My comments below:

snipped a lot here

The Germans are very confused about this. For years and years we told them
they couldn't have anything resembling an army of real power. They agreed,
in fact embraced the idea that they would never have to go to war again
(who wouldn't?). Now all of a sudden we demand that they send troops
overseas on our initiative and are upset when they don't.


Yes, I think you and Martin are right. People have been growing up on
either side of the pond with very different values with respect to the
military. However, I think it's about time for Germans to begin to become
more responsible for their own defense and using some military power where
necessary around the world keeping the peace, so that the US doesn't have to
do everything by itself. IMHO, it will be in the interest of everyone to
share this burden.

snip

I said I was carless, but I did rent cars. Conclusion; the Autobahn is
AWESOME! No other road compares. You are Driver in Command, and
whatever
you and your machine can handle that day goes. When the traffic is
high,
it's like everywhere else. If you wake up early, it's faster than a
Cessna 172 :-)

It is a real pleasure to drive in Europe in general compared to the US.
Drivers actually pay attention to what they are doing and what is going on
around them. On this last visit I drove from Germany through Belgium into
France and back. Not once was I stuck behind a slower vehicle in the fast
lane for more than a moment (while they passed someone).

But for me the real fun is not the Autobahn, it's the highways between
towns. Roads that are (mostly) billiard table smooth that wind through
scenic country and passing is (usually) easy. The curves are challenging
and the speeds are high enough to really give a thrill to anyone who
enjoys
driving.

Yes, driving in general is a blast in Europe. In my opinion, after driving
all over the place, Germany has the best roads and the best drivers.
Germans displayed lane discipline no one else did. Crossing over into
France, I felt less safe at slower speeds because of the way people were
weaving in and out of lanes. I found it amazing that the German freeway
system beat, hands down, the French toll system. I agree with Jay Honeck
that tollways are just a bad idea that stifle movement and commerce.


snip

Then there is the Bier. Enough said :-)

Ummmmmm...Bier!

There are a bunch more things I could touch on, but this has become a
long
enough core dump... Suffice to say that there are great and not so
great
things about both countries and both continents. I prefer to stick to
this side of the pond, but I love visiting all of my European friends
every once in a while.

Cheers,
Aviv

Thanks, nice post.

You are absolutely right that there is good and bad on both sides. I think
Americans could do a much better job seeing the good sides, collectively
we
tend to dismiss anything foreign as inferior.


Yup. Unfortunately.

But most important in these times is for Americans to try to better
understand why people in other countries do not see us the same way we see
ourselves. Americans are a kind and benevolent people and we know it.
Unfortunately our foreign policy is driven by economics and when that
conflicts with our morals the money always wins. So people in other
countries see us as an amoral people only interested in money and are
naturally suspicious of our motives.


The trouble is that the world is not populated exclusively by kind and
benevolent people or regimes. The United States, as all other nations, does
what it deems necessary to protect itself and its people from those
unfriendly elements in the world. We just have more flaboyant stances and
means to carry our protection out than other countries, if nothing else
simply because of our military and economic dominance. I don't think the
U.S. is the bully that some people think we are, it's just that our actions
are interpreted that way. Everyone in the world has an opinion about what
the U.S. should do and not do, and they get upset when the U.S. does or does
not do what they want. That's life, and I don't see how the U.S. could
possibly concoct a foreign policy that pleases everyone.

I find it insulting when people insinuate that the United States is somehow
exploiting the rest of the world - no other nation or economy has pulled
more people out of poverty than the United States. Sure, people complain
about Nike or Coca Cola doing this or that in the third world, and they may
have some valid points. However, if these "greedy American corporations"
weren't there, what kinds of jobs would the workers be doing? Would they be
better off? If they would be better off, why work for 'greedy American
corporation'? The simple fact is, the United States and its corporations
have, on the whole, been trading worldwide very fairly, raising standards of
living everywhere they do business. It's in our interest to have rich
neighbors to trade with, not poor people that could never buy our stuff.

This is compounded by the fact that we tend view each new administration
as
a new beginning, with it's own policies and personality, whereas the rest
of the world sees merely the same country with a new leader. They look for
some consistency and expect us to live up to past commitments. When they
don't get it they naturally think we are arbitrary and so cannot be
trusted
absolutely.


Well, this is a good point, but that's the nature of the beast, no? While
some countries have very, shall we say, 'consistent' leadership, like Saddam
Hussein's Iraq, Kim Jong Il's North Korea, and King Faisel's Saudi Arabia,
democracies like the United States are more fickle. As I said, countries do
what they deem best for themselves, and in democracies that is influenced by
the political winds. To expect a country to be 100% consistent is asking a
lot. Perhaps the U.S. could be better at this, but no one should expect
fascist style consistency.

We Americans also need to become more aware of the wrong message we send
when we zealously defend our rights but don't extend them to others. There
cannot be double standards when it comes to human rights because it ruins
our credibility in the area where it matters most. I was taught that until
all are free, none are free but I don't see us practicing that today.


