Europe's old laggards will never balance US power

DadaKopf

Europe's old laggards will never balance US power

To be an effective counterweight requires far-reaching changes

Paul Kennedy
Tuesday June 24, 2003
The Guardian

This year, it seems, the trendy debate among the foreign policy crowd no longer hails from Harvard Square or midtown Manhattan. No more waiting for America to come up with slogans such as "the clash of civilisations" and "the end of history".
With the publication of an essay by the French scholar Jacques Derrida and the German scholar Jürgen Habermas in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, at last European intellectuals have produced their own "hot idea". Arguing for a counterbalance to American global hegemonic pretensions, Derrida and Habermas maintain that this can only be accomplished through a unified European foreign policy led by the pioneering "core" European nations. What is more, the Derrida-Habermas call for a European identity looms even more significantly when linked to the belief that Europe must act to curb American primacy and unilateralism. This is hardly coffee house babble, since it articulates what many in Europe are thinking.

My problem with the Derrida-Habermas proclamation is that their thesis is not practical. The way to a powerful Europe is not even sketched out. It is an aspiration, not a policy. If Europe is to become an effective counterweight to America - or an amiable and near equal world partner - it must make some tough decisions and institute tough practical policies. Constitutional decisions, like creating the office of a single foreign minister, go part of the way, but that is just the icing on the cake if Europe itself is not made stronger.

So, here, for consideration, are a half-dozen nettles that might be grasped to make Europe stronger, to give Europe credibility in the eyes of the world and to contribute to the greater sense of European identity for which Derrida and Habermas yearn.

Europe must develop greater military capacity, scrap national conscript armies and train for integrated multiservice fighting in many parts of the world. This requires more money. Right now, the countries that take military reform most seriously are Britain and Poland. Many of the "old" European countries talk about military reforms, but their small defence budgets give the game away.

If Europe really wants improved international structures that provide peace and prosperity, it must push for serious reform of the United Nations, especially in the composition of the permanent veto members of the security council, so that countries such as India, Brazil and South Africa may also achieve that status. Perhaps Europe should confront the fact that it is over-represented on that body. There have been proposals from time to time for a single, rotating "European" permanent seat, an idea France always threatens to veto.

Europe must make a massive push against protectionism, especially in agricultural goods, and to assist poorer countries in Africa and the Caribbean in the export of their produce. But France is the most obstinate foe of free trade in agriculture and drags a complicit Germany along with it. Is it any wonder that developing countries are cynical when Europe talks about boosting world markets - when most trade experts believe that the single biggest boost to African and Caribbean nations would be to scrap Europe's (and America's, and Japan's) agricultural protectionism.

Europe must offer large increases in development assistance, again to help the poorer countries of the globe, consisting not only of capital and infrastructural investment but also technical assistance, scholarships and the waiver of intellectual property restrictions. To be sure, European aid is more generous than America's - the EU provides about twice as much as the US - but more is called for. Why not declare that the EU will devote a full 1% of its annual GDP to development assistance, as a symbol of its leadership? Right now, only the Scandinavians give respectable totals in aid.

Europe should make a special commitment to Africa, not just because it is the poorest of the poor, and not just because of European colonial history, but also because of its geographical proximity and because in Africa it could be an alternative model to US neglect or to the American concern chiefly for military-security threats.

Finally, it is vital for Europe to get its economy going again. If its overall growth rates should lag behind those of the US and much of Asia over the next decade or two, then the whole idea of being a counterbalance is off.

Europe also needs, frankly, to get its youthful population going again. The astonishingly low fertility rates in much of Europe - in contrast to the population increases forecast for the US over the next 50 years - will be as important as the differences in defence spending. If population trends are a good indicator, Europe shows more signs of shrinking than advancing on the world stage.

Let us suppose for a moment that Europe were to succeed on all these fronts. Should that happen, it would indeed come close to being a strong and influential player in world affairs. Europe need not be an angry competitor to the United States all the time - the present characters occupying the White House and the Elysée Palace will not last for ever - but it would once again be important enough in military, economic and political terms to be respected and heeded by others, even American neo-conservatives. But here is the rub: resistance to these tough reforms lies deepest in the "old" or "core Europe" countries such as France, Belgium and Germany. They are the ones that most fiercely cling to agricultural protectionism; have the deepest structural and ideological objections to economic reform; and (France is a partial exception) are spending so little of their GDP on effective armed forces.

