Simon: ... if US policy changed to the
self-defence position, and, by necessity, lead to
a corresponding increase in European defence
budgets, I'm not sure there would be too many
complaints. .... I go back to the matter of
choice. Being Top Dog is a policy decision. Change
the policy and you'd lose the boasting rights, but
probably make a few friends.
Eric: Americans really don't want military
boasting rights. Maybe some sweaty guys in
sleeveless T-shirts in Texas do, but most probably
don't. I think it was Henry James who said (maybe
I'm totally wrong with this attribution and it's
somebody like Mussolini who said it, but no
matter) that the "American disease" is wanting to
be liked by everybody.
The thing Americans really like to boast about is
putting the first human on the moon. That kind of
achievement rings our chimes. (It's one of the
things in memory that people are most proud of, I
think.) Most people would rather be proud of
science, arts, athletics, etc., than blowing stuff
up, although when people are trying to blow you
up, being able to blow them up first is a nifty skill.
As for policy decision to be top dog, that's moot.
I mean, if Europeans didn't have the Kaiser, Lloyd
George, and the goosestep last century, the US
might easily be just a regular dog.
Simon: What matters, I believe, is the extent of
the problem. Teemu's post makes the point that the
extent of the problem has been exaggerated. I
would agree.
Eric: If the terrorists were to stick to Semtex
and recycled artillery shells, yes. But if they go
into the supergerm or plutonium racket, we'll all
have multum in parvo, and numbers won't be a good
metric.
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
