Good to here from the ol ElTee again.

Glad you are one of our "good guys"! All those good words and found his shaving kit, too, LT is on a roll!

I just wish everyone who looks negatively toward the US assistance to Iraq would read this - Smash not only hit the nail on the head, he drove it completely thru the damn board. And not one cuss word did I find.

But when does it end? How do you enter a war & have control over where it goes & who dies. I do not feel any safer than I did two years ago.

Yeah, Sofia, that's why wars ALWAYS go on forever.

You know, maybe the Administration is acting on a little harder evidence than how safe YOU feel. Maybe, just maybe, they know a whole lot more than you do.

But he left out Pakistan's Junta. It won't be complete until the Fortress of Islam is dealt with or they deal with themselves.

Sophia,

It ends when the enemy concedes, and not until. It ends when the radicals can no longer mislead stupid, superstitious human bombs into pointless terror attacks. It ends when the moderate muslim has the balls to stand up to the clerics, and question why their 'creator' is such a bloodthirsty god. Short of that, it ends when the last radical is rendered harmless, by death or isolation.

All the good wishes of sane folks, like yourself, will not alter the fanaticism of this enemy. Smash sees the core truth of the situation much more clearly.

It couldn't be more perfectly put than that, Elvis.

I'm pretty concerned that we're watching many of the same catalysts for destruction that existed prior to WWI coalesce within the Muslim world.

Around the turn of the 20th century, the people of European nations began to see themselves differently due to the rise of a networked society that began feeding poorly educated populations with daily doses of continental news. People who never before so strongly identified themselves with their nation or their ethnic groups (with daily reinforcement of collective grievances), began to identify themselves as competitors on a grand scale. The network redefined the identity of the nodes. The nodes began to compete for dominance of the network --- resulting in W.W. I.

Today we have Al Jazeera and other sattelite channels feeding poorly educated populations hourly doses of global news. They think they know who we are and what we're about. We, as Americans, are constantly portrayed as a dark influence in world affairs.

Not to be too pessimistic, but I think that the genie is out of the bottle and this won't be over until we've had another truly global war that compares with the dual wars W.W. I and W.W. part 2.

What can we do? Destroy Reuters/Jazeera? That act alone would undo the purpose. Improve the education of 1 billion people? I guess that's a start.

Look who just showed up... One of the four horseman, pestulaence. Or was it a left wing press?

Nationalism came after WWI.

not that i entirely agree with trouble's theory, there are alot of problems involved in the relative weakness of the Arab world and the great power competitions that existed before the first world war, but he is right about nationalism. it existed long before WWI and is considered to be one of the leading causes of that conflict. Most historians agree that it became established during the French revolution. for the first time, people swore allegiance to a state made up of their brothers instead of to a king who ruled over them by god's will.
Nationalism did not come after WWI.

http://www.pvhs.chico.k12.ca.us/~bsilva/projects/great_war/causes.htm

this was the very first link that popped up.

Nationalism is older than that. See the Peloponnesian War, a democracy vs a theocracy.

theocracy should = oligarchy

if you can call Athens a democracy.
True, it does get credit for the creation of the idea, but most people who lived within the Athenian empire were outright subjects. The numerous uprisings that occured against Athens showed how her rule could be as Iron fisted as that of any oligarchy. Also, slaves, which were numerous, and women were of course denied the vote.
but you're right, Nationalism is very old. i was only refering to the current incarnation which took shape after the enlightenment in europe.

i personally don't think another world war will be nessecary. WWI and II emerged mostly because of the emergence of new great powers, such as Germany, Italy and America, which were seeking to gain a larger share of power in a world where power had already been divided amongst the Russians, Brits and the French. This conflict of interests drove great powers to war with each other.
The Muslim world doesn't have the sort of relative power to us, or even to europe and china, that the old great powers had to one another, so whether or not they're angry, true global war can not evolve based on their actions. at most, they can hope to launch non-conventional attacks through terrorism, which, though horrible, can not really threaten america's dominance.

World War One? That's like comparing DOS to MacOSX. The only issue at stake is preventing Manhattan from becoming the next Hiroshima, period. Anything short of that and our economy will just keep ticking along nicely. Militarily we will literally have robots win our next major wars, and done so at a decreasing percentage of GNP. It's already half way there, and we are fighting against slow moving targets who can't even in principle coordinate their military well since they have ego problems. Smart people finally won, and that changes things so much that I don't think historical precedent and analogies with ancient history or politics is very useful. And as far as the media argument goes, this very web site argues against even the medium term propoganda power of networks like Aljezeera. There are what, twenty thousand Iranian blogs right now? For the first time in history, history is no longer a good analogy to our current conflicts, I suggest. The muslim world is merely having birthing pains in modernization, one faction being full of envy towards the West analogous to a bicurious man adopting violent homophobia, the other faction wanting a taste of entrepreneurial and intellectual vitality. If we keep nukes and bioweapons out of the hands of the former, then this troublesome child will grow up without destroying itself. Since that is exactly what our representational government is doing, all will be well...in time.

Well, this is an military view how to solve existing problems. Simple approach, root them out. Destroy any opposition that may appear, and take care they never will be a threat to US interest or even lives again.

The point is the Army don't produce peace, it's produce Wars. So any attempt to create a lasting peace result in an military dictatorship.
This is because people won't simply agree to a occupation of their country. Self determination and freedom are the keywords here. The will start to defend their rights, and this will cause oppression.

Especially freedom, one of the highest values American People have, is becoming void if you occupy an Country.

