"...It’s the European argument today: just as the 20th century belonged to America, so the 21st will belong to Europe, a Europe that cannot – and, indeed, disdains to – compete with the Yanks in “aggression” (military capability) or “materialism” (capitalism red in tooth and claw), and so has devised a better way. We’ve all had a grand old time these last few weeks watching M Chirac demonstrate his mastery of “the arts of peace” and his “lofty moral character”, but it would perhaps be fairer to choose a more representative Euro-grandee to articulate the EUtopian vision. Step forward Finnish Prime Minister Paavo Lipponen, who said in London last year that “the EU must not develop into a military superpower but must become a great power that will not take up arms at any occasion in order to defend its own interests.” No doubt it sounds better in Finnish.
ROFLMAO...FReedom is what makes America great, and the EuroWeenies and their mini-socialism refuse to grant that freedom to their citizenry to the same extent that our Constitution does.
"Nonetheless, like the Canadians a century ago, the Europeans are claiming that the old rules no longer apply, that they’ve been supplanted by new measures of power, not least the “greatness of institutions” (EU, UN, ICC, etc). And, like the Canadians, the Europeans are doomed to disappointment. ... But that’s by the by. What the world – or, at any rate, “old Europe” – wants to know is: what will it take to nobble the Yanks? Or, to be more accurate, what will it take for the Yanks to nobble themselves? The corollary to the Euro-Canadian redefinition of “great power” is that a lone cowboy who sticks to tired concepts like guns’n’ammo is bound to come a cropper. As Matthew Parris put it last week, “we should ask whether America does have the armies, the weaponry, the funds, the economic clout and the democratic staying power to carry all before her in the century ahead. How many wars on how many fronts could she sustain at once? How much fighting can she fund? How much does she need to export? Is she really unchallenged by any other economic bloc?”
The only thing that can really destroy America is the Lib'rals and the RINOs continuing to undermine our Constitutional Republic with an ever-expanding--despite Constitutional prohibitions--Federal Leviathan!! The more we become like the EuroWeenies, the more likely our society will fail of its own weight!!
My colleague is falling prey to theories of “imperial overstretch”. But, if you’re not imperial, it’s quite difficult to get overstretched. By comparison with 19th century empires, the Americans travel light. More to the point, their most obvious “overstretch” is in their historically unprecedented generosity to putative rivals: unlike traditional imperialists, they garrison not remote ramshackle colonies but their wealthiest allies. The US picks up the defence tab for Europe, Japan, South Korea and Saudi Arabia, among others. As Americans have learned in the last 18 months, absolving wealthy nations of the need to maintain their own armies does not pay off in the long run. This overstretch is over. If Bush wins a second term, the boys will be coming home from South Korea and Germany, and maybe Japan, too. So the EU will begin the second decade of the century with an excellent opportunity to test Mr Lipponen’s theory: it can either will the means to maintain a credible defence, or it can try to live as the first “superpower” with no means of defence. In other words, the first victim of American overstretch will not be America but Europe."
BINGO...MUD
BTW..."I doubt the Continentals of a decade hence will be in any mood to increase defence spending. For all M de Villepin’s dreams of Napoleonic glory, his generation of French politicians will spend the rest of their lives managing decline. By 2050, there will be 100 million more Americans, 100 million fewer Europeans. The US fertility rate is 2.1 children per couple, in Europe it’s 1.4. Demography is not necessarily destiny, and certainly not inevitable disaster. But it will be for Europe, because the 20th century Continental welfare state was built on a careless model that requires a constantly growing population to sustain it."
Of course, America has its own problems with a carelessly-over-promising welfare state, but we'll eventually gin up the political will to deal with it!!
I'm ashamed to say your optimism surpasses mine. My confidence in the American electorate continues to wane. I had a talk this evening with a couple of yellow dog Dims in an effort to enlighten. They absolutely do not want to hear hard evidence against the dark side nor the gospel according to FGS concerning the good guys. They are unashamedly nanny-staters. How does one combat hard core naivete? Frustrating my man.
FGS