There is an extraordinary contradiction here: France and Germany provide the most political rhetoric about making Europe strong and competitive in the modern world, yet it is they who have so much yet to do to stay competitive. Even if their governments propose tough fiscal action, those thousands of French and Germans who marched against the US war with Iraq would be right back on the streets, marching against the necessary agriculture, taxation and spending reforms. And their governments will be forced to compromise.

This is the real reason why I think the appeal for a "core Europe" to emerge and balance the United States will not work. These "old" Europe societies are in so many ways the laggards in handling global challenges. Unless serious structural changes are pushed through, the document that began this debate will remain merely academic.

© Tribune Media Services International

· Paul Kennedy is a professor of history at Yale University. His books include The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers

Is it me or is this an incredibly naive opinion?

Not only is it naive but it's arrogant and dangerous. For starters, he seems blind to the last 100 years of European history, which wishes to diminish the spectre military conflict, not to create another Cold War. Furthermore, he's espousing pure, neo-conservative, free market realpolitik - he is actually arguing for Bismarckian blood-and-food politics which is attributed to causing WWI and WWII in the first place! "Old" Europe has actually moved on since then while the "new" world is stuck in its Imperial teenage balance-of-power phase.

He complains that the two philosophers he cites (who I think he misinterprets) haven't laid out a tenable policy - it takes only a few moments for a reader to realise this guy hasn't either.

I'm glad the Guardian published it, but I really hope people are sensible enough to dismiss it when they spend even ten seconds teasing out the frightening consequences.

OfflerCrocGod

But he is telling the truth reforms NEED to be made to many of the big economies in Europe but the populace is on the streets as soon as any whisper of change is uttered. The fact is Europe IS an ageing continent and also most of the people in power in the European Instutions are againts the enlargement of the Europe Union to include ALL of Europe.

Europe must go further and enlarge to include Ukraine and Turkey and most important of all Russia (all of it!, the important part of Russia , White Russia is well within Europe).

Russia has a pop of nearly 150million and these Eastern European countries have a LOT of economic growth ahead of them at the moment they have slowly declining pop but once they begin growing economically hopefully there pop will begin growing.

Unfortuanately the present power brokers in the EU do not want these counties to join the Union , I hope that future generations though will encourage them in. Anyway lots of people keep on talking of the pop growth that the US is going to experience; i have news for you yes they will grow pop wise BUT most of the growth will come from the latinos by the middle of this century they will be in a majority. Latinos have never shown themselfes to much use in Latin America do you really believe they are not going to just create bigger ghettos in the US?.

I know it sounds like a very racist comment to make but its the truth , Whites and Asians would have been usefull for the US , but a bunch of mulattos and latinos no worry they wont add much to the country other then numbers and look at India and its numbers , its power is small.
Anyway I did not realise we were at war with the US?!, wow surprised me.

Lemming

...it must push for serious reform of the United Nations, especially in the composition of the permanent veto members of the security council, so that countries such as India, Brazil and South Africa may also achieve that status. Perhaps Europe should confront the fact that it is over-represented on that body. There have been proposals from time to time for a single, rotating "European" permanent seat, an idea France always threatens to veto.

I spot a flaw .. or, perhaps a US means of gaining a strangle-hold on the UNSC. If Europe has only one seat on the council, that would mean lots of other "little" countries that the US would find easier to bully/coerce unlike the current status quo where there are several E.U. countries on the council.

DadaKopf is right in calling the article naive though. I would go further to say full of hypocrisy and double-standard suggestions.

Sparks

I'd love to know what the neutral countries would be expected to do in such a militarised EU...

bonkey

Europe also needs, frankly, to get its youthful population going again. The astonishingly low fertility rates in much of Europe - in contrast to the population increases forecast for the US over the next 50 years - will be as important as the differences in defence spending. If population trends are a good indicator, Europe shows more signs of shrinking than advancing on the world stage.