The US society is in danger to become exactly that, an military Dictatorship. Wich will break any attempt to question US superiority in the World with bloody Wars.
The Iraq War wasn't the first and will not be the last of these Wars. Iran already throw long shadows, even if the US are the only one who claim Iran is developing Nuclear Weapons.
Thought we had that already, false accusations, faked evidence, and after the War is over noone cares if there were any WMD's or not, at least the US citizens don't care.

You won't get away with that.

Right, Nobody;

We simply ignore the nuclear weapons and other WMD programs in despotic, fanatically run regimes.
We let them produce and stockpile doomsday arsenals. We let them train, arm and finance terrorism.
This is great politics. Who are WE to infringe upon their Allah given right to set the stage for an Islamic sponsored Armagedden? Just who the hell do we think we are?

Either you weasels have a death wish for humanity or you're just plain stupid. Or both.

Wolf - BRAVO! I say, both. OBTW - Asked on a different thread - Anybody know where Angela Davis (yeah, THAT one) is teaching these days? Curious.

You mean, she won't be on any more ballots as the Commie Party presidential candidate?
I'd envisioned her as, maybe, being Sharpton's running mate in the (hopefully) impossible event that he gets hanging chadded into the role of Democrat Candidate.

in response to nik willmore's post-

Back before the first world war that you so casually dismiss, many great minds in the western world, who were by no means a minority, advocated the proposition that history was at an end. they declared that civilization had moved beyond the realm of warfare to a higher plain where the balance of power, global economic integration and the basic civiled impulses of western man would prevent us from the base struggles which characterized our past. they pointed to the diplomacy that bismark had acheived and the free flow of information that came with industrialization and cheaper publishing costs.
sound familiar? a few years later they engaged in the most gargantuan struggle ever to enflame human civilization up to that point.
history is not based upon the confrontation of one idealogical system vs another, or one sort of weapons system vs another. it is based on the motives and actions of the men who use those systems. Politics, empire, military strategy and economics are all based on men, and so long as men are around, history will be relevant. if you want to know what a man will do tomorrow, look at what he did yesterday. it's pretty simple. robots don't change a damned thing.

in response to nik willmore's post-

Back before the first world war that you so casually dismiss, many great minds in the western world, who were by no means a minority, advocated the proposition that history was at an end. they declared that civilization had moved beyond the realm of warfare to a higher plain where the balance of power, global economic integration and the basic civilized impulses of western man would prevent us from undertaking the base struggles which characterized our past. they pointed to the diplomacy that bismark had acheived and the free flow of information that came with industrialization and cheaper publishing costs.
sound familiar? a few years later they engaged in the most gargantuan struggle ever to enflame human civilization up to that point.
history is not based upon the confrontation of one idealogical system vs another, or one sort of weapons system vs another. it is based on the motives, intellects, emotions desires and actions of the men who use those systems. those won't change for a long time, not until our genome does. Politics, empire, military strategy and economics are all based on men, and so long as men are around, history will be relevant. if you want to know what a man will do tomorrow, look at what he did yesterday. it's pretty simple. robots don't change a damned thing.

The biggest problem we face is that we are in the period of Post-Colonialism, but nobody has bothered to tell the former colonies. Its hard to think of a single instance where a colonial power managed to hang on to their province against determined nationalist opposition. Sadly what they left behind was generally worse than they ever were, and we are being made to pay for that sin. Islamisists, socialists, fascists, those are just symptoms. Until we put right the second and third worlds politically and economically somehow, we're just buying time. But what we are doing with the terrorists and thugs is absolutely necessary, you have to tear down before you can rebuild. The left understood that when it came to the fascists they hated and the revolutionaries they supported, sadly they fail to see it anymore and hence, have no ideas to advocate at all.

And didn't they call WWI the "War to end all wars?"

exactly

Well i currently feel the USA far more scaring as Iran. Iran might develop WMD's who know, the USA has for sure WMD's the full palette and they are willing to use them if needed.

Btw i think especially people like Wolf are similar fanatic as radical muslim. It's just a diffrent kind of religion. Heck even Bush brabble about an Crusade against all evil in the World. Dosen't sound that fanatic?

And even Wolf's ironically meant statement about WW I as the War to end all wars, has been more or less reused from the Neocons in Washington.
The War(s) to end all Terror in the World.
Huh? Sounds somewhat familar.

There is always a bad reason to start a War, most are excuses for failed foreign politics.
It's good to look back into History, to avoid to make the same mistakes again.
I think the Neocons have learned nothing from History but how to destroy peace.
You can't turn back the wheel of Time. Pakistan has already Atomic bombs. Yep your bosom buddy just visited Camp David. Wonder what he now want to get from you. You'll regret it, anyway what you give him, just as you have to regret what you have given Saddam.

Your buddy will turn against you at any suitable position. Or he will be toppled from his own radical Muslims, who know.
It's very likely tomorrow Pakistan is a far bigger threat than any other muslemic country.

You neocons simply lack imagination how complex the World is. Easy methods will cause easy results, not.
If you see the World as your enemy, the World will become your enemy soon.
That's the power of imagination.

Nice !
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1054966389527

Your Adminisstration gave him 3 bn Dollar, to buy more weapons from US.
Just to make sure he has enough weapons to declare him in one or 2 years as an threat to the World like you did with Iraq and occupy Pakistan too. (From occupied Iran of course)
Very cunning idea, and not to give him the most wanted F16 is even more cunning.
So he wont have good Airplanes, wich make it far easier to fight him without getting too much retaliation with A-Bombs. It's only Iran that might be hit, who cares, for sure not India.

