*smacks palm against hand* Michael, did you actually LOOK at the numbers? The "European" citizens in question are mostly comprised of: Russia, Ukraine, other old Soviet republics, Bosnia, Poland, etc. Yes, the UK had quite a few, but given the similarities in language that's not remotely surprising. Your "point" doesn't prove a thing.
So the fact that a large number of Eastern Europeans go through all of the trouble to move to the U.S. instead of Western Europe is irrelavent? If you can show me there are a a hundred thousand Mexican's heading off to Europe, than you can totally dismiss this issue.
You are correct if you consider "sizeable middle class" as a proportion of the entire population. But given the huge numbers of people in both countries, even if only 10 % are labelled "middle class" this represents an enormous absolute number - more than the population of most European countries.
I've got about 20 in-laws that would be in Britain if it were easy to get there. Of course, they'd be here, too, if it were easy. If Britain had a 1000 mile long border with a 3rd world country, I'll bet their population would look pretty different. Plus, the US is and has always been more pro-immigration than your typical European nation.
Pretty much. If they have family already in the US (as many of them do), its the natural avenue. And don't you think the numbers of Eastern Europeans moving to the EU are far, FAR greater? Until you find those, your point is beyond moot. Mexico being one country, that's a terrible analogy. Also, are there Mexican communities waiting for them in Paris and Madrid?
Not confused. Just appeased. Everyone here knows that Clinton's foreign policy wasn't that much different than the one of the current administration, or an hypotetic Kerry foreign policy. But many of the more conservative types didn't mind... until they felt outraged by the arrogant and dismissive rethoric of the Bush people, or directly or indirectly menaced by the preemptive war doctrine. It's not like we actually think the Democrats are better, we are just more willing to turn a blind eye to a guy that doesn't insult or threaten us.
Is there a practical difference? Which shows that this whole "crisis" is nothing more than the case of Bush not apologizing for taking Chirac's salad fork by accident. Also, I think you give Europe too much credit. Some know Clinton and Bush aren't that far off, but I don't think as many as you think do.
All very interesting, thanks for the reads. About that Evangelic article saying that Europe is doing bad because it turned away from the church: It gives no single proove that Europe's economy is declining, and not having the need to work long is a good thing. in my family only my father is working, my mom is just helping him out a bit. In my host family in the US my hostmom has 2 jobs and my host father has 1. So that makes 3 jobs you need in the US and 1 that is enough in Germany. Therefore, I am pretty sure that most germans have more money than most americans (the poor ones, other way around with rich ppl). About forming a country just because it is against something: Tell me again, why was the US founded??? And Europe has abig advantance: it can grow, and at least now everybody would love to be in it. in Left South America and Africa with the AU there are similar things happening, yet in no way with that high potential the ES has had, but still. And they took Europe as an idol, not the US. The EU is just one step in the long way to a world government. Question would be, will the US be in it? how funny, following the Star Trek Dateline with the US acting as the Australians do in Sci Fi...
Let Romano Prodi become again the italian PM and you will see full support coming from Italy. Also I don't think Spain (and others) would be hard to convince. Really the idea of joining military efforts (partially or else) has a lot of positives and virtually no negatives. This is already a truth when it comes to develop joint projects such as the eurofighter. Related links http://www.euobserver.com/?sid=13&aid=16629 http://ue.eu.int/uedocs/cmsUpload/Background Agency.pdf Lots of infos and latest developments in EU defence policies EU Observer
LOL. Come now Sardinia. There's one big negative. $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Nicephoras was making the argument that Eastern European immigration to the U.S. should somehow be discounted, and just as you point out that Mexican's don't have to deal with the problem of crossing the ocean so it is more likely that they will immigrate to the U.S., it is also much simpler for Eastern Europeans to immigrate to western Europe than the U.S. so you can't just discount the fact that large number of Eastern Europeans are immigrating to the U.S. as an indicator that somehow they consider the U.S. better than Europe.
You haven't answered my point. These eastern european immigrants will join communities of their nationals in the US. Where do the Mexicans plan on immigrating? The large Mexican communities of Geneva and Copenhagen? Think Michael.
