@ Sag

That esteemed expert can dissect my philologicals any time she wants to.

Just checkin' ;-)

Me thinks your nick should be philologically dissected and examined, preferably by this esteemed expert, just to make sure.

Sag.

@ Sag

No, not in the slightest bit disappointed. Perhaps that is why I chose "Atlanticist" and not, Oh I don't know, "Wis(consin)Wan(nabe)", as my nom de plume, do ya think?

Frank Lee whimpered: "By the way, it's rich that someone who calls himself "Conservative Swede" is telling whining Americans at GoV to go home and take their soldiers with them."

Whining is a good description of what you do. Do you want American soldiers stationed in Europe to go home or not?

"The Swedes made similar comments throughout the Cold War, while in secret they were cooperating with the U.S. military and making sure their landing strips were compatible with NATO aircraft so that we could swoop in and save them when their Soviet brothers invaded."

The Swedes would be much better off today if they had been invaded by the Soviet Union. We would be better off too, as they would spend less time lecturing us. In particular, the Crazy Swede from Gates of Vienna would not have internet access yet. The world wide web would still be a nice and peaceful place...

@ Frank Lee

Yes, I think that European impotence is that "absolute" today, when it comes to real threats from China and Russia (or their future proxies).  There is still some 'potence' left in Europe when it comes to dealing with smaller fry like, say, certain African potentates and the like (assuming they are not directly backed by Putin or the Beijing Politbureau). 

The real reasons for this "impotence" are (a) disbelief in the existence of 'enemies' and (b) the naive belief in Europe by some that the "commitment" (of the American public) is still there.  Even a thinking 'German' like Kapitein Andre wrote elsewhere on this blog today that the ICBM's in Nebraska would still be used in the defense of Europe.   I don't think so.  Perhaps they might, under certain specific circumstances if immediate US survival were threathened in some way.  But, that is not likely the way in which future Chinese 'emperors' or Russian 'tsars' are going to threaten vital European interests in the future.  Unlike the West Europeans (and certain Arabs like Saddam for instance) , the world's smart totalitarians have learned the lessons from the past century: it is not smart to provoke the US if you are having designs on smaller fish.   The implication is that the ayathollas are not as smart as the leftist western media makes them out to be.

After all, where could the commitment (to sacrifice for the sake of others' freedom) still reside in the US?  Consider the options.  First, the left today (not 40 years ago)  typically does not want to fight, full stop, except perhaps on its own streets and campuses against imagined 'fascists'.  Second, the right no longer contains a sizable 'idealist' wing: we are (almost) all 'realists' now. And, third, w.r.t. the great mass of the politically-indifferent 'middle', as Armor would say: the American population is turning less 'white' all the time.   Risking partial annihilation for white  Europe's sake?    

By the way, I titled my earlier comment "gratitude" in reference to the American Founding Fathers and their giving us the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution.  Marcfrans turned that into "(in)gratitude" and it was automatically assumed that I (he) was referring to European attitudes toward the Americans.  Calling Dr. Freud!

By the way, it's rich that someone who calls himself "Conservative Swede" is telling whining Americans at GoV to go home and take their soldiers with them.  The Swedes made similar comments throughout the Cold War, while in secret they were cooperating with the U.S. military and making sure their landing strips were compatible with NATO aircraft so that we could swoop in and save them when  their Soviet brothers invaded.

@lanticist,

That's an interesting observation and as right as rain, I suppose. So now the question is: are you very disappointed not to have been born an American and view the world from Mr. Lee's perspective?

Kind regs from Amsterdam,
Sag.

N.b.: more trans-Atlantic crosstalk about ingratitude at GoV

[the comments are good fun!

OMMAG: In the 21'st its "You're on your own now!"

Conservative Swede: I have never seen a bully that is whining as much, as the American chauvinist. Get it into your mind: We want you to get out of here! We want to get rid of you! The sooner you get your troops out of Europe the better.]

Whenever I read a Frank Lee post I alwas think to myself, yes, I have to be honest, if I had been born an American, that is probably how I would view the world.