You know, the idealist in me agrees with you 100%, and I really wish that
there were a way to act completely honestly with respect to human rights.
However, the realpolitik is the driver of all policies, and it does not
allow this luxury. If nothing else, because the United States would make
even more enemies and would seem like an even bigger bully than it is cast
as right now. One could argue that ousting Saddam Hussein was a triumph for
human rights in the long view, since human rights were so virulently and
consistently violated in Hussein's Iraq. But all of the human rights people
were marching AGAINST the war, because of the short term loss of life. This
is a classical ethics class dillemma, and both sides have very strong
arguments. The United States was faced with this dilemma and chose to do
what it thought best for it and its people. Regardless of how the U.S. got
there, what the world thought of it, and what the actual results are,
what should have happenned was not clearly morally defined, IMHO. Decisions
about war and peace rarely are clearly moral or immoral. So again, my point
is that to ask for absolutes in terms of policy is not realistic, since
there are multiple sides to every story. Everyone makes up their own mind
anyways when critiquing the United States, and there is no policy that would
satisfy everyone.

We seem to have come to a point where we think that it's OK for us to
apply
a different set of rights to foreigners that we would not tolerate
ourselves. We need to remember that our Constitution says that _ALL_ men
are created equal, not just American men. The rights that we (rightly)
hold
so dear are the inalienable rights of _ALL_, not just those holding US
passports.


Realpolitik aside, I do agree with you that the United States and its people
ought to strive for the ideal and keep pushing for a better world. I
believe that EVERY president of the United States has attempted to leave
this country and the world better off. They could all have done better, but
they are constrained by all sorts of parameters, including public opinion.
So, if public opinion can be swung in the direction favorable toward human
rights and disfavorable toward abuses of human rights, we'll be helping to
move things in the right direction and live in a better world.

Admittedly this is an extreme example, but consider the hypocrisy of
confiscating small arms from Iraqi citizens while saying we are trying to
build our style of democracy. If we truly believe that an armed citizenry
is essential to liberty this must at least be an issue.


This is an example where pragmatically, to get from a difficult state to a
better state for the citizenry, exceptions to absolute principles have to be
made. Knowing who had the guns in Iraq before, what they represent, and who
they are threatening, I don't see this as a huge violation of human rights.
It may be hypocritical, but I believe it's necessary. In the short term, a
whole lot of things can be criticized. But at this point, in order to get
from here to there, this is what is necessary. We're not at a steady state,
so to speak, but at a ramp up period. The only thing that will keep it on
the straight and narrow is the benevolance of the U.S. that you
alluded to before. How many other countries would invade an oil rich
country TWICE, and not steal a drop of oil? We didn't go there to steal
oil. This whole thing was a huge PITA for the U.S. and its president, but
it was done in the best interests of the United States as determined by its
leader. I hope we don't try to get into what the actual motivation was,
since this thread would never end, but suffice to say that it was done, and
the net long term effect is arguably that Iraqis will have a better life to
look forward to, eventually.

Much of our trouble today comes from the Israel/Palestine conflict.
Palestinians are not even able to vote, let alone have other basic rights
of assembly, passage, etc. yet I have never seen Americans decry this as
they would if it happened to them.


Whoa, hold on there. That's a bold statement, and I beg to differ. There
are multitudes of conflicts around the world where people are downtrodden
and the human rights violations are much more severe. This is not meant to
minimize the suffering of the Palestinians or Israelis, but just to give
some
perspective. This conflict is in the grand scheme of things, low intensity.
So far in
the current intifada, roughly 800 Israelis and over 2000 Palestinians have
been killed, spread over almost three years. The Rwanda conflict probably
killed that many people in 3 days. Over a million people were slaughtered
there in the space of a few months. No one - no the United States, not
Germany, not France, not anybody did anything to stop it. Just some
perspective. IMHO your statement that "much of our trouble today comes from
the Israel/Palestine conflict" does not hold water.

Now, the U.S. supports Israel for its own reasons, and there are many. One
of the best reasons, well said by VP Cheney, is that the minute Israel
cannot count on support from the U.S., outwardly hostile Arab nations like
Syria and Iran and perhaps even some of the lesser hostile nations like
Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan would attack and drive the Israelis into the
sea. How do I know this? Because they've tried before, and Syria and Iran
are quite open about their plans in the event of Israeli weakness. At least
Iraq, because of its own actions beginning in 1991, was taken care of by the
U.S. and Britain, and is no longer a threat to Israel. The United States
would simply rather not let ANOTHER 6 million Jews be slaughtered. I'm not
kidding - Israel has no guarantees of its survival. Too many people forget
this. Israel can not afford to lose a single war, and is basically surviving
on a tactical advantage by way of a momentarily superior army and air force.

That being said, the conflict in the region must come to an end, and the
current situation is clearly unacceptable. The United States is rightly
leading the two parties toward conciliation, putting pressure on both sides
and keeping tabs on what's going on. But realize that the U.S. was not
loved in the region before, and it's not really loved now when it's doing
exactly what it should be doing. We simply can't please everyone. This
hardly counts as "most of America's troubles."

Sorry for the long post, but to bring it back on topic.... It is always
good
to celebrate the Fourth in America. This country has so much to offer and
is such a great place to live it is little wonder people still take
incredible risks and give up so much to come here. It is also a good time
to reflect on what it takes to maintain this great nation. "The price of
liberty is eternal vigilance" and that includes acknowledging our faults
and striving to correct them.


Agreed. The U.S. has warts, but is beautiful anyway because its people are
free to continue improving it. And I do subscribe to the theory that if a
country's greatness is measured by people's feet, well, America really is
number one.

-Aviv