Walter,

>I'm not downplaying the Netherlands' contribution. But lets be fair. Your army had no hope against the German army in WWII and even less hope against the Soviets 20 years later.

Correct, we would not stand a chance against a few million russians by our own, but that is not my point. But I doubt if the sovjets would have been able to overrun the european continent if it was opposed to an allied force of (remaining) Germans, French, UK (and common weath countries such as your own), Canadians, Italians etc. Bear in mind that the allied forces were about equally numbered against the russians, but on the average had better technology and would have had an advantage of fighting closer to home (less suspectical to military overstretch).

>Between you and the Soviets was US determination and nuclear weapons. Without that, you might be living in a communist paradise like one of those poor Eastern European nations trying to re-establish their previous prosperity.

Between us and the soviets were the allied forces of which the US was one component. Don't forget there was a significant time lag between the end of WWII and the events we are talking about here. If the US would have retreated, there would be a different mix of allied forces and a different buildup of defence against the russians. The uncertain thing is about the nuclear threat. I'm not sure about the nuclear technology of european countries at that stage, however I would be sure the europeans would have nuclear technology if it was not backed up by the US. I know that france does have it for a few decades, but I'm not sure about that time. Also German scientists had a nuclear program even before the US. But on the whole it is a lot of IFs and WHENs.

Of course we are thankfull of the US helping through that stage, but again it is a step beyond my book to claim that we would not have freedom without the help of the US in the cold war.

>re Soviet intentions to expand - Communism's world agenda was openly published.

>It is very clear that if Europe had to defend itself while Germany was divided and disarmed, all of you would have had to stay geared up for war. Univeral conscription, production of arms rather than automobiles, tanks rather than amusement parks. Instead you were able to develop your economies along civilian lines, addressing civilian concerns and establishing the Western freedoms that we now take for granted.

The question is if Geremany would have been disarmed when the US was not there. And of course during the cold war, we were geared up for war as well at that time. Again the question would have been what the difference was between the US beeing involved or not. The nuclear programs of the two superpowers did hold back eachother form war apart from anything else. After all if the nuclear bomb did not exist on both sides, what could the US do if the russians were able to overrun europe? I don't think an awfull lot.

If we can agree that only the nuclear thread kept us in balance, than it begs the question if europe would have nuclear power if the US did not provide it to us. Personally I think yes, as the nuclear program already was started during WWII in Germany.

>Please accept I'm not criticising anybody. I'm just saying the US has done a lot of good, and continues to do a lot of good. But it seems to be fashionable to focus on the negatives.

Ok, back to the orginal issue. Yes, they have done a lot of good for the western world in the past (WWII, Cold war, korea?) and of course still is the most important partner in NATO.

Well here probably the differences between US americans and europeans: Naive optimism against deep engraved pessimism. Personally, I think you should be focussing on negatives, because that is the only way you're going to be able to analyse problems and actually do something about it. In such cases, playing the naive optimist, is just choosing to ignore the problem and possibly only making it worse. This actually is reflecting the affairs in iraq and in lesser extend in afghanistan: Plain ignorance and naive optimism.

For example, the US did assume that once they got rid of saddam, the citizens would see the americans as heros and iraq would be the first true islamic democratic nation in the middle east. How can you assume that, given a population that is used to one strong leader, does not know the concept of democracy, lowly educated with lots of potential military/religous leaders that want control over regions or the whole country, deeply religous would be willing to live under a secular democratic regime spearheaded by cristian americans, who btw, did beat them up a decade earlier and was doctrined by saddam to be the evil enemy. Of course scandals of turture and killing innocent civilians do not help either in these cases.

Walter,