From your lips to God's ears!  Your observation about the death of the alliance is the nicest Christmas present I have received in some time.  But I'm curious why you believe that the only remaining question for Putin and the Chinese pertains to America's resolve to curb totalitarianism.   Why wouldn't the world's totalitarians give at least some consideration to the Europeans' resolve to oppose them?  Is European impotence really that absolute?

@ Frank Lee

But, the alliance has already broken down, in the sense that the credibility of the commitment is gone.  Obama is not going to change that, but rather is going to expose it further (after a temporary 'honeymoon'). 

The formalities of course remain.  What is left is 'public relations' (look at the efforts of Sarkozy and others in that regard), very specific and temporary deal-making, seeking commonality of convenience, etc...  But, the commitment is gone.  And, most importantly, Putin and the Chinese know it. Their diplomats and other functionaries do follow the Western media, know what motivates Western politicians, and thus know what is politically possible today in the West (and what is not).

The only major question that remains for the world's totalitarians is "How isolationist and/or 'realist' is the US going to be in the future. And, for how long?"

More than 200 years ago the American Founding Fathers established the right to express one's views, regardless of whether those views upset other people's sensibilities. I agree with that sentiment the way I agree that there is such a thing as gravity, or that fire burns. Thus it is always jarring to be reminded that most of our supposed allies in Western Europe and Canada disagree. I sound like a broken record, but it is time to disband NATO and admit that the European cultures and American culture are very different indeed. The alliance will break at some point. Best to end it now.

@ Hauptman(n) Andre

1)  Your second paragraph was a beauty, although you should have put the word 'democratic' (in democratic centralism) between inverted commas to flag a problem to simple-minded readers like K.  Given that Vladimir Putin in recent days has now managed to get his rubberstamp parliament to criminalise all criticism of government (penalty for such 'treason' is 10 years in jail), perhaps you can see the similarities with Vladimir Lenin and the same prospective results "in its wake"?

2) Your final one-sentence paragraph shows lack of empirical observation.  Perhaps Farage is headed for "somewhere ugly".  After all, there are currently (former) parliamentarians in jail in Belgium and elsewhere in Europe, simply for expressing opinions (not for criminal deeds).  This shows that some of the national allies of "Brussels" actually do believe in (the wrong sort of) "hard power".  And, every time I see Herr Schultz (not to mention the bandit Herr/Monsieur Cohn-Bendit) in action on some video somewhere, I am reminded that it is not different at the EU level.  

Sarkozy is more concerned with respect for the symbols of the European Union and the status of MEPs than with the legitimate concerns on the part of the EU's ultimate constituents - the peoples of its member states. Perhaps Turkiye should be promptly admitted. The Turkish law prohibiting "insult" to Turkiye should nicely mesh with the Lisbon Treaty.

As for Poettering and Schultz - they made no meaningful counter-arguments to Farage. Moreover, Schultz equated "behind closed doors" dealing with the democratic process. The EU has become the reincarnation of Lenin's democratic centralism and the nomenklatura, stagnation, nepotism, cronyism and corruption that must surely follow in its wake.

Perhaps we should be pleased that Brussels does not believe in "hard power", or surely Farage would be somewhere ugly.

There is nothing more ugly and worth of condemnation on the political arena  than so called European 'Christian Democrats'.  Party system is not worth a broken cent. 

We both know that sooner or later the 'house of cards' is going to collapse in on itself, but not before a lot more damage has been done to us all and only God knows who and what is going to replace it.

The Citizens of Ireland voted NO on the Lisbon Treaty. Can anyone explain to this American why further consideration of the Lisbon Treaty by any other EU Member States who have not yet voted on the measure is continuing? Wasn't ratification by all Member States a requirement and didn't Ireland's NO vote end the process? What is the legal justification for further consideration or ratification by a Member State that has not yet voted on Lisbon in light of the fact that the Treaty has already been voted down by another Member State?

Now we have it here complete and concrete as requested.

This EU parliament is really run by a politbureau.

Sarko is one heading for the job of secretary-general of the EU/Mediterranean new Europe unitary party.

What's the f.....g difference today between christian democratic europeans and socialist/marxist europeans? Small letters on purpose.

We really have to start fighting.