Lets not mention though that the increasing population estimates for the US show significant population increases in minority populations which - according to current demographics - make up the poorer sections of society in general.

Sci Am did an article about a year or two ago about just this, where they showed that by 2030, so-called "White Americans" will no longer compose the majority - that the combined "minority" groups such as hispanics, latin-Americans, African Americans, etc. will outnumber them.

The conclusion that the scientists reached (which I would generally have more faith in than journalists when it comes to extrapolation) was that this demographic shift was one of the greatest challenges and potential problems that the US will face in the coming few generations - not one of their strengths which will cause the EU to fall further behind (as our author suggests).

I would further point out that while the US is remaining static in size (unless you're cynical enough to believe that its current aggressive moves really are a form of colonialism), the EU is undergoing expansion in size, which will not only increase the available population, but also the available resources.

Yes, it will take time to bring these nations up to speed, but Ireland managed it in about 30 years, which is just 60% of the timeframe that this guy is talking about.

jc

Hobbes

Why must everything be about war?

The article reminds me of a pacifist and a fighter having an argument and the fighter saying "You will never beat me in a fight". Which is true and probably not the goal of the pacifist (that is not to equate the two to the EU/US).

The only person who will beat the US is the US. It's doing a good job of it now. More damage has been done by the US to itself in the past year or so then what anyone else could of done.

Superpowers come and go.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Sparks
I'd love to know what the neutral countries would be expected to do in such a militarised EU...

Same thing all neutral countries do; profit from the surrounding conflict or get invaded. Or both.

Von

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
Latinos have never shown themselfes to much use in Latin America do you really believe they are not going to just create bigger ghettos in the US?.

I know it sounds like a very racist comment to make

Yes. It certainly is.

OfflerCrocGod

I did not mean to be racist I was just telling the truth, I have no problems with Latinos, I am not a racist but my point was reiterated by bonkey and put in a much better way

The conclusion that the scientists reached (which I would generally have more faith in than journalists when it comes to extrapolation) was that this demographic shift was one of the greatest challenges and potential problems that the US will face in the coming few generations - not one of their strengths which will cause the EU to fall further behind (as our author suggests).

Why do you think they have positive discrimination toward minorities in US colleges??. I am not a racist, nor a bigot I was just pointing out that this growth of pop is not necessarly a good thing

Hobbes

No that's a racist statement.

That would be like me saying that all Irish are lazy drunks who are only good as builders and breed by the single parent method.

Just because you have no information on Latin America doesn't make your statement true.

OfflerCrocGod

No its the truth that is the reason why they have positive discrimination in universities for minorities because there are fewer people going into colleges from certain minorities i.e. blacks, latinos etc.

I am not being racist by pointing out those facts - they are facts , the truth , a larger poorer uneducated lower class is not good , if you feel I am being racist in stating the facts well im sorry but thats they way things are; I dont like those facts but they are the facts. Get over it .

Hobbes

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
No its the truth that is the reason why they have positive discrimination in universities for minorities because there are fewer people going into colleges from certain minorities i.e. blacks, latinos etc.

You are saying Latinos are lazy (or useless by your term) because there is postive descrimination in universities? If that isn't a racist statement I don't know what is.

Not shown to be much use in Latin America? Really? How?

'Positive descrimination' is a method used to counteract negative descrimination that has existed (ie. Latinos not getting into collage because people think they are useless).

Positive descrimination also doesn't just mean you can get into collage because you fill a minority. If your black/latino/female/whatever and the field your getting into your on par with the rest of the applicants you have a better chance of getting the position. Historically it has always been the reverse.

OfflerCrocGod

Jesus these minorities come from disadvanteged area of the US therefore need more help to get into college , me by stating that fact am racist and bigoted **** then thats great , better tell that to my gay, black, chinese, indian friends then!. Man you are thick Latin America is obviusly not the world economic engine that the US is thats why these people move to the US , ok , when they get there they neither speak the language or have much material wealth, they are a great boon to the US how?.

It costs the US to deal with them and they do it worst then we deal with here in Europe(which is a mess) these people take years to get citizenship and it takes time for them to adapt to US society. So it cost the US to integreate these people. By saying that im a racist? wow , there you go new definition of racism.

bonkey

Go back and look at what people complained about.

