On Mon, 2 Dec 2002, Erik Reuter wrote: > I had a similar reaction. He spent a lot of words setting up the > conflict between the US on one side with the belief that military force > is the way to solve international problems, and the EU on the other side > with the belief that appeasement, engagement, persuasion, diplomacy, > etc. are sufficient. > > But then he didn't resolve the conflict, the question that "can the > EU be right, is it possible to solve international problems without > military force?". He just waved the question away by assuming that > everyone knows the US view is the more realistic one, which it may be, > but addressing the question more directly seemed called for.
I have to admit it made me giggle a bit to see Kagan's analysis of USA power-based morality vs. EU powerlessness-based morality mirror exactly Nietzsche's theory of master vs. slave moralities (in a very specific and limited context, to be sure). The fact that he takes this psychological cause-and-effect relationship between power and moral convictions for granted gives my blackened cinder of a heart a cheap thrill. On the whole I thought it was a decent article, but it seemed to me to need more than just a wistful "[maybe] a little common understanding could still go a long way," at the end. How about some recommendations about how to foster that understanding and leverage it in the wider world for the good of those people each side believes it is called to aid, each in its own way? Marvin Long Austin, Texas Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, & Ashcroft, LLP (Formerly the USA) _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