Very cunning indeed.

You're damn right we're more scaring as Iran, Nobody, and if they want to play games with us on their own WMD issue, we just might show them how much more scaring we are.

As for the rest of your prattle, weasel, I'm not gonna bother.
You, basically, are a moron.

nik willmore's post reminded me of a general tendency among americans these days and historically, citizens of any great power. people seem to believe that their country's preeminence is likely to last forever and is completely sustainable.
so, keeping in mind arnold toynbee's statement that "great powers tend to die by suicide" how long do people here think that american hegemony will last?
i'm really not trying to take a jab at america here. i mean no offense. i'd just like to know how people's thoughts run on this issue here on this site. if you want to email me on it, that's fine.

Like a historical cycle, huh?

I once knew a guy at Little Creek who used to read Hoffer, and one of his favorite observations was that when the lesser and non democratic nations begin to grow and achieve democracy, the great democracies begin to crumble, or something like that.

Well let's see, there are already 70% of regular US troops deployed around the world. You still need some to defend mainland i think, also some are needed as reserve. Well i think the US hegemony will start and end in Iraq. It's a dud right from beginning because of bad planning.
As long you can't pull the troops out as planned to throw them into the next War, your're trapped.
Your Soldier start to feel used, so moral isn't that high anymore, they want to go home. And Mr Rumsfeld can't even replace them easy with fresh troops, no troops to replace them. One month deployment of these forces in Iraq cost 3 bn Dollar btw.

I doubt there will be enough Soldier to win a War against Iran as long they are bound in Iraq. We talk here from significant numbers i think. Iran has 64 million citizens, 40 million more than Iraq. It has an conscription Army and can easy mobilize several million Soldier if needed. How good they are, i don't think they are very good. But i think they will fight with a diffrent spirit, especially after they have seen what happend to Iraq.

So these 'Hyperpower' is again an loud mouthed paper tiger, if there wouldn't be the devastating armada of nuclear Weapons of course.

It's good to see even the USA has their limits. To conquer the World you'll need Soldiers, not A-Bombs. It's at easy as this.

Yeah i know you might be able to activate 5 million reservists if needed, but you can't capture and hold with them one country after the other. This would be a serious economy loss to you, so it's limited.

Thank god.

If you'd stay off the schnapps before you post, nobody, people might be able to understand what you're rambling about.
Right now, it looks like some drunk mongoloid monkey with severe bipolar disorder is ravaging a keyboard someplace.

that really isn't getting to the heart of my question. to defend the homeland, first of all, we do have 5 million reservists and millions more who are not in the army but still fit for duty. i'm sure even you would hold a gun to defend your state from invaders. but invasion isn't likely with two oceans to defend us.
besides, as i tried to mention no great power or empire falls to enemy invasion. not really. the greatest "die by suicide". look at Rome, the Manchu Chinese, the Han, The Mongols, the Arabic empire, the British Empire, the Soviet Union and a host of others. domestic forces usually end a power's hegemon. economics, cultural pulls, erosion of nationalism, beginnings of decadance, whatever you want.

and thanks wolf, i'll look into hoffner. that sounds like exactly what i'm looking for. it's interesting, perhaps as more small democracies emerge, the largest no longer needs military power and begins to decline in importance as it loses it. very interesting. now, i need to go attempt some of these Islam posts.

Now that is a fascinating question. Internationally, the US is probably _more_ powerful than given credit for, at least regarding defending the homeland. Think, only an industrialized modern nation could raise the resources to actually invade America or do it any serious harm. Our weapons at the moment would guarantee the devastation of any such enemies entire infastructure, and there would be nothing they could do about it. Lets remember that since the advent of the atomic age, no nation possessing nuclear weapons has ever been seriously threatened with invasion. I think it far more likely that the US would suffer a military setback on some foriegn adventure that would harm the moral and psych, much like the Athenian defeat at Syracuse or the Roman defeat at Teutoburg Forest. The defeats were not so much militarilly significant (although they were) as shocks to the system that brought doubt and ultimately despair to the people where before there was complete confidence. Pride goeth before the fall. On the other hand, there have been just as many empires that have withered on the vine for refusing to defend their interests proactively for fear of catastrophy (Britian, Byzantines). The point is, it is the faith and vibrancy of the civilization that keeps it flexable and able to adapt. Without that it is doomed no matter what desperate measures it takes (see European Union). I feel that America is very strong still because it still believes in itself and its importance to the development of mankind. This may prove to be a renewable resource where empires built on greed and conquest were not.

i'd say greed is certainly renewable. conquest, much harder to renew. But, if the world does develop to a point where most major countries are on equally footing with the USA in terms of standard of living and political freedom, then where will this feeling find itself? perhaps what wolf refered to has some relevance, if the US is moving the world towards popular democracy, what role will the united states have once the world gets there?

Should that world arise, it will become immaterial that the US should dominate it. Liberal democracies tend not to go to war with each other, nor to abuse their people. The United States will almost certainly survive in some form, perhaps even as the greatest power, but the interconnectedness of economies will dictate not abusing that power. Look at all the provocation that France has heaped on the US of late, and no-one has so much as suggested a tarriff on their goods. The world seems to be evolving towards humanitarianism, representative democracy, and capitalism. Should we get to that point the US position wont matter.

June;

A few Hoffer quotes can be found at this site, then just nose around from there. There's a lot on him.

http://www.dividingline.com/private/Philosophy/TopPage/Hoffer_Quote.shtml

Meth-man>One of the four horseman, pestulaence.