Better still - don't - I'll quote it here, and I'll highlight the significant bits :

Latinos have never shown themselfes to much use in Latin America do you really believe they are not going to just create bigger ghettos in the US?.

I know it sounds like a very racist comment to make but its the truth , Whites and Asians would have been usefull for the US , but a bunch of mulattos and latinos no worry they wont add much to the country other then numbers

Now quite simply, you are asserting that the problem is with the people themselves, not with their environment. The Latino's have done nothing in Latin America, ergo they will do nothing in the US. The Whites and Asians, in their respective societies get on well, ergo, they would be "better" for the US.

That, sir, is making a negative distinction based on race - which by definition is a racist comment. No-one is using a new definition of racism as you claim - they're using the usual one.

Hell, look at the line I didnt quote - you admit it at least sounds racist, but claim that it isnt. Now you want us to believe that even though it sounds racist, we'd have to re-invent the meaning of the term racist before it would be racist???

Unfortunately, claiming something means very little. For example, if I said "I know it sounds lke I'm insulting you, but I amn't. You 're <insert insult here>.", to someone, would you say I was insulting them or not? Most people would say that yes, I was.

Now, your intention may not have been to be racist, but thats a different issue. You made the distinction on race, and implied that it is the immigrants themselves (as opposed to the manner in which they are treated by the society they are joining) who are the problem. Like it or not, thats racist.

To date, all you have done is :

1) Say I made the same point as you, only better.
2) Insist that what you said is both correct and non-racist.

Regarding the first point : I did not make the same point as you. I made a related point. I am in no way claiming that any racial group within the US is superior / inferior. I am simply pointing out that current majority (so-called "White Americans") will not be in a majority any longer, and that this will cause significant change.

Regarding the second : if you stick by what you said, it is racist. You are asserting that the Latino's are intrinsically incapable or less capable than other racial groups. On the other hand, if you admitted that you worded it wrongly, and meant that they will do less well because of the differing society they come from, or some reason that has nothing to do with their race, then your comment is not racist.

But you can't have both. Thats what people are disagreeing with you for...and the more you call other people thick for not understanding why your racist comment isnt racist cause you say so....the less likely you are to actually find people agreeing with you.

jc

OfflerCrocGod

Immigrant one comes from Western Europe or Japan or South Korea lets say Germany call him Won Braun he is a well educated degree holding sciencetist/engi/math whatever he goes to US and helps them in there building or advancing there society ; so lets say he helps them build the Apollo rockets; he contributed to the US , right?

Immigrant two is from Nicauaraga it suffered from a civil war during the early 80's and literacy for the over 15's is at the high 60's the country has huge debt etc...; we will call him Marco he goes to US illegally has no money no real education no work experience no money

Me points out that num one is far more usefull to the US's interests then number two, I magically become a racist?!. Listen two just did not have the same OPPURTUNITIES as num one its not his skin that matters it his history!.I put it crudely cause as you can see I dont post often Im not good at writing on a keyboard and I wanted to end the comment; I just though would see the fact that a well educated immigrant is more usefull then a poorly educated one. If anyone believes I am wrong in that belief compare Nicauragas GDP to Japan or Germany or the UK. Its not the colour of the skin its the persons history that makes the diffrence.

I put it crudely cause my I could not write anymore - too tired.

Hobbes

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
Me points out that num one is far more usefull to the US's interests then number two, I magically become a racist?!.

It was the part that bonkey pointed out. But then you pick two fictional samples as proof of your statement?

Your saying that somehow coming from Latin America you are already at a disadvantage? Can you name even 5 famous Latin Americans?

bonkey

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
I just though would see the fact that a well educated immigrant is more usefull then a poorly educated one.

OK - assuming thats what you meant initially (and I've no reason to doubt you), you have a degree of correctness in what you're saying.

However, determining the "usefulness" of an immigrant to a nation is far more complex than where they came from.

Consider any nation with significant immigration - the US or Ireland would be a good place to start. We hear a large number of complaints on a regular basis about "damned foreigners coming here and stealing our jobs".

