The Decline of Europe - makenews/opinion - Page 2

What a bizarre thread, particularly the socialism == satanism bit.

More on topic, I've never understood how a country can suffer from both an aging population that refuses to replace itself and also be struggling to keep illegal immigration to a minimum.

Lots of fit, young, poor people want to move into the EU. That (and progressive euthenasia laws) will solve that problem. Note how he casually 'assumes' immigration out of existance. The guy's slick, I'll give him that.

I also liked how this guy gets to decide who gets a slice of the newly-liberated Iraqi's cake. Sounds like FEUDALISM to me!

As for *both* pro-european and anti-european positions being anti-american (as long as you disagree with him on the issue at hand), that's a lovely bit of rhetoric.

Was there any real substance to this guy's 'opinion'? I don't think so.

It is also relevant to note the rumours circulating that suggest Blair will use his post-war popularity to force the UK to join the Euro, accelerating european convergence.

I think the United States of Europe has a nice ring to it.

Then it would be a concept that has nothing to do with socialism. Note that the larger parties that have been the fathers of our systems have been social-democratic parties, not socialists (at least in countries in Scandinavia and Germany).

It very important do differ between ideologies that:

1) Accept the action of each individual (alone or in combination with others) on the marked place as the most effective way of creating an effective economy combined with a state that adjust for the worst side effects and ensure that everybody have the means (educational, economical and otherwise) to participate in the democracy and economy.

2) Only accept the state as the controller of the economy.

Why is this an important point to make? Because I feel much about europe is misunderstood when you don´t see the difference as anything else than "more or less socialist".

Lets take a funny concept: According to 1) state set minimum wages should only be set if the workers are not able to negociate high enough wages on the marked place with the employers. They are here in Denmark (Currently about $15) so thats an area where the state keeps out. Why do you need it in US?

Yes it is because thats not the question. The question is "How do we maintain stability in the world?" and the analysis is/was that a West lead war against Iraq can create enough hostility against the west in certaint areas of the world and that would lead to no good. If Saddam should be taken from power it needed to be done either 1) Peacefully 2) By the iraqis themselves or 3) After every other means had been tried. Then a regime change in Iraq would have been accepted by the rest of the middle east. You may agree or not on the answer to that question but that was the question asked.

To say it was a question about europe wanting Saddam to stay in power is just as simplistic as saying that it was a question about the US wanting to create a middle east with nothing but hatred against all things from the west.

This American obsession with war and armies is really beginning to freak me out. Are you really arguing that access to the growing markets in eastern europe is in someway not worthwhile because of the inability of the EU to protect itself from... who? Who is planning on invading the EU? Who is planning on invading Mexico? Or... who are we planning on invading?

Modern armies are being downsized and redesigned because they need to combat drug-traffickers and terrorists (remember them?) Decentralized enemies with a great deal of cunning and many natural advantages.

As much as you would like to believe Iraq was a threat that the US bravely responded to, it wasn't. The whole adventure was a death spasm of an institution whose time has passed, just like the RIAA, modern realities have overtaken the US army and it looks like it's going to take a few more 9/11's for them to realize that.

Splinemodel - It is patently obvious that you know little about either Europe or economicsbut do you know anything at all about socialism that you didnt learn from half-baked right-wing ideologues? And why couch your argument in such biblical terms?

Would he be better off learning stuff from half-baked, left-wing idealogues? They've got all the answers? Just asking...

What sociological studies did you conduct that demonstrated that such a group exists? You and this bozo will have fabricated an enemy and have not justification.

It's called a straw man.

Careful or trumptman will show up and accuse you of adding nothing ot this discussion but silly one liners.

Yes, yes we do

This silly belief that we don't need large military forces anymore is something I hope spreads across the rest of the world, and not the US.

As Napoleon said, "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake."

Not that the EU is an "enemy", but it is certainly a "rival" to the US by its very nature and design.

The EU wants to become the preeminent (or at least secure their status as #2 before Russia, China or India surpass them) power in the world while retaining large and expensive social programs and small military.

I just don't see it threatening the US's role as the lone superpower in the world.

Good luck with all of that, though.

That most certainly is simplistic . . . as well as just plain wrong.

What did they do to remove him from power?

I actually have to fund and conduct sociological studies now to support (or counteract) what I read, see and hear? Interesting.

Wanna give me a grant?

This connection is specious and posturing: as if the same people who can't work with European diplomacy are teaching those "PC" courses against "Eurocentrism." I thought George Will for one wouldn't stoop to the zeitgeist idea, but then again, anything for rhetorical flourish, and when you're a carpenter everthing looks like a nail.

From the reader comments a Mr. David Lincoln from Edmonton, Alberta speaks of the belief among the European elites that "as Greece was to Rome, so Europe is to the U.S. For they figured Greece was more refined, more graceful. Rome on the other hand was marked by grandeur." Seems plausible to me but is it true?

