Farsighted academics

[Fuchs]

Industrial sales that were illegal and punished by German justice, Ken. Individual manager's actions don't equal national policy.

And there's really no need for serious replies to half-serious jokes that are meant to lighten up everyone.



I think it would be reasonable to say that International Law doesn't overrule national constitutions in said nations, but most if not all nations consider international law as superior when said nation acts outside of its territory. It really doesn't matter if one nation thinks otherwise; it's just in error then. Or would you consider it as justified and legal that Iraq invaded Kuwait because it had a different interpretation of what Kuwait is (19th province)? No, they were simply wrong.
The USA is big - and even more important: distant - enough to not have suffered much conventional consequences (like bombing/invasion), just lower level consequences (diplomacy, terrorism) due to its behaviour. It's quite naive in my opinion to assume that this would last forever, especially as there's a lot to lose even without war.

We (and I don't just mean Ken and me) disagree on a lot in this thread (and I am certainly not representative for German public opinion anyway), it was even pointless to engage in details (that's why I didn't attempt to discuss the many small disagreements).

Just keep in mind; you might be wrong and your attitude (as expressed in national policy) might lead to national disasters ahead.
Other nations believed they were exceptional and need not submit themselves to rules and could ignore other's reactions - these nations failed because no nation is big enough to sustain such an attitude for long. Said nations are smarter now, they have learned about the consequences of such behavior. They have also learned that they can have a great living with very different, less conflict-prone behavior.

[RTK]

Industrial sales that were illegal and punished by German justice, Ken. Individual manager's actions don't equal national policy.

And there's really no need for serious replies to half-serious jokes that are meant to lighten up everyone.

My questions were serious. You haven't addressed any of them yet.

[Fuchs]

My questions were serious. You haven't addressed any of them yet.

That were very poor questions that didn't really deserve an answer in my opinion.

Are you saying Europe deserves no blame in their deteriorated security in the past 10 years?

I wrote
"The alliance has degraded, not improved Europe's security situation in the past ten years."
There's no logical connection between both. Your question was irrelevant to what you quoted and I had no interest in following such off-topic thought.

If the answer is "yes" then what is causing European nations to continue the delicate relationship with the United States as things stand?

That was already discussed elsewhere in the thread, just scroll up.


Yay, one more who will never become a friend of mine.

[RTK]

That were very poor questions that didn't really deserve an answer in my opinion.



I wrote
"The alliance has degraded, not improved Europe's security situation in the past ten years."
There's no logical connection between both. Your question was irrelevant to what you quoted and I had no interest in following such off-topic thought.




That was already discussed elsewhere in the thread, just scroll up.


Yay, one more who will never become a friend of mine.

I've asked with respect. You haven't reciprocated the courtesy.

My question stands: instead of casting stones from a glass house, I'm asking you what Europe could have done differently as well over the past ten years to improve their own security situation, outside of blaming the United States for their problems?

[RTK]

Entropy - Don't hold your breathe. You'll probably get a response like this one.

That were very poor questions that didn't really deserve an answer in my opinion.

Yay, one more who will never become a friend of mine.

[jmm99]

Fuchs' post re: Grundgesetz ("fundamental or basic law" per my Langenscheidt's), etc., presents the German side of I Law and Con Law issues, where the two systems (German and US) have very different answers to the same questions.

Basically we have:

1. Pecking order of Basic Organic Law, International Law and Legislative Acts in the nation's system of governance.

2. Incorporation and Abrogation of International Law in that system.

3. Determination and Interpretation of International Law in that system.

Those are the general points that should be understood by each side before engaging on specific issues. And engage we will, because the answers are going to be different - although, in most cases, the results will be the same or at least similar.

I took this as German joke,

Besides - the times when the German sovereign does decide to ignore international law are known as "World Wars".

although it does represent the post-WWII German position to view its WWI and WWII history in terms of the laws of war that were developed after WWII. If that evaluatioin is incorrect, please feel free to correct.

For the time being, I'd just as soon leave this sequence on the shelf for the moment:

Hague A > WWI > Paris Pact & Hague B > WWII > War Crimes Trials > UN Charter > GCs > Gulf I > Gulf II (legal and factual basis).

Unless each step in this process is understood, intelligent discourse about the OP is not possible.

Just some thoughts on ground rules - a Grundgesetz, so to speak.

-----------------
And, as I look to posts made while I write this - comments such as this are not helpful:

Yay, one more who will never become a friend of mine.

My purpose here is not to make international friendships (although if that happens, fine); but to witness to respective concepts of war; and, to the extent possible, destroy misconceptions of each other's positions.

So, let's keep this on an officers' level of discourse (recognizing that SNCOs by their inherent nature and talents will outdiscourse any officer).

I also had questions similar to RJK (a builder of bridges turned horse wrangler) about your comment that:

The alliance [JMM: NATO] has degraded, not improved Europe's security situation in the past ten years

1. How (facts) has NATO degraded Europe's security situation since 1999 ?

2. What has Europe (or individual Euro states) done to address the degradation ?

3. What should Europe (or individual Euro states) do to address the degradation ?

Left out "glass houses" because you can say that of us; and we of you - yah da, yah da .....

[Fuchs]

Well, Europe faces only two possible threat directions (as long as it chooses to stay allied with North American countries): East - CIS and South - Arabs.

Black Africa, South Asia, Latin America and East Asia are pretty much irrelevant for European security. Distant powers might annoy us or even sue military assets to block us from certain areas, but they are no threat to us.