Strangely, this is usually applied to what you are classing as the less useful immigrants - the ones taking non-prestige jobs, working harder than the "natives", and getting on with things. I have never heard someone complain about (say) a Japenese lecturer immigrating to Ireland, but I have heard a hell of a lot of people complaining about Central-European or Middle-Eastern taxi-drivers.

Now - why this happens is a discussion for a different thread. However, what arises out of it is the evidence that there is an automatic disadvantage placed on these people by the natives, regardless of where they come from. The locals try and keep the immigrants out of "their" jobs. And yet, when we take your argument, it is their disadvantaged background which is at fault. It is their origins which make them less useful - not the unwillingness of the people who's nation they have entered to accept them and treat them equally.

Yes, when there is a social system which is easily abused, you will find some immigrants who are entering a country simply to live a better life at the expense of the state. To say that this is true of all immigrants, or all immigrants from less-developed nations, though, would be blatantly false.

So - when you say that an immigrant from a less-advantaged background is of less benefit, its somewhat misleading, unless you want to assert that people filling "prestige jobs" are somehow more important (or useful or beneficial) than people filling what would generally be termed "working class jobs".

I would assert that a more significant factor is the will to work, and here I would say that - by and large - immigrants tend to be more motivated than natives in this respect. It is the treatment they receieve from others which puts them at a disadvantage, IMHO.

Not only that, but immigrants also contribute to the future population through their offspring. This is a far greater factor to consider. Here, to claim that the origin of the "original" immigrant is the most significant factor in determining the usefulness of these descendants to the state is blatantly false.

jc

p.s. I would also point out that getting agressively defensive because other people can't understand the point you're making is all well and good, but doing so while you also admit that you may not have phrased the point well in the first place is a bit silly.

If people are misunderstanding you, then clarify. Telling us to "get over it", or "Man you are thick" because you worded things badly is not gonna win you any friends.

You admitted you put things crudely. I agree - you did, and applaud you for admitting your mistake. However, I would suggest, you should recognise that this is where the problem arose, rather than insulting people because they took what you said as what you meant.

OfflerCrocGod

I dont think they are stealing our jobs, we need them let them in give citizenship and lets cut the crap Europe is ageing we need immigrants the thing is the US of late has not been good at absorbing these new waves of immigrants because its economy has leveled off new massive growth is not going to occur(WW11 style); its a stable economy. A lot of these immigrants dont integrate well, they keep there original language and dont give up there culture. Spanish is already the second language of the US , what I said is they will have many promblems integrating these people into there American life.

The ethics of the average South American are diffrent from American/European/Asian ones in the work and education sphere. Thats why most of the advances in tech come from us because we have stable economies and good Universities etc.. The challenge for the US is integreation, they have been good before but... that was before now is diffrent; the US has grown up in some respects:rolleyes: . I just hope we can here in Europe open our borders to more of these people, cause we need them, and integrate them fully into our culture and lifestyle; I couldnt care less for the colour of there fecking skin. They just afto be assimilated, No chinatowns or slavtowns! they must be like us, hopefully we will be more succesfull then the US

Victor

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
Thats why most of the advances in tech come from us because we have stable economies and good Universities etc..

Don't forget the leaching of graduates and other trained personnel from other countries and the "re-patriation" of R&D work to the USA. Not to mention the activities of the NSA and it's ilk.

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
we have stable economies

Are you sure?

Turnip

Originally posted by OfflerCrocGod
The ethics of the average South American are diffrent from American/European/Asian ones in the work and education sphere.

Different in what way? Latin American countries are largely catholic, like Ireland, Spain and Italy.

What on earth are you babbling about?

I agree with most of the article. We need to abolish Europe's welfare states, re-arm, get Germany to develop a professional army and revamp the education system to inculcate a work ethic in students from the off. Lots of tough decisions must be made sooner or later.

Sparks

I agree with most of the article. We need to abolish Europe's welfare states, re-arm, get Germany to develop a professional army and revamp the education system to inculcate a work ethic in students from the off. Lots of tough decisions must be made sooner or later.

Ah, yes, the "the people need an iron fist in a velvet glove" argument...
Frankly, you're assuming that we need to compete with the US, that welfare states are a bad thing, that we're unarmed, that Germany's army is unprofessional and the education system is where the work ethic is instilled. None of which is true.