Beep. Wrong question (again)

Lets take another example.

Tajikistan. Grave Human rights violations. A prez that covers his dictatorship and terror against his own population through staged elections.

Several links

Enters war against terrorism/Afghanistan/Osama/Al-quada and the need for bases around Afghanistan.

So US makes an agreement of friendship and economical help to the dictator of Tajikistan. To tackle a more serious problem.

So I ask the question: "Is dictatorship the preffered type of government of US in the former USSR republics?" If no then "What did they do to remove the dictator of Tajikistan from power? And isn´t US actually supporting him actively?"

Fair questions? I dont think so.

Or we could take the example you're for some reason trying to avoid.

What example?

EU is not US, it's not a federal state but a deal between a group of countries. At the origin it was only a treaty about economical exchanges, no it's more than that, liberty of free circulation of goods and people, cooperation of justice, diploma recocnize in the whole EU, right to elect the major of the town of any EU people living in it .. common currency the euro for some members of EU ...

But there is no european defense, only some cooperation between state like germany and France and their joint Franco-german brigade.
The defense of Europe is built upon NATO. The majority of the countrie who are going to join EU are member of NATO, like Polland. Their protection is already alchieve. Anyway, since the end of the cold war, there is no direct conventional threat for their land. The major threat is terrorism, something that cannot be struggle via nukes. The problem of Europe is not defending their home land, and i can said that his army is more than sufficiant for this dutie (who is ready to struggle against more than one million of professional soldiers with good equipement ? ), but his capacity to export his forces outside it. Britain is able to export 50 000, france from 25 000 to 30 000 and the others countries less. I will say that they are not able to export more than 100 000 soldiers, compared to the 500 000 of US. 100 000 soldiers is not sufficiant for this purpose. That's why in the future if europe want a real european foreign policy, they'll have to improve this point seriously.
In resume : the army is sufficiant for his own protection, but not enough to make war outside it.

For the last point, yes they are, people live longer. But does not the same problem exist (even in a lesser extent) in US ?

First trumptman:
I don't think it simplistic to say they wanted to keep Saddam in power. Nick

Then pfflam:
That most certainly is simplistic . . . as well as just plain wrong.

Then I replied:
What did they do to remove him from power?

Whereupon you jumped in with your Beep. Wrong question... etc.

If you didn't know what I was talking about, why did you say it was the wrong question?

I have written about Iraq above my last post. I think if you read that you will see what I mean with "wrong question"

Okay, gotcha, but I'm not buying "How do we maintain stability in the world?" is the right question either. The last thing the Near East needs more of is stability.

Now thats another discussion altogether

You may disagree with the effectiveness of the strategy but nontheless it was how it was seen from "old" europe. So that invalidates the "they wanted to keep Saddam in power" claim.

The effectiveness of the strategy belongs to another thread where I won´t participate

Imagine Saddam turning the reins over to one of his sons the way Assad did in Syria. Or how many decades has Arafat been calling the shots for the Palestinians? Are they truly better off because he had a monoploy on power? Stablity has been something like a curse to the Arab world.

I see, but Anders was not referring to the stability of the middle east dictatures, but to the stability between various nations of middle east.

Which was his argument for not moving to remove Saddam from power. Same fetid result. No upside. Sorry, I'm not buying.

I think this article, rather than the one at the beginning of this thread, more accurately dipicts the reasons why the U.S. might dominate over the E.U.

And stability between the west and middle east. I think it could be summed down to "We want the dictators to disappear as long as it the fundamental stability on the international scene is secured".

I'm guessing you are referring to the implications of the National Security Strategy? Its difficult to call...if the Bush admin (many of whom are part of the Project for the New American Century) have their way, this would be the case...but they have to stay in control of the country to do that. The continuing state of the economy will have a lot of impact on whether or not they can do this.

When you start making broad generalizations about people, then yes.

Where are all of these people you folks you've fabricate supposed to be? I've never even heard of anyone like that, which is not surprising considering how specific the caricature is.

I thought at first the refusal to accept the nature of terrorism was just an affectation but it has slowly dawned on me that American hawks really do think that Europeans were "afraid to kick ass" and deal with "the terrorists" when it came to Iraq.

The continuing confusion between 'a country with an army' and 'terrorists' is the problem. As I said it will take more handfuls of unarmed people killing large numbers of civilians for the US to click that you can't invade terroristan and change the regime.

That is the modern reality and I wager your U.S. military machines will be as effective as they were the last time.

It has.

The US military is freakishly large by any measure. Unfortunately for you and all the other taxpayers who fund it (in a distinctly non-free market kind of way) getting Congress to crack down on this pork-barrel bonanza would be like the turkeys voting for Christmas.

Yeah, but my fear is that Clinton seemed to have these tendencies as well, and thus possibly the Democratic party.