or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Decline of Europe - makenews/opinion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Decline of Europe - makenews/opinion - Page 2

post #41 of 159
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.
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
post #42 of 159
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
That's interesting.

I bet Noam Chomsky would tear him to shreds.

I'll bet that you continue to add nothing to this discussion but silly one liners.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #43 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Splinemodel
Your definition of socialism is absolute. In absolute capitalism, the government is not the leech because there is no government. I consider Denmark to be socialist because more than half of the country's GNP goes through the government (let me check that fact, though). That means that as far as economic freedom is concerned, you're more than half impaired.

I think you can forget the definition this time and understand the concept involved.

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?
post #44 of 159
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
I read the whole article. This article was about the decline of Europe.
What was the points :
- failure of franco-germany foreign policy
- europe army is irrelevant (and canada too)
- the birth ratio natality is too low in europe.

first point: resuming a complex situation to a single statement like Germany and France want to hold a tyrant in power is over-simplistic. Foreign policy is based upon geopolitic and geostrategic issues melded with inside politic. There where plenty of threads dealing this issues in AO, we should relate to this various threads if we are interested by this debate.

Second point : European army. Army is build upon 15 nations and soon 25. There is strong armies, like UK, and in a lesser extent France and others countries which have a weaker one. There is so real problem there, but not sufficiant to make sink the boat europe.

Third point and the more important. The decline of natality. Like every occidental countrie, there is a large decline in natality. Europe need immigration. Welfare and inside politic has nothing to do with this. Decrease of natality has more to do with the occidental way of life and especially the culture of spare time . Having 5 childs have a negative impact for spare time especially for ladies : it's a choice of life.

I don't think it simplistic to say they wanted to keep Saddam in power. The U.K. and U.S. bent over backwards to bring about a result. The inability of the U.N. to move on something as clear as Iraq shows how historically ineffective it has been. It shows exactly what you are saying, that when there is a threat, it doesn't come down to how you can get rid of it, but other factors instead.

Your second point actually proves what I am saying so thank you. The 10 nations that the E.U. is taking in have even smaller and more ineffective armies than the rest of Europe. So you have something that isn't good enough and now it has to do even more than before. It would be like the U.S. annexing Mexico. I have seen Mexico's "naval bases" like the one in Bahia de Los Angeles. It is a small building with some sand bags and a few 25 foot boats to "patrol" with. It is a joke and we would gain nothing from their armies while assumg all responsibility for their land.

The same is true for what will happen with the E.U. They get 10 new partners that they now have to agree to protect with no real army.

The last issue is a big one. As you said the ladies don't want five children and everyone wants their free time. The EU commision on population growth determined that the EU needs a population growth rate of 1.8 (currently 1.4) and 1.2 million immigrants a year. (currently 700,000) However even this would only slow the decline. How are you going to pay for all the services of a growing elderly population when there are fewer people to contribute to an even larger tax burder?

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #45 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I don't think it simplistic to say they wanted to keep Saddam in power.

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.
post #46 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Your second point actually proves what I am saying so thank you. The 10 nations that the E.U. is taking in have even smaller and more ineffective armies than the rest of Europe. So you have something that isn't good enough and now it has to do even more than before. It would be like the U.S. annexing Mexico. I have seen Mexico's "naval bases" like the one in Bahia de Los Angeles. It is a small building with some sand bags and a few 25 foot boats to "patrol" with. It is a joke and we would gain nothing from their armies while assumg all responsibility for their land.

The same is true for what will happen with the E.U. They get 10 new partners that they now have to agree to protect with no real army.

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.
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
post #47 of 159
Quote:
I find socialism to be morally wrong (deemphasizes the disadvatages of sloth) as well as economically ineffective (I think this is obvious).

Quote:
Choosing socialism is morally wrong if sloth is against your moral code.

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?
post #48 of 159
Would he be better off learning stuff from half-baked, left-wing idealogues? They've got all the answers? Just asking...

post #49 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by pscates
Ah yes...but of course. GREAT post. Use a smiley next time, otherwise we'll all just think you're being a horse's butt on purpose.

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.
post #50 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I'll bet that you continue to add nothing to this discussion but silly one liners.

Nick

Careful or trumptman will show up and accuse you of adding nothing ot this discussion but silly one liners.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #51 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by pscates
Would he be better off learning stuff from half-baked, left-wing idealogues? They've got all the answers? Just asking...



Yes, yes we do
post #52 of 159
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.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #53 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I don't think it simplistic to say they wanted to keep Saddam in power. Nick

That most certainly is simplistic . . . as well as just plain wrong.
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #54 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
That most certainly is simplistic . . . as well as just plain wrong.

What did they do to remove him from power?
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
post #55 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
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.

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?
post #56 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Americans who are apt to argue that U.S. foreign policy needs constant infusions of legitimacy from the approbation of European governments are also apt to deplore, in the domestic culture wars, Eurocentrism in academic curricula. Such Americans resist the cultural products of Europe's centuries of vitality, but defer to the politics of Europe in its decadence.What do you think? Opinions? Is Europe irrelevent?

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.
post #57 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Scott
I'll throw this log on the fire. Should keep some warm.

Lest We Forget

France and Belgium pay the price for backing Saddam.