Corega

The important question remains...Do we want to revert to a state such as that of the American society?

In fairness though, most European societies and infrastructures have been established for hundreds of years, American politics had only been established two hundred years, so is it not right that we should have more adaquate means to facilitate other countries, is it not right that Europe, as a whole, should be able to govern and dictate the ways other countries develop?

Sparks

Corega,
1) Is revert the correct verb? As far as I know, the US is the only state in history founded on the principles of the Enlightenment (though the current US political landscape would seem to state that the enlightenment is a long way from where they are now).

2) The answer is no.

3) Of course we have no right to dictate to other nations how to run themselves! We can criticise, certainly, but we can't just wander in and effect regieme change!

Turnip

Originally posted by Sparks
Ah, yes, the "the people need an iron fist in a velvet glove" argument...
Frankly, you're assuming that we need to compete with the US, that welfare states are a bad thing, that we're unarmed, that Germany's army is unprofessional and the education system is where the work ethic is instilled. None of which is true.

Afaik, Germany's army is composed mostly of conscripted personnel. They haven't been allowed retain a fully professional army since the war. I may be wrong of course.

We do need to compete with the US yes, and with China and India and Russia and everyone else. Of course we do. That's what states and economic blocs do.

Welfare states are useful up to a certain point but we passed that point long ago.

Sparks

Afaik, Germany's army is composed mostly of conscripted personnel. They haven't been allowed retain a fully professional army since the war. I may be wrong of course.

You are. They were not allowed by German law to deploy their armed forces outside of Germany's borders. (That law was changed recently to allow for German troops to assist the US in afghanistan). Their army is one of the most professional going.

We do need to compete with the US yes, and with China and India and Russia and everyone else. Of course we do. That's what states and economic blocs do.

Actually, it's what private companies do. Not states. When states compete, it leads to pretty ugly places - wars and cold wars.

Welfare states are useful up to a certain point but we passed that point long ago.

Spoken like someone born with a trust fund. Or didn't you see that nice little graph on the front page of saturday's Irish Times?

Turnip

Originally posted by Sparks
You are. They were not allowed by German law to deploy their armed forces outside of Germany's borders. (That law was changed recently to allow for German troops to assist the US in afghanistan). Their army is one of the most professional going.

Get someone to read this to you carefully if you find it difficult to understand...

BERLIN, June 8 (Reuters) - Germany, under pressure to adapt its under-funded army for overseas missions, is considering ending conscription and making its armed forces fully professional.

I made a small mistake. About 30% of the army is conscripted.

Actually, it's what private companies do. Not states. When states compete, it leads to pretty ugly places - wars and cold wars.

I don't know what fairy tale history book you've been reading but states and individuals act in their own self interest, forming alliances when it's convenient to do so. They always have and always will. No amount of left wing happy clappy bleating will alter that little fact.

Spoken like someone born with a trust fund. Or didn't you see that nice little graph on the front page of saturday's Irish Times?

If I had a trust fund I wouldn't have to work. But I do work (and enjoy it) and for my trouble I have a modest amount of cash robbed off me every month which is then wasted in a variety of outrageous ways. I gave up reading the Irish Times because of its ridiculous stance during the war so I'm not really interested in what they have to say about anything.

bizmark

why is every one asumeing we need a massive army ?......... lets but honest here the american army is big but it far from the best.The american solider doesnt seem all together to well trained and they never had a good record "playing away from home" vitnam etc.

A large ground army isnt needed no one around the eu could "try it on" with us russia consripts army is no treat poor moral crap training and under funding.

A big airforce and navy is what,s needed more than anything but to have that you need major funding are you willing to pay more tax,s for that ? to compeat with america,s 2000 + aircrafts and navy of 300 + ship,s ? ????

To talk about german,s army is a bit unfair they may well not want a big army would you after haveing a real sizeable chunk of you population wiped out?...... France though us the impact of a messy war on a countrys mind

However we should alway,s remember HISTORY .....ill build a 28,000 ton battleship my "enemy" builds a 30,000 ton ship........... has been the cause of a lot of death in history i would really perfere not to see a USA VR,S EU cold war or god forbid a full war jesus knows the killing we could do :rolleyes:

Sparks

Get someone to read this to you carefully if you find it difficult to understand...