That's pestilence: meaning a plague of insects and rodents. Maybe you were thinking of War or Death (pale horse). You should get more acquainted with them.

Meth-man >Nationalism came after WWI.

Maybe we should start educating people in the US before thinking about ignorant jihadis.

>>Mark: I think that our enemies have learned from these past 3 years that you can't take on the US directly, but that we're very vulnerable to asymetrical attacks. It has happened already. We can't kid ouselves and think that it won't happen again. When it does, our pittiful economy (still the strongest in the world) may double back.

Obviously no-one is going to invade the US with an army. However, the tensions around the world are rising to a very fine edge. Many of us forget that Chinese rhetoric, prior to 9/11 was of a similar tenor to that of North Korea of late. Plus the Chinese have a very high interest in taking back Taiwan. If China encourages N. Korea to invade S. Korea (wouldn't take much) then the US would be too preoccupied to seriously contest an invasion of Taiwan from the mainland. Throw in a little Kashmir craziness, and we all could be on radiation pills.

BTW: I've never missed an election, and I've never voted for a Democrat. But, I consider it an honor to have been dissed by white-suprem trash like ruby-ridge wolf.

Well as i remember Napoleon created more or less the idea of Nationalism in Europe. 'Le grand Nation'

Caused a lot bloody Wars including WW I + II.

As i have pointed out in a diffrent thread, the European Union is already an Superpower economically seen, compareable with the USA. We lack the military strength, tough, because we think we can defend our interests better with words and negotiations than with bloody Wars.
Well time changed, so rethinking in Europe set in.
Most defence budgets have already been rised.
So you will hear a lot more from Europeans in future. Or in other words for Wolf, you might have to swallow some nasty toads soon, or you'll choke on. Europe has far to much economical Power to be simply ignoreable.

We have already an globalized Economy, and the large Trusts haver their own ideas how their ideal World should look like. So Politicans can't rule like they want, they have to watch what their sponsors want to have. Especially the USA is very vulnerable to that because of it's Presidential election campaigns.

Mark, I don't share your view about Europe. We are damn stable, and we are just about to kick some asses around.
You'll have to learn to deal with.

The greatest danger currently for the USA is the slow drift into an totalitarian State. The Army is already the school of the Nation. If you want to become educated, you'll need to go to Army. Private Jessica Lynch is an good example for this.
Or you are simply rich. So you can say the Army the school of the Nation, this gives a lot power to the Army because it form opinions. A military view even of more civilian affairs. The military has influence on Politics, a very bad combination as history shows.

Europe has a very diffrent approach, one Semester on a University cost an Student in Germany only the mattriculation costs, that's only around $30. So education is cheap here in good old Europe. And the influence from the Military on Politics is almost zero. As it should be. They are there to obey orders given from civilian Politicans, not to create a self determined Power inside an Society.

Noone will attack the United States with a regulary Army, there are always the Nuclear Weapons in background to prevent that. So any attempt to increase your military Power beyond Cold War efficiency is senseless.
It simply has no further effect on defending your mainland. Just wasted money.

Asymetric Wars, wich are often also called Terrorism don't care if it's an 1000 times overkill or an 1100 times overkill. These guyes are not afraid.
It's damn scaring as the 9/11 attack has shown, how vulnerable modern societies are.
You can fight groups like Al Quaeda only as long they are visible, like you did in Afghanistan. Scattered as they are now, the attempt to hunt them down with an Army is futile.

It's mainly an Intelligence War now. But the point is Al Quaeda is still operative, a big threat and can struck any target on the World at any time.
The War in Iraq didn't changed that.

So the Terrorists are still a threat, and the only way to get rid of them is to hear what they want. This worked in Northern Ireland quite well.
Otherwise this fight and threat become perpetual like it is in Israel / Palestina.
The Israeli Army there can't stop it nor protect the own people from beeing slaughtered. Yeah they retaliate, but it don't create peace. Prooves quite good how senseless such an approach is.

This guy has some ideas what's going wrong. Especially in the relation USA-World or USA -Europe.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/25/books/25WHEA.html?ex=1057118400&en=d9bb7b78c9dbae3f&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Yeah as usual, ultraleft propaganda for Wolf, it's NY Times.

You'll have to learn to deal with. >>

Heh, funny but with unemployment in Germany and France at 10% and climbing and 0% growth, I wouldnt call that on the verge of ass kicking. These two countries are templates of how the EU is supposed to work, and they are disasters economically. Overregulation and taxation is dragging Europe down the same toilet that all socialist regimes end up in.

As far as the US goes, you know basically nothing it seems. Anyone in this country can go to school, most people for free via grants, loans, and scholarships. Far more people go to college than join the army, but those that do join the army get _all_ of their post-army education payed for. The army as an organization has zero influence over politics, except what weight the soldiers votes carry.

As far as the US slipping into a totalitarian state, hah! Where are all the anti-free speach laws coming out, here or Europe? Where are politicians being shot to death in the street, Iowa or Belgium? And what about this EU superstate whos leaders arent even popularly elected? Not to mention the lunatics running the asylum in places like France where the leaders cant decide if they are more terrified of their public unions or islamic immigrants (luckilly the jewish lobby must be weak considering how the attacks on jews is turned a blind eye). At least here we bother to have 2 parties with different ideas instead of just assuming socialism is the way to go and letting the chips fall where they may.

