Re: Death of Europe? or Birth?

        Georges makes a good point about who has and who has not suffered
most in warfare during the past few generations, but from the perspective of
American history it is ironic that the Union is now under the leadership,
in good measure, of politicians from the states that seceded in 1861 and
thereby precipitated one of the bloodiest wars of all time, the American
Civil War.  So when Georges says that Americans have never been conquered
or endured heavy losses of life in combat, he's not quite correct.  From a
population of 31 million (1860 census), three million men served in the
Union and Confederate armies, and about half a million were killed or
died.  The states of the Confederacy were conquered and occupied and
"reconstructed" by Union forces.  Now conservative politicians from these
massively defeated states are leading the charge to conquer, occupy, and
reconstruct Iraq.  Descendants of slaves are helping them out.  And of
course the United States under Southern presidents (transplanted or
otherwise) butchered Vietnamese, invaded Panama, blew up Iraq and
Serbia in the 1990s, and remains hard at work liberating Afghanistan.  Is
turnabout fair play?

        I omit any reference to the ten million or so Americans
exterminated in the 17th to 19th Centuries because they came from the
wrong place (i.e., America).  Their assassins called them "Indians."
But I'm not aware of any prominent Indian personalities in the cabal
now running Washington.

        Warren


On Sat, 1 Feb 2003, Prospective Internationale wrote:

> >>Twenty years of economic expansion came to end on September 11, 2001...
> >>
> >>Since then, United States and Europe are fighting to death in a recessive
> >>economic world.
> >>
> >>Divide and rule is the strategy used by the Emperor to bring down his enemy.
> >>
> >>And it looks like it is working...
> >>
> >>More than oil, Iraq is the death of Europe...
> >
> >An interesting and compelling argument. However, I think a case can
> >be made that Iraq may well prove the *birth* of Europe, not its death.
> >
> > From the end of WW II to the present, (western) Europe and the US
> >have been as one on the big questions of war. The first crack in that
> >was De Gaulle's France - the first to "go its own way", publicly, on
> >military policy. But it stood alone. Now, for the first time, it is
> >being publicly joined by others - in fact, by the *majority* of the
> >EU.
> >
> >Europe has always been divided, and the NATO consensus was always a
> >consensus from weakness, not from strength - a matter of being ruled.
> >The question of Iraq shows an emerging consensus from strength, a
> >uniting against that rule. Such a consensus, built on the economic
> >core of the EU (France, Germany, Benelux), may well prove the birth
> >of Europe. ... If, perhaps, the death of NATO.
> >
> >Is it not telling that the US would even *bother* going after the
> >explicit support of European states - and then can only get those of
> >weaker states?
> >
> >Chris
>
> @@@@@@@@@@
>
> Good point!
>
> An inverted evolution of the NATO compared to the EU is historically
> interesting. The former born during the war, the later born as a result of
> war, as a way to refuse any new war in future European territories.
>
> It is quite strange to see how, finally, the division presented by the
> Letter of the Eight is a representation of weak leaders looking after an
> Emperor!
>
> Spain avoided to participate in the II WW because Franco was exhausted by
> its own dictature.
>
> Italy  was on that time on the side of the German Fuhrer, now he is
> American! And Berlusconi has quite similarities with Mussolini,
> particularly in the way he treats the medias... Italians did not suffer as
> a conquered country but as defeated country associated to willing
> conquerors.
>
> UK never get physically conquered even if it suffered from heavy bombings.
>
> Instead France and Germany as well as Benelux have seen enough of their own
> blood lost in two different wars.
>
> United States of America have never suffered heavy losses of life, nor
> being conquered...
>
> That might be the key of their willingness of war.
>
> Georges
>
>
>
>