There would never be any point in Europe trying to match America's military. We will never, ever go to war with the U.S. and it's pretty certain that Europe and America would have each other's back if the incredibly unlikely event of a 'real' war braking out. We won't have to face their military and if we were in real need, they would help us.
So what you're proposing is a dilettante army. OK. It still means the US would have to do any real heavy lifting. And the US is not an empire in the traditional sense - only in an economic one. It can be argued that the US will begin to reel once it no longer dominates the economic global markets, but that's not why most empires fall.
Of course I agree. I hope so and nothing makes me think the contrary. The concept looks odd to me thankfully. NOw... some crazy neocon could... but I don't think the american ppl will accept it nor the european ppl. Of course provided no new Adolf or similar surfaces in one or the other side of the atlantic. It depends. If Bush tomorrow decides to strike China to liberate it no one is going to help. Or maybe this time they could be in real need and we will help them. A good european Marshall plan then will benefit both sides.
You undervalue european capacity. The main problems are because of political divides not anything else. http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/index.html
Not capacity Sardinia. That you have. Its the fact that you won't be willing to pay for a large standing army.
I think the proposal implies there's no need to do "real heavy lifting" outside the EU borders in the future. Instead we would rely on diplomatic efforts. That was one point of the article at the beginning of the thread, anyway. It's just about pooling resources to increase the efficiency of the military budget. And having a force independent from the U.S. that can act in cases like the ex-Yugoslavia. (And I suppose defending any member state in the unlikely case it were invaded) ¿Why do empires fall?
Jesus, here we have a serious issue and you guys are comparing d*ck sizes (military)?! The point of the article was that the EU are perfectly content to let us piss our blood and treasure down the rathole of the military industrial complex. They have other plans. As for the immigration red-herring... Of course the US is going to have higher immigration 1) it's always been the land of immigration and the objective of the American Dream persists, 2) geographic proximity to Latin America (duh!) That objective is one of our last great strengths. I think one the authors' unspoken points is that it is in danger of becoming a much less convincing one in relation to alternative destinations. FYI US Immigration Stats (for people granted Residency i.e. not counting illegals) for 2003: Total: 703,542 Top Countries of Origin: Mexico: 115,585 India: 50,228 Phillipines: 45,250 PRC: 40,568 The next 5 (save Vietnam in 6th Place) are all Central American. EU immigration statistics covering persons entering EU countries not of EU origin is a tougher nut. But misses the point that the EU is NOT LIKE US. Some countries such as the Netherlands, Austria and Ireland have gone from non-native populations in of around 2% to 8-9% in eleven years. That's a big f-ing deal if you live in a small country that's been ethnically and culturally homogeneous for the last thousand years. So, yes they are having a hard time dealing with it. But eventually deal with it they will. So who gives two **********s? All of which completely misses the point of the articles which is whether or not the US's can remain competitive with the EU in the realm of ideas, economy and lifestyle. With most of our army tied down for the forseeable future in Mess-O-Potamia, our nation increasingly in the thrall of people who appear to the rest of the world to be completely out of their gourds, a yawing chasm between the rich and the poor, a health care system that is the joke of the world -- except for the world's richest, an elementary education system that plays second fiddle to half of the countries we compete with, and an energy and industrial policy utterly unsuited to the 21st Century, what's not to worry about? And I still haven't seen anyone say whether or not they'd trade the social benefits of Germany or France for a smidgen higher rate of unemployment. Then again, if you're unemployed in France or Germany at least you don't have to worry what happens if the kids get sick, eh? Beat that, supply-siders.
Having read this at least three times now in one thread, my poor head is about to explode. Or, are sentiments like this only true in or around odd-numbered years?
So you'd have a very small military who's headquarters would be combined. You'll pardon me if I don't laugh in that general direction. A pooling of resources won't do much to create a viable fighting unit. As I said, the US would have to do any real heavy lifting. Also, given how Germany's military is based on a draft system (as far as I know, all men are drafted for some time) are they just going to be sent to Brussels instead? Seriously? You want the answer? Most often, empires are undone by the perpetual conflicts of the dominated subjects. Empire, of course, being defined as a government of conquered people. As an empire grows bloated under its own weight, it usually begins to face internal crises. Often these can be staved off, but during inopportune times such as war, disease or political instability these changes are highlighted and can often overwhelm even the mightiest of empires. I can't really think of any empire off the top of my head that does not fit this criteria. However, the US does not have those tensions, because the borders of the US have not expanded for a good 150 years. I suppose Hawaii might leave one day.........but who'd notice? The internal pressures present in most empires are non-existant in the US. P.S. Yes, certain empires are destroyed in time of war, defeated so utterly that they cannot recover. However, besides the obvious fact that this is often a sign of internal weakness, any country can be destroyed this way, not only empires.
Put the razor blade down. Of course it can. Studies still show a brain drain from Europe to the US in research fields, where returns are supposedly greater. Which we can leave if things become untenable. We left Vietnam. We'll see what the next elections will bring. This is a problem, I agree. It not at all. For most of the country it is an excellent health system. It is bad for the poorest. You're overstating things pretty badly here. Crap. Utter nonsense and crap. Our education system is fine. It remains a one track rather than a dual track system that skews European numbers. And again, if you're going to use "averages", all you'll learn is that we have disparities like we always did. The non-inner city schools are doing fine. You've run two laps before the gun's been fired dude. LOL. There's always time to worry. But you're acting as if we're miles behind in a 100 yard dash. We can do better than either. The US is not France and Germany, and I don't want it to be. I LIKE incentives. I really like them. And socialism tends to set the pretty low. Do I want to junk the welfare state? Of course not. But I'm not in favor of lifting the German model either.
So you expect Spain to be a military welfare case? Otherwise, you'll have to increase your military spending enormously to be comparable to other European countries.
Oh, just that I've been railed at for two years saying the exact same thing on this board -- that the actual rather than perceived differences between Democrat and Republican administrations are minimal at best. My only thought is that that was true during an election cycle, but now that the election is over, there's no more political capital in maintaining that particular fantasy on your part. Unless, of course, my own prejudices in such matters have clouded my understanding of what you meant by: or or If I'm misreading you, please let me know, and please also restate for my lamentably prejudice-addled perception. Thanks
That in no way changes my point. Those who HAVE health care have excellent care. The problem isn't with the system, its providing access to the system.
I've published an article on the idea that some of what we perceive as "unilateral" on Bush's part is just terrible and brusque diplomacy. I do think that save for Iraq, the foreign policy of the two Presidents wasn't all that different. However, domestically the two parties are currently pretty far apart.
That's just plain ridiculous. When 50 million ("the poorest"*) don't have access, the problem IS the system. *I recall your mocking me for defining people without health insurance as poor in another thread some time ago.
You got me going in circles Oh...oh...oh...round and round I go -The Friends Of Distinction When the thing upon which access is based is the functional raison d'etre of the system ($$$$), the system is the issue, because changing "access" in this case breaks it completely.
-cman- said our health care system is a joke. I can't see how anyone could disagree. Our mortality rates are the worst in the developed world. Saying that we provde good service to those who can afford it would apply to every country on the planet.
You're absolutely correct, and that is the reason more and more continentals are starting to refer to the UK as "America Light". Right now the UK is indeed a bit of a speedbump for the "new EU"...