The Kapitein is right that the past is not dead and that history repeats itself.  He has also given an excellent 'rendition' of the relativistic/cynical (perhaps more 'European') view of geopolitics. 

However, he is wrong in his misrepresentation of the idealistic/ moralistic view (perhaps more typically American) of geopolitics.  In principle, the "national interest" of ANY nation (or its people) must be "in total accordance with "the greater good of Man".  The argument boils down to a proper understanding of the "national interest". 

The Kapitein is right by implying that people, including political leaders, often fail to understand the true national interest.  Reality is probably worse, in the sense that many leaders are not so much interested in the national interest, but rather in their 'personal interest'.   It would seem to be a reasonable hypothesis to assume that this problem of 'moral confusion' is more likely to occur under conditions of nondemocray than of genuine democracy, since the latter implies or presupposes a certain detachment from 'power', a recognition of the temporary nature of (democratic) political power and a distinction between private and public interests. 

Despite the Kapitein's excellent rendition of the cynical view, the lesson for (good-natured but naive) Americans about the real nature of 'allies' stands.  And, common people - just like their political leaders - will have to make their own judgments about the "national interest".   In this context, the biggest mistake any of us could make is to fall in the relativistic trap of assuming that these judgements (between individual people and also between peoples or nations) would be equally valid or correct. They are not! The kapitein's story about 'Vietnam' suggests that he falls into this trap, which is not to deny that these kind of judgements (about the "national interest" and "the greater good of Man") are inherently difficult.

It is not that discussing the United States is verboten. I am not under the irrational illusion that the United States in an enemy of Europe. Rather, I am well aware of the conflicting interests and power struggles of the current multipolar structure of international relations, and I challenge the notion that the American national interest is in total accordance with the greater good of Man. This notion - intertwined with that of exceptionalism - is neither new nor unique, and is very much imperial. Increasingly the EU is attempting to claim this mantle, either pretending it has no interests as such or that these are inextricably bound to proliferating democracy, justice and economic development. This too is false, especially in the context of Russo-American relations, as Brussels is hoping that American success in the Great Game permits it to bypass Russian pipelines.

Alliances are subordinate to national interests: Western Europe sees no concrete military threat from Russia, whereas Eastern Europe does. Having secured its independence from Japan, France and then American occupation, Vietnam fought small wars and skirmishes with China, and even removed the Khmer Rouge from power.

Kappert get it. Proper rhetoric allowed nationalist socialists in Third Reich to realise many their goals. This is up to conservatives to find out proper rhetoric to realise their own goals.

When the USA is out of the picture, the Kapitein and George Handlery seem to agree on many things.  Could this be so because the one hails from Germany and the other from previously-occupied Eastern Europe?

Perhaps, there should be a lesson in there for (good-natured but naive) Americans about the real nature of 'allies', and about the difference between complex reality and appearances.    

RE:

1-3.  Agreed.

4.  Many Easterners who have made successes of themselves in Western Germany in the wake of re-unification lament the collapse of the DDR, despite the fact that their material success would have been quite impossible under SED rule. They bemoan the scorn heaped on their former country, and the emphasis on human rights abuses e.g. the StaSi, Berlin Wall, etc. Indeed, second wave Ostalgie has little to do with rational reactions to economic change. It is the collective and psychological phenomenon of former DDR citizens defending their identity, which invariably includes affinity for their former country. Ho

6.  The real power struggle is internal. The people have little power; had they not been backing powerful reformers on the inside and had the government been united, the demonstrations would have been crushed immediately.

7-9.  Agreed.

10.  Wholehearted agreement.

11.  Much of the aid has little or no value in terms of stimulating African economies and in some cases does the oppositve. Moreover, tyrants receive more aid than the people it is intended for. What Africa needs is rule of law in order that economic development can take place without the interference of robber barons, be they warlords, bureaucrats or politicians.

Better to write 'Euro-socialism' (or even EU-socialism) instead of 'state capitalism'. The left say 'capitalism' always in negative context. Conservatives should  carefully chose their words. Masses are not too bright and currently have too much to say. Many wont understand, you say 'state capitalist' and they think "bad capitalism". This word should be used only in positive context. This is  little technical advice from my side, I think that proper rhetoric is quite important.

Mr Handlery, I entirely agree with you on #2, #7, #8,and #11. I also understand your reasoning in #10. However, I think that both men and women are often at fault. Both men and women need to restrain themselves. In their opposition to Islam, some are lead to support modern-day Western feminist thought which likes to accuse men of all societal problems. Let's not fall into this trap ourselves.

In Western culture, men are supposed to restrain themselves, but this does not mean women should pretend that they have no responsibility whatsoever in guarding themselves and being mindful in the way they dress and behave themselves. Both men and women have their weaknesses and strengths, and this inequality helps the two sexes to complement each other, e.g. in the education of children. Hence, neither men or women are inferior, but they are different and therefore 'unequal' in a certain sense. It is up to both sexes to be respectful of each other's differences, and restrain their own desires.

Man was created before the woman, but God did create mankind as male and female. Both sexes are equal on a personal level despite the natural inequalities they exhibit. That is why Saint Paul said that there is neither Jew or Greek, nor male or female in Christ. However, he also encouraged both men and women to take up their responsibilities and to be respectful of each other. The West should not allow its opposition to the unnatural blasphemy of Creation in Islam, to lead it to support the other extreme side of the spectrum, which advocates an equally abominable and unnatural view on the nature and roles of men and women. Both are to be virtuous and restrain themselves, because both are equally fallible and prone to evil.

As to #5, we certainly live under state capitalism. How are the people to entrust the state with the protection of people's private property rights against fraud, greed, and theft, when the executive branch now reserves itself the right to determine what the nation's economy should look like, when it bails out businesses, or protects economic sectors that behaved irresponsibly and would have been replaced by better players under the free market mechanism? Only success and responsibility should pay off, not irresponsibility, incompetence and greed. The state does not have the right to regulate economic activity. It should only intervene when it harms the rights of individuals, but this is up to the judicial branch only.

Mr Handlery, what is your view on the coup in Honduras? I must admit that I was a tad disappointed to see you did not address this issue in your article. Either way, your article was still a good read. Personally, I don't think that military coups should be the norm in a democracy at all. However, I do fully understand the military's decision to oust Zelaya. I am supportive of the actions of the military because they upheld the nation's institutions and their opposition to would-be dictators or socialist despots like Zelaya actually proves them to be moraly superior.

Best regards!
Pale Rider