We wouldn't mind as long as it consists just of pooling together existing resources, but increasing military budget wouldn't probably be popular. There is a difference, and it's important to me. I don't think as few as you do. Everyone who has been seeing the U.S. policy for some time knows it's basically the same Democrat or Republican. Is the crisis as shallow as you think? I don't know, time will tell.
http://geografia.freeservers.com/Inmigracion2004.htm The above source cites figures procedent for the 2003 town residents census. Population growth in Spain was of 879.000 ppl during 2003, 694.000 of them were inmigrants. Mainly from Morocco and Ecuador. Direct observation of the street through my window shows these numbers are accurate.
Given the small sizes of Europe's military, this wouldn't make a Euroarmy, but a Euroregiment. It might just have enough forces to contain a riot at a Red Star Millwall game. What is that? Are we talking about the average European, or the average educated European? Bit of a copout, no?
Having been to Madrid recently, I'm more than aware of this. But where are the Mexican communities? And don't forget, you're the only contry in Europe that speaks Spanish as its native language. If Mexicans aren't living in Spain in great numbers, where are they going to in Europe?
Funny exageration, but anyway I think it could at least bomb Kosovo again if needed. The average uneducated European (ex. my own mother) probably has more reasons to think Dems and Reps are the same since they really don't know much of teh U.S. parties. It's obvious that confused and appeased is different. One implies a degree of knowledge. I really think you can't know it right now. EDIT: but we can still discuss it. Nope, not many mexicans, plenty other South Americans. I shouldn't have quoted you but the guy who was talking about not many inmigrants moving into Europe. I think the growth of inmigrant population compared to the total population growth is quite telling in this respect.
Regarding Europeans opinions on Clinton and Bush. Clinton may be very similar to Bush in many ways but Europeans don't really care about internal American politics, or at least the vast majority don't. Most Europeans hate Bush for many reasons; his seemingly bully boy foreign policy, over the top and daft patriotism, his strong religious views etc. These were not characteristics of Clinton. In many European's view, Bush has all of Clinton's bad points and much more. I think recent event in America has strengthened the EU, of course George W. Bush is not going to united a contitnent which has been at war consistently for thousands of years but I think Europe has realised that together, they can match up to America and I think it's true to say that many Europeans would now call themselves European before French, for example, than would have 5 years ago. Europe (as a single entity: EU) and America are very similar in terms of population, culture etc. And they will continue to be the 'super powers' for years to come but China, undoubtedly, has huge potential. Europe has been growing closer for a while now and I can only see that contiuing, the EU has also, steadily been expanding.
I prefer to stay away from books which try to predict and analyze major historical shifts based on today's front page news. Such books may give people ammunition to argue, but they are not significant because such analysis tends to be nothing but guesswork. Such books will be hoplessly dated in less than a decade. Nevertheless, I read enough to come across this statement: 'The unipolar world of uncontested American hegemony that we were told to expect into the indefinite future has come to an end.' It sounds like the author looks at the world as though it was a sports league, and America was the top team. We have to get past the point in which we think that we have a need to beat other nations by fighting them on the economic political and cultural fronts, in order to be the declared the champions of the world. On the economic front, we want to prosper, but not at the expense of others. We should also want other nations to prosper as much as ours. Our prosperity is tied to the prosperity of others. It is not a positive thing to be a prosperous nation in a world filled with poverty. Many of the problems that the US and Europe alike are facing are because we are more prosperous than the rest of the world. It is in our best interest to see other nations prosper. The objective of all the free and prosperous nations of the world ought to be to work together to bring freedom and prosperity and human rights to those who are still oppressed. Not because we are nice guys, but because it would also be better for us. As far as culture, I think there is no need to worry about losing the so called 'culture war'. There is sinergy when cultures merge. I think we can learn a lot from other cultures, and they can learn from ours. Guys, I wouldn't worry about American hegemony, because it is unrealistic to expect it to continue. Yes, America is right now a remarkably powerful nation and we need to use our power responsibly, but it is unrealistic to expect that American power will continue as it was at the end of the 20th century. This has nothing to do with today's front page stories or with George W. Bush.
Sure because joining the efforts to develop a new aircraft is more expensive than developing 6 different aircrafts of the same kind (very likely to be less powerful). If you mean by $$$$ the fact that we should spend a lot more to reach your military power, there's no problem, we don't want to reach your military power.
There was a documentery on Channel 4 (I think) a while ago called something like "The American Empire" and the host was trying to say that the US was basically an empire and behaved like one, but, just as the many empires before it, it would come to an end and he was trying to show that you can see the first signs of that. Wheather or not you think it was rubbish, it was very interesting. Maybe someone who saw and has a better memory than me can give more details.