As far as our military, did it ever occur to you that it might be needed as more than self defense? How about imposing your precious UN mandates? Or do you hold the typical Euro opinion that passing laws is enough, whether they have any actual effect on the real world is immaterial? Guess what, there are very very bad guys our there in the world, and ignoring them does not make them go away. They will be at your throats the moment they smell weakness, and I gotta tell you, Europe is absolutely reeking of pussy right now.

>>The Army is already the school of the Nation. If you want to become educated [...] Or you are simply rich.

This is a complete fallacy. The majority of people in the US finance their own educations. By that I mean they take out government-backed loans. The Army happens to be nice vehicle for moving kids from impoverished homes into the middle-class --- but you grossly overstate the influence this has on US society.

Well at last this was the main reason for Jessica Lynch to go to Army as i have learned, because she (or their parents) couldn't afford a diffrent way.
If you call this impoverished, than this hit many people in the USA. So alot can't pay their own (higher) education, especially if they want to become higher degrees like Bachelor.

It's always hard to see such an influence on the society from within the system. But we in Europe recognize an rising militarisation of People in the USA. It's just such facts as trust in the Army they will do it always right.
The Army has to do nothing right, it's the Politicans that have to do it right. The Army should only be an strong Arm of Democracy, and not to have an own agenda as it is in the USA. I agree, so it's more a vehicle for lower class people, like hispanic, black or minority People to climb the ladder. Those who can't afford it on a diffrent way. But the influence still is there. It's the military training that causes the influence. The loyality to the Army even long after they have left Service. The military view of events and the feeling to be part of a higher importend group of people inside an Society. So if they ever will have to decide in their life whom to trust, you can forsee their decision. That's the Power and influence i talk about. This also can be missused.

Well Mark, your economy also isn't that healty atm i think. It's also called recession with growth around 1.5%, deflation lurges around the corner. The Dollar lost alot ground to the Euro, think this has a reason, huh? Nothing to bragg around with, be it US or Europes economy. Not a good time to do business with all these Wars.
Often it's not the actual situation but expectations that will cause the diffrence.
These times will change, it's simply business cycles, the economical influence persist.
The US simply can't ignore the economical Power of the EU. Europe is on the Eve to become the second Superpower, economical we are already one, and hey we know we are.
If it's needed to protect the European influence with Weapons, we will have Weapons. Europe is far from beeing an easy target military spoken.
You Americans simply underestimate the will of the Europeans to take a leading role in the World in future. You underestimate our economical abilities and you underestimate our military capabilities.

Well you got us on the wrong foot, but this only speed things up. With current constitutional changes the EU will have an dedicated Foreign affairs minister, we will have an European Army and we still have economical Power compareable to the USA. Give it a few years, time run so fast.

So again learn to deal with, we will watch your activities very close.

Nobody,

Here are some facts from the 2000 census.

Population of the US: 284,796,887
Percent with Bachelors degree or higher: 24.4%
Thats 69,490,440 people.

I'm not certain, but I'd guess all these people didn't go through the military for their higher education. I'm guessing here but the current active military stands in the neighbourhood of 1 million. Hardly the school of the nation you claim it to be.

I'm curious how you explan the requirement of some countries in Europe for everyone to put in military service. If your arguement that military service equalled a shift to totalitarnism how do you explain Norway, Switzerland?

Some of the talk on this website seems to say that democracies might very well go to war with one another. Perhaps they haven't yet because there have been so few of them around and they've generally had a larger enemy to deal with; Fascism or communism for instance. I think that the idea that peace between democracies is a given gets swallowed a little to easily in our culture. If two Democracies interests are in conflict, they will fight each other. That is basic realist political theory.

"democracies" should read democracy's in the second to the last line. sorry, i need a blasted spell checker.

Yes it's interesting how Nobody fearfully comments on the military will of the people in the US, yet she counters with how the EU is going to arm itself to counter our power.

I do think that democracies may go to war. It may take 20 years for the US and the EU to square off, but for all the interconnectedness of our societies, the EU has a real problem understanding the US --- particularly patriotic evangelical christians in the US. They loathe, hate, and fear them; while they embrace totalitarian mullahs with open arms.

But, I've been pretty pessimistic already about future conflicts, so I won't make any more predictions. The world's going to come to an end someday, I'll just enjoy today for a while.

"Well Mark, your economy also isn't that healty atm i think. It's also called recession with growth around 1.5%, deflation lurges around the corner. The Dollar lost alot ground to the Euro, think this has a reason, huh? "

Um, actually a recession is defined as 3 consecutive quarters of negative growth. Our last 3 quarters have all been positive, hence, no recession. We are sitting about 2% growth with 6% unemployment and negligible interest and inflation rates. Not bad at all. In contrast to any other era before the tech boom, we would be in a solid recovery in fact.

As far as Jessica Lynch goes, well the army is a noble calling to serve your country. As a reward you have your education paid for, free of charge. Anyone else can get loans (which must be paid back) as well as grants and scholarships. The army gives you skills, experience, plus a school. The fact that we give a good deal to our service is not a negative I'm afraid.

As far as the future of the EU goes, good luck if you think that kicking the Central and Eastern nations into a corner is going to work. They, unlike you, remember what evil and totalitarianism is all about, and will not stand by while the French and Germans bow down to whatever economic Satan happens to tempt them at the moment to screw over their friends and allies.

