / assasinations and some funding of the opposition (it *miraculously* exists, unlike in most hostile nations) would have a more poignant effect. The real problem in dealing with the Talliban is Pakistan, not to mention the moral/financial support it recieves from far too many moneyed and/or westerners.

Well. It is Wikipedia, and as much as I love it, it is not the be all and end all. But as per the number, it was a more realpolitik approximation. After all, the vast majority of remaining Moravians, Jews, Silesians, Germans and Poles which stayed after 93' considered themselves Czechs. If you really want to nitpick on what constitutes a Czech and a Slovak, feel free, but even than, the population ratio is still around 2:1. After all, what constitutes a Quebecker? A Quebecois? Those are definitions I would not even wish to touch. Anyhow, we mustn't veer off topic too much, so I will say it again. The threat of seperation exists once they reach a critical mass. 20%..50%...80%..does not necessarily make a difference.

Granted. But that doesn't mean they all identify with Ukraine. Many in the east identify themselves more closely with Russia. Stalin made a good mess with his ethnic re-distribution in hopes of squashing independance minded groups. And furthermore, we should not forget that almost 70% of Czechoslovakians were Czechs, but the desire for sovereignty was without impediment.

Actually, this is how I see a rough approximation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wahlkre...ne_2006_eng.png The one big stickler in this case though would be that both parties would call Odessa and the Crimean their own, and that would cause an unbelievable amount of tension.

Exactly. And even that would be nothing but a last, dying gasp of a regime in the throes of death. Though in all honesty, I doubt they will live long enough to ever realize their nuclear goals (though that dosen't mean we should let up pressure in the meantime).

I don't think it will be one or the other provided Russia stays on it's course. A velvet divorce, a la Czechoslovakia would be foreseeable, between the Russian backed East and the E.U minded West as long as Russia cares to make mountains out of mole hills. But than again, in eastern politics, nothing is certain.

Darfur. It could actually help in reducing, and hopefully stopping the bloodshed. The U.N needs concrete aims, not vague pursuits such as climate change, or even nuclear proliferation, which are beyond it's scope. Although, anti-corruption measures would be nice to see..

Influence is FAR more powerful than control. Having a population that respects you is far, far more effective for both parties than a population which fears you.

But I would say that is a sizable chunk for such a relatively short period of history. And both Jews and Catholics had it rough for quite a length of time. The U.S is better, that I would not disagree with. But the notion of "pattern", and Hitler as a savior still seems foul a notion in my view. But back to the original premise, both groups can learn much from each other. One group thinks too much and does too little, and the other does too much without thinking it through. A multi polar world is inevitable, however I see NATO as being one unified pole. I just hope our leaders do too!