Is this a problem? We got the job done, die we not?
Oh, did I contested the fact that some job hasn't been done?
Just found amusing that people on here were all 'oh luckily we gave an hand to that poor Europeans', as if it had just been something generous from the US.
European countries joined NATO voluntarily and have certainly benefited greatly from it during the Cold War. Are you saying that NATO serves only American interests? Still about the fact that people wondered why Euros didn't take initiative, I just meant they were already in a military alliance, NATO, and no, it didn't only serve US interests but it is largely dominated by US, and given we were in it, maybe that's why we didn't have a lot of initiative, still answering here to the blame that people here would put on us. Didn't Nixon said something like: 'In fact NATO is the only efficient international organization because it is led by US'?
You really believe in an American conspiracy to prevent a unified Europe? Now I oppose European federalism, even from a European perspective...but I highly doubt that Bill Clinton's reason for sending troops was to keep Europe from organizing themselves.Oh, did I speak about conspiracy? Geostrategical decisions in order to maintain the domination of oneself on an area would maybe fit better. Something that you seem to be aware of if I read the rest of your post. Or US is really that wonderful state that thinks first to the interests of others before its own...
The point being, did US tried to let us the initiative there, or did they take it?
What is the U.S. supposed to do, deny any strategic involvement in foreign affairs whatsoever? Of course our own interests define our foreign policy to an extent, but which country's does not?k, and sure, countries use to do that, so please people don't do as if all what you do where guided by a great generosity, please.
Although accusing the U.S. of imperialism is always a way out of any argument in Europe, right? That's at least my experience in Germany.
Then you recognize yourself US were guided by their own interests, you said in an extent, I say to a major extent, as any country would, yes. This plus the fact US doesn't let a lot of initiative to others, how will we call that? Will that now be forbidden to speak about the concept of imperialism just because it has been overused? What a weird reason for a censor.
US would act as any other country, the fact that it became the more powerful make it having imperialist behaviors, I just don't like hypocrisy and when the one does as if it was just some kind of 'generosity'.
But, anyways, that's not because it has already been done that it has to be done again or that it has to be encouraged, especially when you claim for being 'generous', maybe it would be time to try to make it just be a bit...coherent.
You can also encourage the development of an actual international cooperation for those really interested in spreading their generosity, by trying to develop the power of UN, something that US haven't done a lot, not to say more likely the opposite.
Also, it is changing, look at EU for example, that's the exact opposite, it gives a lot and not for its interest, which is as much a problem, because since it only gives some money but without having some actual power, it is some waste that lead to statu quo at best.
Poll