TXNewf would be interesting how many of these Bachelors are born and educated in the USA. :-)
But anyway i'm sure the US education system work, the point is people with low income have very few options if they want to go to College. The Army or an stipend, anything forgotten? Good Colleges cost an awful lot of money, and that i tried to point out, it's free in Germany as example to go to an University.
Everyone can do it as long he qualifies for, regardless from what stratum in Society he comes. Only qualification counts.
Germany also has an conscription Army, but the Bundeswehr don't have an own Agenda like the US Army has. You also can study if you go for 12 years to the Bundeswehr. So that's not very diffrent. The Point is the German Military command has nothing to say in Germany politically.
Going to Army in Germany isn't really starting an career. It's needed, it's a safe job and you'll be pensioned with 55, that was it.
In the USA i think the Army is an integral part of Society, in Germany not. It's not prestigious to Serve, and practically no high military will become an active politican. Can't remember a single case. We have bad experiences with that.

Trouble im not fearful, i'm angry. The UN will never work if the Superpower USA denies it's cooperation.
With acting unilateral, the US has become an danger for World security. It's simply out of control. No country on Earth can accept that.
The point is we have on this side the Superpower USA, to balance Power we need on the other side an counterbalance. The only 'country' on earth capable to do this is the European Union. We have already huge impact on economical issues, because of our Gross National Product.
The Military of course is underdeveloped, or in other words the USA have way to much weapons.

To balance Power is the natural way to answer an sole claim to rule the World, wich the US does. You simply can't expect this claim will stay unanswered forever.
So it's no wonder the EU will arm to be able to form that counterbalance. Another good way would be if the US disarm some of their Arsenal. I think this is pure illusion as long the Bush Administration rules in Washington. But after him, this is a possible and better solution. The forming of a new Superpower on Earth won't stop that, tough. You've started it, and nothing can stop it now. So to a degree i'm thankful, because without Bush the progress the EU made now in months would have taken decades otherwise.

And yes, i think conflicts between Democracies are always possible. About ressources or as example about World domination. It's nothing we really want, but you can be sure we will defend our ethical values and our claims.

Even if American don't like to hear that, we Europeans stay for Multilateralism, we still support the UN, we still think other countries are as good as any other country. Even small ones need to be heared. Ideals the USA once shared with us, at last they founded the UN.
I think it's a matter of time the UN will be relocated to Europe, maybe we should take Lady Liberty back, seems Europe is a better place for freedom in these times.

June & Trouble:

I agree that there is 'too small a sample size' to conclude democracies will not go to war. However, I think the evidence is clear that they would be anything like the total war the 20th century showed. Look at how war has been fought by democracies, it is only in modern times that the lives and liberties of civilians and innocents have taken _any_ (much less ultimate) concern to the combatants. The US and Israel in particular have shown incredible restraint when dealing with civilian populations, de facto sacrificing the lives of their own soldiers to spare the lives of innocents (dont believe me? how many Palestinians or Iraqis would be alive today should the absolute power of those two nations be turned against their adversaries as has been the norm historically? Answer, ~none). Bottom line, should war break out between democratic nations (unlikely in my opinion due to economic ties) it would be shorter and more bloodless than any others in history.

Mark huh? kicking around eastern nations? Very funny, indeed. We just add 15 eastern countries into the EU. Former Iron curtain countries like Poland, Hungaria, Czechoslovakia, the Balitc states and some other too. It's not even impossible we might add Russland to the EU, it's already somewhat associated economically and more and more also Political. I think the debate about the Iraq War has shown that quite clear.
Probably i have wrong verbalized it. It's meant economically, so Airbus Industries currently kick Boing around like an old football. We have other quite good running Branches of business too. But anyway. In Europe each country has as many votes percentual as the Country has citizens. Think that's called democracy.
So no EU Country will be disadvantaged. It's very attractive to be an part of these Community, and many other Countries seek to become member in the EU. And it's not all about money, it's the idea behind that counts far more.
Most of this has happend complete unnoticed from US side.
Probably because they lack the idea behind.
It's not an imperialistic attempt what stand behind Europe. It's more like a Federation of Countries that give up a part of their self determination for a higher institution. This is of course in all countries interest, otherwise they wouldn't want to be part of. They enlist all voluntarily. :-)
And we still have alot volunteers who want to join.
So this Europe can't be half as bad as Mr Bush think. Our perception is, people like Mr Rumsfeld and the Bush Administration in general, actively try to undermine Europes unity with sentences like 'the old and new Europe'.
Well i can assure you, this will make the bonding between Europes countries even stronger.

"They [Bulgaria and Romania] missed an opportunity to keep their mouths shut!"

Jacques Chirac, dictating from his EU throne

>>im not fearful, i'm angry. [...]
With acting unilateral, the US has become an danger for World security.

This is more snobbish European nonsense. The US jumped into Iraq with the UN and all the Arab countries along side. Then when it finally came time to follow up the initial drive through the desert with a real solution for the Shia, the Kurds, the rest of the Iraqis, the Israelis, and the United States; where was the UN? You had France and Russia gleefully grandstanding for "Peace" when the reality was they were standing on their wallets and fighting for every bloody dime they were planning to dig out of the cold dead hands of brutally oppressed Iraqis.

By the way Nobody: If you knew much about your own history, you'd know that it was Eisenhower who first pressed European leaders to form a "United States of Europe" then he started the ball rolling by creating a united army of Europe --- NATO. So much for "lack the idea behind." What conceit.

If you look at the willingness to follow propaganda and demagogery of the average citizen of france, germany and benelux, I'd say that we'll be forced to fight these people someday. They'll exalt some new Napopleon or Hitler as President of the EU, nominally call themselves a democracy, and then start "saving the world" by destroying it. God help us. Will New Europe save us from these beasts? One can only hope.

