Monday, November 15, 2010

Obama's Five Challenges at Lisbon

The New York Times published an op-ed written by Ian J. Brzezinski. In the op-ed, Brzezinski talked about the relationship between America and Europe. According to him, there was “an increasing sense that the United States and Europe are drifting apart.” He accused Obama of limiting his interaction with Europe. He said America and Europe were only working together on two issues – dealing with Afghanistan and dealing with Russia. Brzezinski wanted America and Europe to work together on other issues as well. According to him, Europe and America are “stronger global players when they act together.”

BAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

I don’t think so. I think Europe simply wanted America to do her bidding, even if that meant Europe would take America down with them (amazingly, because of the stupidity of our leaders, they agreed to this idiotic proposal). Presumably, Brzezinski wanted America and Europe to work together on preventing the rise of East Asia. But, instead of preventing the rise of East Asia, they would, through their own evil intentions, do more to accelerate the rise of East Asia than anyone could have possibly imagined at this time (well, anyone outside of Japan anyways).

Hehehe.

Bow down, western elite. Bow down.

In any event, Brzezinski had a list of demands that Obama should meet in order to bolster the alliance between America and Europe. He demanded that Obama express his determination to win in Afghanistan. Without that, according to Brzezinski, Europe would start to withdraw from the country. He demanded that America continue to station 80,000 U.S. troops in Europe. He demanded that Obama present a “clear path” which would allow Georgia and Ukraine to join the EU. He said Obama should agree to these demands at the upcoming NATO summit in Lisbon.

“The Lisbon meetings present an urgent and complex set of challenges,” said Brzezinski. “How they are managed will define President Obama’s leadership in the trans-Atlantic community as well as NATO’s relevance in the 21st century.”

I wrote a response to this article in INDB. Here it is, though slightly edited to avoid giving Google an excuse to delete my blog.
Could someone tell me how much the Europeans are paying us to station our troops in Europe? If they’re paying enough we could probably keep them there. As for Ukraine and Georgia...if the Europeans want them the Europeans will need to take them. It’s not in America’s interests. In fact I think it’s probably more in our interests to do the reverse - argue for Georgia and Ukraine siding with Russia. Come to think of it I think America needs to think of Europe and Russia in a new way - similar to Afpak. From now on the two of you fools will be known as Russope.
In retrospect, the Europeans may have actually liked the last sentence, as it could be interpreted as an offer to hand over Russia to Europe.

Whoops.

No comments: