REPORT: Germany ‘Annexing’ Dutch Military As Secretive EU Army Begins To Take Shape

there’s always that other side of the coin

Your Washington quote was an attempt to make it sound like he wanted America to be a warlike nation. He was speaking defensively when he mentioned “ready for war”. He disliked standing armies. He wanted America to be dangerous to attack, not to roam the world looking for fights. He would have been horrified that America was fighting the entire middle east and forming deep friendships with Arab despots and European oligarchs.
Here is some of what he said in his farewell address. And it dovetails in well with all of the founders. All of them warned against foreign, (especially European) entanglements. All of them warned against going abroad looking for dragons to slay.
The saw wars of defense and nothing else as good for America. Our prosperity was their main concern and defense only to the point of ensuring that. They never wanted to spread their political power and influence abroad

“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop. Europe has a set of primary interests which to us have none; or a very remote relation. Hence she must be engaged in frequent controversies, the causes of which are essentially foreign to our concerns. Hence, therefore, it must be unwise in us to implicate ourselves by artificial ties in the ordinary vicissitudes of her politics, or the ordinary combinations and collisions of her friendships or enmities.

Our detached and distant situation invites and enables us to pursue a different course. If we remain one people under an efficient government. the period is not far off when we may defy material injury from external annoyance; when we may take such an attitude as will cause the neutrality we may at any time resolve upon to be scrupulously respected; when belligerent nations, under the impossibility of making acquisitions upon us, will not lightly hazard the giving us provocation; when we may choose peace or war, as our interest, guided by justice, shall counsel.

Why forego the advantages of so peculiar a situation? Why quit our own to stand upon foreign ground? Why, by interweaving our destiny with that of any part of Europe, entangle our peace and prosperity in the toils of European ambition, rivalship, interest, humor or caprice?

It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world; so far, I mean, as we are now at liberty to do it; for let me not be understood as capable of patronizing infidelity to existing engagements. I hold the maxim no less applicable to public than to private affairs, that honesty is always the best policy. I repeat it, therefore, let those engagements be observed in their genuine sense. But, in my opinion, it is unnecessary and would be unwise to extend them. “

...Remember, if the USA steps back as world policeman, it means that someone else steps forward, and the EU is not very freedom-minded.

It is not a given that someone else will step forward.

As I understand it, when the pax Romana petered out, the western world sank into the dark ages. The real reason being that there was no longer a strong leader keeping social order throughout the region. It is perfectly possible that this scenario could repeat, but with the entire world this time, not just Europe.

“The real reason being that there was no longer a strong leader keeping social order throughout the region. It is perfectly possible that this scenario could repeat, but with the entire world this time, not just Europe.”

The difference is that there is no Pax American. It is now constant war with no end in sight, and no social order being enforced. We now roam the world undermining social order. The only place that attacked us 9/11 was Saudis funding a terror group based in Afghanistan.
So we attack everywhere else in the middle east and leave the Saudis alone.
Something insane is going on. Everywhere we have attacked is worse after we have become involved. In 2000 I could be a tourist in Egypt and Libya in safety. I could see Palmyra in Syria. I could have walked the streets of Kiev. A bit more adventurous of a person could have visited Afghanistan and Iraq.

We aren’t enforcing social order.

How is it “not a given”?

What is Red China’s present expansionism about? or Iran’s? Those are the centers of two different permutations of world-domination philosophy. From the beginning of the European Union, its founders always wanted it to be a “third power” to challenge both the US and Russia, too.

The dark ages were a far different era technologically; notwithstanding, it was characterized by steady Islamic expansionism.

Don’t forget the 34th Landstorm Nederland Division - a hybrid of SS and regular Dutch solders. And there were Dutch in the 5th SS Wiking and the 11th SS Nordland.

The Dutch contribution to the German war effort shouldn’t be understated.

I guess it depends on what freedoms the rater thinks are important. I call BS on these freedom numbers. I don’t think you are allowed to own weapons or use them for self defense in Germany, France or many other countries rated higher than us. You can likely use whatever bathroom you want to though.

The Bundesrepublik, nevertheless, came in at a respectable 16th place,

The Government allows a free press because it is a tame press. Look how the institutional press has been a cheerleader for the Islamic Takeover, allowing the government to concentrate on suppressing the 'unofficial' media.

German and Dutch languages are fairly closely related, although the spelling is quite different.

I can read German fairly well, but not Dutch.

I can’t see an EU Army as much of a threat.

I just came from France. Only about 10% of Parisians speak English well enough for it to be useful.

I was in Paris yesterday, the French security forces seem to be well-run and their people dedicated. The French are ready to deal promptly with any nasty business.

None of them ever uttered the phrase “foreign entanglements”. Washington’s farewell address was no different; he was warning against being politically tied with Europe after becoming independent, and not (as Obama has done) break vital alliances for bad reasons, i.e. stab allies in the back.

It is only liberals that accuse the USA of “roaming the world looking for fights”. Especially anti-Israel liberals that accuse the USA of doing Israel’s fighting for it. On the other hand, I never sanction what Clinton did on the EU’s behalf in the Balkans. The expansionism of other powers is a problem, and letting them do so is not in our interest.

We would have had no need for a Monroe Doctrine if it were ever feasible that we would have no interactions with foreign powers and ever had the luxury of fighting only defensively. Take note that Kerry’s declaring the same “dead” has invited expansionism from both Europe and East Asia into Central and South America.

What’s on the other side?