Re: Trans-Atlantic Gap

I agree with you guys on the basic point of everyone being basically dependent on us to deal with things that nobody else can or will.

Really of course there's currently not much incentive for them to do otherwise. After all, most other nations as individuals do not have either the capacity or the incentive to compete militarily with an economic super-state like the U.S. (This could change over time if Europe continues its partial fusion over the next century). So they might as well rely on us instead.

If the U.S. pulled in its horns, I don't know if things would go 'to hell in a handbasket' but there would definitely be a phase of, uh, "adjustment" as everyone suddenly had to adjust, militarily and budgetarily, to defending their interests more assertively.

However, on the matter of being pro/anti-war (in a general way) and how the transatlantic gap reflects this, I think there is something different to consider: the nations on the other side of the atlantic have found themselves, almost routinely, to be battlegrounds for other people's wars. Is it any wonder that their mental image of war would be, well, less glorious than ours?

There's an uncomforting thought

g'night.

James,
I've been following this thread and I have to agree with Bill B's. and your assesement of the situation in international politics.

Being that this is a religion, philosophy and politics forum, one of the big differences, that nobody has mentioned yet in helping create the Trans-Atlantic gap is religion and philosophy. There has been a massive difference in theological seminaries in the U.S. and Europe since the 1880's. Rationalism had it's birth in Germany's seminaries in the 1880's and had a huge effect (negative IMHO) on the churches and philosophy of Germany and was instrumental in the rise of Fascism. The French had the Existentialists that later helped form the present predominant world view in Europe.

It is interesting to note that there were two rather significant theologians in Germany during the 1930's, Tillick and Bonhoeffer. Bonhoeffer was a conservative theologically and also an outspoken pacifist. Tillick was liberal theologically and was not the outspoken pacifist. When Hitler started to make things rough in Germany, guess who ended up staying in Germany? Bonhoeffer. He ended up being hung in a prison camp just two weeks before the allies arrived for being involved with Hitler's attempted assination. Tillick high tailed it to the U.S. and went to the University of Chicago for a professorship. Tillick lived to a ripe old age and got to personally influence the likes of Hillary Clinton and Jimmy Carter and many other famous liberals.

Don't mean to get to long winded here but the point I am trying to make is that what a person and nation believes is how a person and nation behaves or acts. I see much of the European behavior of recent months atypical for it's believe system. Their behavior has been a direct reflection of their pulpits, theologians, and philosophers. Likewise for the terrorists, they are living out their believe system.

It is interesting to note the very moderate position that Arabnews.com is reporting since the bombings in Saudi Arabia. They understand what's going on and what it will take to stop the continued growth of the fanatics. It appears the Arab's see the problem as theological and are pursuing the situation as such.