It is already ww3...most people just do not know it.
ww1= 1900-1946
ww2= 1946-1989
ww3= 2001-??

Since WWII however, no democracy has ever had to directly confront any force that truly threatened its existence.
While the conflict in Israel is incredibly violent, casualty levels have not risen to a point where the application of overwhelming force would be a wise choice. the Israelis know that killing off millions of arabs over the suicide bombings would not be likely to lead to any sort of peace for them, even though they have the better military. it would only lead to a middle east more devastated than it already is.
In WWII itself, Americans showed that no matter how highly they regarded human life, raids on Dresden, Hamburg, Berlin, Tokyo and Hiroshima were a part of war and had to be carried out. in the past fifty years we have not fought such a total war because the enemies whom we attacked were not a direct threat to our existence, as Japan and Germany would have become.
a democracy whose existence was threatened by another large democracy with the capacity to do it serious injury would surly defend itself with all means at it's disposal. Imagine, though it is highly unlikely, that america were to invade france over some squabble and make significant progress. France would most certainly use its nuclear weapons against american targets in retaliation. this is my opinion anyway.
The two things that will help to prevent total wars in the future, and the two which have prevented them for the past sixty years, are effective international laws and organizations, and the power of the atomic bomb to make all victories Pyrrhic in nature. if these two factors remain constant, we may avoid total war, but the virtues of democracy have little to do with this. Democracies who do not have access to the atomic bomb, or do not have access to many atomic bombs, will probably continue to wage war against one another for economic rights to resources and spheres of political influence.
The united states had gone to great lengths to keep civilian casualties low, but the motive behind this was probably more along the lines of minimizing hostile feeling among the Iraqis to our new regime and minimizing criticism at home and abroad, not idealistic feelings in regard to human life. Many empires have shown such restraint in the past. Concern over international opinion is not localized in democracies. Look to the Brits in the Boer war, Rome in the occupation of Greece and any show of mercy by conquerors. This does not change the fact that total wars will occur.

Hmm...I find this particular thread between Nobodywanttolearn and everybody else very interesting. It seems to me that our Deutsch friend is using a very familiar German trick with a new twist. If you'll all recall, Hitler accused his neighbors of "aggression" as an excuse to attack them. Nobody would tell us that that is what President Bush is doing, all the while doing the same himself. "we (the EU) will be there to stop US aggression"

From what??!?! Taking over Europe? Like anybody would want it! America has the power to turn the majority of this world into a parking lot. The fact that it hasn't says more about our character than any argument that we could make, or that the Eurosnob elitists would ever admit.

June16, I'm not sure on that analysis. Isreal, for one, came within days, if not hours, of extinction in both 1948 and 1973.
"On the Golan Heights, approximately 180 Israeli tanks faced an onslaught of 1,400 Syrian tanks. Along the Suez Canal, fewer than 500 Israeli defenders were attacked by 80,000 Egyptians."
Yom Kippur War
http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/73_War.html

You will note the UN was strangely silent until the moment Israel turned the tide and began taking Arab territory. Surely a coincidence.

You are correct, of course, that the acknowledgment of a nuclear deterrent has prevented any nation, democratic or otherwise, from being removed from the map that posessed such weapons. In all seriousness, can anyone imagine a war between France and the US, on a purely pragmatic ground. It would mean certain destruction for one side, and such a horrible result for the other as to make 'victory' a sick joke. As much bad press as nuclear weapons have received, they have very likely prevented a WW3 of such horror as to hardly be imagined.

You're right mark, Israel's existence has been threatened before. i apologize for overlooking that. and when it was threatened, Israel used all force at it's disposal to throw back the invaders. they bombed infrastrucure in epypt and attacked the egyptian army in the field with everything they had. the figures you gave, while true, are misleading though. those are the numbers of Israeli untis positioned on the frontier when Israel's borders were violated. they do not include the bulk of Israel's army which was called into action with little delay.
this is exactly the point i was getting at though. Democracies will use force just as often and with just as much will as other regimes.

June 16 has a good point, the bomb has eliminated direct confrontations between nuclear powers --- forcing those who would attack them to resort to proxy war. If the US and the Soviets could hold back from the brink during the Cold War, then anyone can. Certainly no nuclear democracies will fight each other directly again.

I wonder how many of the attacks on the US and GB forces in Iraq represent proxy attacks from Syria and Iran?

Im not willing to say that no nuclear powers will fight each other directly. Progressive democratic states almost certainly will not, because it is much more unlikely that so many people could be made to go along with such a scenario. The catch is that tyrant states are not run like that. Basically it takes only the will of a small number, or one, individual who has little remorse for the masses that will suffer the horrors. History has shown that these men can indeed be quite mad. That is the reason that non-democracries having nukes is far more disturbing, and the reason that when doves compare the US possession of WMD to Iraq or Iran it is a silly game of rhetoric. Serious people understand the difference, and the danger of such weapons in the hands of the worlds worst butchers.