Ah-ha. You mean professional as in "paid to do it", not "competent at their job". Mind you, since conscripts are paid as well, and if conscripted you don't have to serve in the military, I fail to see where your point is coming from...

I don't know what fairy tale history book you've been reading but states and individuals act in their own self interest, forming alliances when it's convenient to do so. They always have and always will. No amount of left wing happy clappy bleating will alter that little fact.

Actually, you're incorrect - individuals do indeed compete. States do not. Individuals leading those states may merrily make a mess of the rest of the world, but nations where the state is not lead by individuals (or where their power is stricly curtailed) tend to make less of a mess than other nations. In other words, history says I'm right and you're wrong.
How left wing happy clappy is that?
:rolleyes:

for my trouble I have a modest amount of cash robbed off me every month which is then wasted in a variety of outrageous ways.

Now that I can fully sympathise with. I'm just not willing to eliminate the welfare system, because I know it's not the problem.
Or do you absolutely know for certain that all your PAYE tax is ringfenced exculsively for the welfare system? And if so, can you find out who's PAYE is ringfenced for Bertie's new jet so we can tell them?
There's a lot of waste in the Irish government, but I'm not willing to put a lot of people though hell for someone else's incompetence, especially when that someone else is more than able to waste the money without having a welfare program to nominally spend it on.

I gave up reading the Irish Times because of its ridiculous stance during the war so I'm not really interested in what they have to say about anything.

You gave up reading the only independently financed newspaper in the state because they had the most independed sources of information and the most reporters in the field during the war?

Éomer of Rohan

Does anyone else see anything objectionable in Turnip using a Reuters internet news bulletin as concrete evidence for the lack of professionalism amongst the German army?

OfflerCrocGod

Why does everyone keep on refering to Russia as a sort of competitor/outside Europe, Europe extends all the way to the Ural mountains , Russia is European its big cities are in Europe , Moscow, St Petersburg etc... I would hope that it will join the EU one its a little bit more stable , the ENTIRE coutry that way the EU block extends halfway round the world and borders China , offering huge markets.

Let the Americans have their Empire they lose a man a day now in Iraq , its obvious they cant handle Iraq they are terrible Conquers, the Romans are turning in there graves I hope they go and invade Iran and Syria to imagine the losses!. The present administration is wrecking the country and leaving huge debts to the future generations, why should we stop them?. We will never go to war with each other we dont need huge armies here in Europe there useless drains on our economies.

Éomer of Rohan

Why does everyone keep on refering to Russia as a sort of competitor/outside Europe, Europe extends all the way to the Ural mountains , Russia is European its big cities are in Europe , Moscow, St Petersburg etc...

It's a historical thing dating back to the Europeanising influence of Peter the Great, some of which was continued by his successors; the result was that while Russia's urban centres gained many traits of European cultures, the vast tracts of serfdom (created by Peter to tie the peasents to the their land) remained static - which was one of the near insurmountable problems that the Communists faced. Anyway, the Europeans were scared by the vastness of Russia (cf Otto von Bismarck) and yet felt alienated by the differences they encountered there - especially in the 19th Century the type of absolutist monarchy which had been abolished in the rest of Europe a long time before. The media, especially in Britain always portrayed Russia as very dubious, even as late as the Triple Entente and the russophobia was simply reenacted in a different form for the cold war - and this mentality thanks to the freezing of ideological positions perists.

Let the Americans have their Empire they lose a man a day now in Iraq

Yes I rather liked Sparks cartoon regarding Iraq becoming the new Northern Ireland.

The present administration is wrecking the country and leaving huge debts to the future generations, why should we stop them?

Because although I couldn't give two figs for the collapse of American society / economy, I do care about the death of several thousand absolutely innocent people.

We will never go to war with each other we dont need huge armies here in Europe there useless drains on our economies

Yes, and we prefer a health service which actually embodies the ideals that all are equal instead of a government that pays lip service to such an ideal (cf all this crap about "the enduring power of American ideals; that all men are created equal") and then allows the poor people of said country to have no health care to speak of.