BY MICHAEL GONZALEZ
Saturday, April 12, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

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?
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
post #58 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
What did they do to remove him from power?

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.
post #59 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders the White
Beep. Wrong question (again)

Lets take another example...

Or we could take the example you're for some reason trying to avoid.
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
post #60 of 159
What example?
post #61 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I

Your second point actually proves what I am saying so thank you. The 10 nations that the E.U. is taking in have even smaller and more ineffective armies than the rest of Europe. So you have something that isn't good enough and now it has to do even more than before. It would be like the U.S. annexing Mexico. I have seen Mexico's "naval bases" like the one in Bahia de Los Angeles. It is a small building with some sand bags and a few 25 foot boats to "patrol" with. It is a joke and we would gain nothing from their armies while assumg all responsibility for their land.

The same is true for what will happen with the E.U. They get 10 new partners that they now have to agree to protect with no real army.

The last issue is a big one. As you said the ladies don't want five children and everyone wants their free time. The EU commision on population growth determined that the EU needs a population growth rate of 1.8 (currently 1.4) and 1.2 million immigrants a year. (currently 700,000) However even this would only slow the decline. How are you going to pay for all the services of a growing elderly population when there are fewer people to contribute to an even larger tax burder?

Nick

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 ?
post #62 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders the White
What example?

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?
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
post #63 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
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"
post #64 of 159
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders the White
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.

I respectfully disagree. I cannot think of a single instance where any middle eastern country ever said they woud support a regime change in Iraq. If you would care to point to something that says different that is fine but I have not run across a single bit of support for what you claim.

As for maintaining stability in the world, you are correct that Europe has a long history of pacifism with regard to tolerating tyrants as long as it isn't in their own yard. They will even tolerate it in their neighbors yard. (Bosnia)

However no matter how many times this tactic has been tried the problem doesn't go away until confronted with force.

The attempts at doing it peacefully lead to the slaughter of civilians by a police state as well as starvation of them in the oil for food program which Saddam still had to run. This made number 2 next to impossible. Finally with number 3, perhaps Europe has the patience to wait until the weapons are launched at them for proof. The U.S. does not.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #65 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders the White
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.
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
post #66 of 159
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
Careful or trumptman will show up and accuse you of adding nothing ot this discussion but silly one liners.

Bunge,

Play nice or I'll take my ball and go home.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #67 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
I respectfully disagree. I cannot think of a single instance where any middle eastern country ever said they woud support a regime change in Iraq. If you would care to point to something that says different that is fine but I have not run across a single bit of support for what you claim.

As for maintaining stability in the world, you are correct that Europe has a long history of pacifism with regard to tolerating tyrants as long as it isn't in their own yard. They will even tolerate it in their neighbors yard. (Bosnia)

However no matter how many times this tactic has been tried the problem doesn't go away until confronted with force.

The attempts at doing it peacefully lead to the slaughter of civilians by a police state as well as starvation of them in the oil for food program which Saddam still had to run. This made number 2 next to impossible. Finally with number 3, perhaps Europe has the patience to wait until the weapons are launched at them for proof. The U.S. does not.

Nick

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
post #68 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
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.

post #69 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders the White

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.
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
post #70 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
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.
post #71 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
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.
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
"Countless mothers will light candles and celebrate the tyrant's capture - mothers in all the cities of Iraq, in all the villages of Iran, in all the streets and quarters of Kuwait, everywhere the...
Reply
post #72 of 159
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
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.

No what I am saying, is that it will be interesting to watch how the Euro fares when you have high growth small government countries joining the EU trying to be dictated to by slow growth hemorraging money social democracies.

Nobody is planning on invading anyone as far as I know, however as you mentioned in your own post, the nature of the enemy has changed. Europe has neither an large obsolete army nor a sleek modern army. The ability to defend oneself when attacked does affect things like international investment and currency. If when America was attacked the world believed we would not be able to respond, would people still invest their money and energy here? Since the naysayers declare that it isn't a matter of if we will (and Europe as well) be attacked but when, what will the European response be? Will it create the confidence necessary for people to still trust the Euro as a currency and invest their own time and money there? We will see.

Seeing as "modern realities" stood up to the U.S. military machines for about 3 weeks, I would hardly say that these groups have shown any sort of ability inflict additional damage.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #73 of 159
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.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
post #74 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by Powerdoc
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.

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".
post #75 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by bunge
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.

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.
post #76 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by zaphod_beeblebrox
Which was his argument for not moving to remove Saddam from power. Same fetid result. No upside. Sorry, I'm not buying.

post #77 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by pscates
I actually have to fund and conduct sociological studies now to support (or counteract) what I read, see and hear? Interesting.

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.
post #78 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Seeing as "modern realities" stood up to the U.S. military machines for about 3 weeks, I would hardly say that these groups have shown any sort of ability inflict additional damage.

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.
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
post #79 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
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.

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.
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
a flirt with mediocrity comes with heavy penalty
Reply
post #80 of 159
Quote:
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
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.

Yeah, but my fear is that Clinton seemed to have these tendencies as well, and thus possibly the Democratic party.
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
"Hearing a corrupt CEO like Cheney denigrate Edwards for being a trial lawyer is like hearing a child molester complain how Larry Flint is a pervert." -johnq
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › The Decline of Europe - makenews/opinion