FromGerrit Kuehn2:240/12.0Date Write2018-01-27 10:49:03
ToPhilip Lozier0:0/0.0Date Arrived2018-01-27 14:00:05
SubjRe: No Peace Possible
Hello Philip!

26 Jan 18 20:41, Philip Lozier wrote to Gerrit Kuehn:

PL> It says "often described as" not "always".

Well, so it is 90% isolationist, and 10% of something else...

PL> Note by his speech today
PL> he
PL> advocates "America First" but not America "alone". As he said, EVERY
PL> country
PL> should be looking after their own interests first.

Yes, I heard that. However, it is not true is several ways.

PL> first, for Germany it should be Germany first,

Uh, I guess we all had enough of that.
But even leaving history aside, how come that your president is running wild
against his perceived German foreign sales surplus? Maybe it is just "Germany
first" to us.

PL> It is only common sense. Every leader, of every
PL> nation,
PL> should be looking to make deals that are FAIR and are benificial to
PL> the
PL> peoples of their OWN nations, respectively. Common sense.

So how come he is mad at Mr. Kim and the mullahs from Iran? Having nuclear
weapons is just "My nation first" to them, and it works: it is scraring the
shit out of other people and buys them a safer future.

PL> These
PL> huge multi
PL> nation trade agreements that bind all participating nations to
PL> regulations
PL> that some benefit greatly from and others notsomuch are ridiculous.

If that is the case, the agreements need to be re-negotiated in a way that all
participants are satisfied again.

However, I think the whole conecpt of "nation" becomes more and more irrelevant
these days. Communications, trade, multi-national companies... they all have
made the world a much smaller than it ever was. There are lots of issues we all
have to deal with, and these can only be addressed when working together.

Maybe my view on this is a bit different due to our history: The "nation" you
know as Germany did not exist until about 150 years ago. One or two more
centuries ago, we had more than 300 separate "nations" (on "German" soil
alone). We have a long history in Europe of chopping each others' heads off for
every reason you might find (religion, nation, ideology, borders...).

You may like the EU or not, but it has brought us peace. The "my-nation-first"
attitude is fading ever since. From this point of view, a "nation" is a rather
artificial construction, especially if you see that on both sides of each
border of two "nations" there are people sharing the same language, culture and
so on.
After all, why did the US states form their union? Why don't you call for
"Oregon first", "Alabamah first", "Wyoming first" or something like that?

The so-called "nation state" is a phase-out model. Its foundations probably
never really existed, and it is not fit to deal with the future we're all

PL> From what I saw live this morning, it looks quite the opposite to
PL> America
PL> being "alone" or "isolated". We will deal with various nations on a
PL> mostly
PL> individual basis and makle sure OUR deals are fair to all parties
PL> involved.

This only appears to work for him, beause he is a big player being able to
force an individual counterparts into agreements that are beneficial for the
US. This doesn't work so easily in a multilateral setup, so he doesn't like
that. Don't tell me your president will look into "fair" 1:1 agreements, he is
"America first".

Luckily, Germany is not even legally allowed to strike 1:1 deals with the US,
anymore (although your president obviously missed that fact). He'll have to
deal with the whole EU every time. Bad luck for him.
After all, his politics might turn into a big "join the EU" programme over

PL> As he said "reciprocal" trade agreements where both parties make out
PL> fairly.

Did you also hear the speeches from Canada, France, Germany, India, China, and
all the others? Most of them don't agree. Interesting times ahead.


... 10:49AM up 20 days, 13:42, 9 users, load averages: 0.20, 0.09, 0.08

--- Msged/BSD 6.1.2
* Origin: And still they come and go (2:240/12)