Wolf, ever the reader on war strategies(he never seems to read novels like most people, only field manuals and the like) once loaned me a book written by an Indian general named, I think, Palit, that analyzed the 1973 war.
The Israelis were f*****g brilliant. They started out getting a sound butt kicking and looked like they were about to lose their country, then Golda Meir said, "The road that leads from Damascus to Tel Aviv also leads from Tel Aviv to Damascus" and next thing you know it, the whole thing turned around. It demonstrated that size(the short lived United Arab Republic) of a military force is not always a match for tactical(the IDF) superiority.
The IDF "handily" ran the Syrians off the Golan and mounted Operation Gazelle, which cut off the Egyptians' 1st Army in Israel without supply lines and landed IDF forces on Egyptian soil, which pretty much let Egypt and Syria know exactly where they stood in the scheme of things.
If I can find the book, I'll post the title in case anyone's interested in reading it.

It's all right, Sofia. The armchair heroes who hang out here really do believe thqat US armed might can solve every problem out there. It can't -- a lesson we are now learning in spades, so to speak. We went into the war on a total fabrication -- WMDs and a "terrorist connection to al Qaeda" -- and neither one has panned out. There is no indication that either one is going to -- except for those who drone on endlessly about how we're going to prove everything -- just any day now. SURE we will! But in the meantime, the "beaten" Iraqis don't seem to realize it, whatever "intervention" we claimed to have made with international terrorism doesn't seem to have accomplished much because of our war in Iraq. Afghanistan and Pakistan have somehow escaped our attention -- and that always was where the real action occurred.
Realists are starting to see the picture more clearly. More than half of the public now seems to grasp that the administration pretty much made up that stuff about WMDs, and that al Qaeda wasn't ever based in Baghdad. We just have to give things time to show their true face. Winning the war was always going to be easy. We never did have a clear idea of what would happen later. Still don't.

Doc, dont confuse whatever you are peddling with realism. Its a popular pose nowadays to grab from the left and from the right to try to make your point. Needless to say it falls apart in the middle. Either there is a threat from WMD or there isnt. In the long term there is, period. Hussein made a living of fabricating these things, plus he had a history of working with intl terrorists, no-one can dispute that. We have killed a scorpion. Maybe he wasnt as far in our shoe as we feared, but he is dead.

Quickfast -- contact the Department of Defense. They have $25 million waiting for you. There has been precisely no evidence of weapons of mass destruction and no vidence of a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda. That's "realism" in a nutshell. Whatever frequency you are monitoring is apparently on a channel not of this universe.

doc! And...just which planetER are you operating in, doc? Uranus? Get it? Ignore facts if you wish, but there is 'vidence' of both WMD and terrorist connections. Which alternate reality are you living in? Which planet are you from? OH, THAT'S RIGHT! We already determining where you're at... Did you just hear a loud POP? That was the sound of your head bein' extracted...

;; This buffer is for notes you don't want to save, and for Lisp evaluation.
;; If you want to create a file, first visit that file with C-x C-f,
;; then enter the text in that file's own buffer.

Trouble -- I as an American I want Europe to prosper since, philosophically, this is the desire of a free society.

Regarding your comments about underestimating Europe and future military power, well frankly, you don't seem to get it. I will be ALL TOO HAPPY when Europe beefs up their military and FINALLY starts contributing their fair share to the cost of maintaining world security. When a million people were slaughtered in Rwanda over 3 months, France intervened ON THE SIDE OF THE KILLERS. Yugoslavia disintigrated while Europe stood by, and then we have the idle hand-sitting in Bosnia and Kosovo. Many Americans are sick of cleaning up the world's messes especially when they are in YOUR BACK YARD. Maybe if Americans didn't have to foot the bill around the world, we could spend as much on education and universal health care as Europe, not to mention a standard 6 weeks of vacation per year.

Mark Buehner-- The UN has approved military action only TWICE in its entire history. By your logic, ALL other military action in the past 50 years is illegitimate.

Your complaint about the US acting unilaterally without UN approval is ridiculous. Did the UN approve of France in Sierra Leone? The EU foreign ministers just issued a policy statement last month about dealing with proliferation of biological and chemical weapons including the assertion that UN APPROVAL IS NOT NECESSARY for any EU nation to take such military action. How is that for backpedalling?

Mark-- you also stated, "There has been precisely ... no evidence of a connection between Iraq and al Qaeda." You are simply wrong. Aside from the Ansar al Islam group in Iraq, there is a connection to al Qaeda. I suggest you read "IS IRAQ OUTSOURCING VIOLENCE?" 3/24 WALL ST. JOURNAL. It describes the case of Abdul Karim Jassim Bidawi, who upon his arrest in the Phillipines began eating the memory chip from his cell phone. Obtained from the chip were the names of 9 suspected Iraqi intelligence agents and ties to Iraqi diplomats including one the Phillipines had expelled from the country for his work with Abu Sayyaf. Some of the numbers also just happened to be on another cell phone recovered by Zamboanga authorities last October. Where did that phone come from? It was wired to a bomb in a catholic shrine which failed to detonate.

Among his terrorist activities, Bidawi was involved in the plot to blow up several transpacific flights in the 90's and assassinate the Pope, both conceived by al Qaeda leader Khalid Shaikh Mohammed. KSM, as you know, is also the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks, and his nephew Ramzi Yousef was convicted for the 93 WTC bombing. This means we have Hussein controlling Iraqi diplomats and Iraqi agents who work with Bidawi who answers to the 9/11 mastermind, KSM. So can you really be sure there's no connection between Iraq and al Qaeda? Connections among terrorists are complicated, but this is exactly the kind of "connecting the dots" people complained the CIA wasn't doing in 2001.

RG
Providence

P.S. I was astonished by last week's banter between Italy and Germany over the NAZI insults. It seems it's OK for Europeans to say Bush is "Hitler" every time they speak, but to call a German a NAZI is unforgiveable.