Direction East:

The USA has used aggressive diplomatic strategies, intelligence services and the BMD issue to split Europe (BMD issue) and to alienate Russia contrary to the political intent of several (especially the larger ones) European powers.
I consider the unnecessarily contrary positions in Eastern Europe as degradation of European security simply because of the stress and the very low levels at which problems are already counted as relevant today.
The USA has a similar policy in Eastern Europe as in the Far East; it heats up conflicts in the hope of winning its power games while the really involved allied powers of the region are more intent to co-operate.


Direction South:

European countries have no significant political problems with Arab countries or populations, and besides tiny episodes like Lebanon 82 and Lampedusa (now a quarter century past) there was no relevant irritation between the Arab world and Europe since a very long time.
The U.S. involvement in the Mid East and subsequent annoying of large swaths of the Arab World created the blowback of AQ. The alliance link between Europe and the USA meant that Europe became a foe and target of violent elements, with subsequent loss of life and troubles.

The unfair brokering in the 90's and subsequent negotiations about the Palestinian/Israeli problem made the USA look like the big brother of Israel, the arch-enemy of NATO's European southern flank.
Fair brokering would have earned respect and prestige, unfair brokering meant that the ally of Europeans took the side of the arch enemy of the neighbors of Europe.
Europe with its mix of Germany (pro-Israel) and France (pro-Arabs since 1967) could have handled the issue without alienating the Arab world like this.

Problems like the Danish caricature pseudo-scandal grew on the fertile ground of the already existing tensions and perceptions of ill-will.

-----

Home-grown reasons for international tensions (whatever that would be) are irrelevant to the question whether the alliance increased or decreased European security.

[jmm99]

you have presented your position as to Q1 - adequately (IMO) - which does not mean I agree with you.

Now, how about Q2 & Q3:

2. What has Europe (or individual Euro states) done to address the degradation ?

3. What should Europe (or individual Euro states) do to address the degradation ?

[jmm99]

The present Grundgesetz is here. Its Wiki article is here, and describes its background:

The Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (German: Grundgesetz für die Bundesrepublik Deutschland) is the constitution[1] of Germany. It was formally approved on May 8, 1949 and, with the signature of the Allies, came into effect on May 23, 1949 as the de facto constitution of West Germany.

The German word Grundgesetz may be translated as either Basic Law or Fundamental Law. The term Verfassung (constitution) was not used, as the drafters regarded the Grundgesetz as a provisional document, to be replaced by the constitution of a future united Germany. This was not possible in the context of the Cold War and the communist orientation of the Soviet occupation zone, which later in 1949 proclaimed itself the German Democratic Republic, dividing Germany into two states.

Forty years later, in 1990, Germany finally reunified when the GDR peacefully joined the West German Federal Republic of Germany. After reunification, the Basic Law remained in force, having proved itself as a stable foundation for the thriving democracy in West Germany that had emerged from the ruins of World War II. Some changes were made to the law in 1990, mostly pertaining to reunification, such as to the preamble. Additional major amendments to and modifications of the Basic Law were made in 1994, 2002 and 2006.

and adds:

The idea for the creation of the Basic Law came originally from the three western occupying powers. In view of the Nazi usurpation of Germany's prewar Weimar Constitution, they made their approval of the creation of a new German state conditional on:

a complete rejection of the ideology that the German people are a master race (German: Herrenrasse) — superior to others, born to be leaders, and entitled to commit genocide, or barbaric treatment of those not belonging to it;

an unequivocal commitment to the inviolability and inalienability of human rights.

Unfortunately, Wiki cites no source for the interplay between the 3 Allied Powers and the soon to be revived German state.

Shades of "The Third Man" - yes, I know that was Vienna, but the post-WWII - pre-Cold War interval was a complicated interlude - and "Young Frankenstein" - coming back to haunt us.

[Surferbeetle]

Shades of "The Third Man" - yes, I know that was Vienna, but the post-WWII - pre-Cold War interval was a complicated interlude - and "Young Frankenstein" - coming back to haunt us.

Young Frankenstein...a true classic!

While wandering around the internet I stumbled across The National Interest website (I make no claims about this website one way or the other - but find that some of the articles on Germany and Russia, in particular, intelligently provide some background and points/counterpoints to consider on our topic)

Ich Bin Ein Berliner?
by Donald K. Bandler and A. Wess Mitchel

Even if the new administration makes progress on all of these fronts, it is unlikely to be able to restore U.S.-German cooperation to its previous levels anytime soon. For the first time in more than a generation, seismic geopolitical shifts—a restive Russia, a stalling EU and an over-stretched America—have begun to change, perhaps fundamentally, the way America’s German ally looks at itself and its role on the wider transatlantic stage. Eventually, President Obama should be prepared to confront these challenges head-on and engage Berlin in a comprehensive discussion about the fundamentals of the relationship. For now, it will be enough to get the two talking and acting constructively again

Unfortunately I can no longer provide a working link to the articles on Russia at this website which I was able to read yesterday; Dimitri K. Simes as well as Clifford G. Gaddy and Barry W. Ickes had articles available. Suffice to say they intelligently challenge my view of Russia.

[Schmedlap]

The latest issue also has a good article by "evil neocon" Richard Perle, discussing the debate surrounding why we went into Iraq. I'm pretty sure it's available to non-subscribers.

http://www.nationalinterest.org/Article.aspx?id=20486

So if it was not a neocon master plan, how did we end up invading Iraq? What were the considerations that led Bush to bring down Saddam Hussein’s regime by force? What was the role of neoconservatives in his decision to go to war in Iraq? Many people believe they know the answer to these questions because so much has been written, with seeming authority, by so many commentators. Could 50 million blogs be wrong?

[Ken White]

Just keep in mind; you might be wrong and your attitude (as expressed in national policy) might lead to national disasters ahead.

Yes, indeed. Maybe not leading to national disasters but the first part bears some thinking.

For everyone...