I can't believe this has not been brought up here yet. This is a good day.

Let freedom ring. (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,123961,00.html)

"We feel we are capable of controlling the security situation."

:rollin

We feel we are capable of controlling the security situation


Good, handle it then. Let's bring our troops home.

Ya. We did it 2 days early why?
Whats the say about the stability.

Situation Normal: All Fucked Up (SNAFU)

Good, handle it then. Let's bring our troops home.
Amen

Actually, that was - for once - a smart move.

Definately two fingers up to the, most likely, planned terrorist attacks on June 30th.

Was funny watching both Bush and Blair getting erections in the NATO meeting, though.

Was funny watching both Bush and Blair getting erections in the NATO meeting, though.


They knew you were watching.

Just a sidemark: freedom rings when the countrywide elections are done. Until that, this is nothing to do with democracy. (still a good thing, tho).

I wonder if this step will prevent further rebellions and terror attacks in Iraq.

OMG Bush and Blair were happy about it? How dare they, what evil men.

The funny thing is that the people who claim to be for the Iraqi's are not happy when things get better over there.

Show me the [thing] that got better by handing over the authority to a non-elected government. They still blowing up soldiers and civils there.

lamascsi = most annoying fuck on AR.

Good, handle it then. Let's bring our troops home.
Start by taking back the ones you left in Europe after WW2 methinks. :mad:

Start by taking back the ones you left in Europe after WW2 methinks. :mad:

Ungrateful little sob aren't you?

Start by taking back the ones you left in Europe after WW2 methinks. :mad:
Kinda makes you wonder...

How much longer would it take before those that requested a removal left a message on the answering machine:

"Um...America...damn...well...about the whole "get your troops out of our countries" thing...see...we're facing annihilation once again, so could you maybe...y'know, if you're in the mood...loan us a few guys? I mean, I know when they used to be here they weren't doing anything but securing our nations, but we didn't appreciate that at the time. Anyway, call us back! We miss you after all."

--Cen

Dear France,

Sorry for having to rely on you to achieve independence. Damn those taxes.

Much love and appreciation, 13 colonies (soon to be a lot more once we sweep those natives away and kick the Mexicans out).

(soon to be a lot more once we sweep those natives away and kick the Mexicans out).Damn right!

And now they're all coming back. :(

--Cen

Damn right!

And now they're all coming back. :(

--Cen
What, the natives? Have they secretly erected DNA-purification facilities and bred a clone army to combat the evil invading lonknives at long last?

Start by taking back the ones you left in Europe after WW2 methinks.
Are you for real? Too bad we didn't stay out long enough so the Nazis coulda kept your stupid ass out of the gene pool. Twit.

Dear America;

Let me first express our gratitude for the sacrifices your grand-grandparents made for ours in their moment of need. We good Europeans, have since made significant amends, to the point that this land and its people are unlikely to start killing each other anytime soon (British excluded). Also, the once dangerous Russian bear has now been tamed and is now a guest in Berlin's zoo.

So you see, we have no need for the large standing army you left behind quite a looooooooooooooooong time ago.

Time to go back to Kansas, because after all, there is no place like home, right?

ps. Please mind your own business and stop telling us who we should invite into the EU. Inviting eastern European countries in so soon was enough of a mistake as it is. For the last time; TURKEY IS NOT IN EUROPE!!!!!!!

'and its people are unlikely to start killing each other anytime soon (British excluded)...'

- You're an idiot sometimes.
And people not likely to kill eachother?
What do you call the Balklans right now, A Happy Place To Live? Europa at her best, perhaps?
There will always be trouble in Europe, and everywhere else. Sure, we could cope perfectly fine in Europe now, but to suggest that trouble will never end.. is stupid. Just because mighty Olde Europe are sucking eachother's cock lately, doesn't mean the rest are obliged, or will be forever.

'Also, the once dangerous Russian bear has now been tamed and is now a guest in Berlin's zoo.'

- Lol very true :D

'Please mind your own business and stop telling us who we should invite into the EU. Inviting eastern European countries in so soon was enough of a mistake as it is. For the last time; TURKEY IS NOT IN EUROPE!!!!!!!'

- Amen. EU exlusion or inclusion is for the member states to decide, not a country a few thousand miles away. It's not some sponsorship, where you strike up good diplomatic ties with a country so "nominate" them for membership. It's a shame Chirac was standing alone on telling Bush to shut the fuck up.
Inviting the Eastern European countries, though, is not a mistake. It is a step that needed to be taken. And in time, it will both improve their situation, economically and internationally, and will surely improve ours. What is a European Union, if it's a union of just the Western nations?

And, well, part of Turkey is in Europe. Part of it used to be the powerhouse of a European empire. I'm still undecided though, on its membership. But it's nothing more than a geographical question. If not for its mass being planted in Asia Minor, than it would make for a very good member, I believe.

Lin.

Maybe if Europe was able to act independantly in Bosnia you would have a point. But you dont because once genocide started happening, why did Europe standby (again) and leave it up to America to take the inititative to intervene.

Only the British had the balls to do ANYTHING until America finally said, Ok, enough, we will take leadership.
The situation was used by European nations to jockey for political leadership and try to gain power, they were unable to present a unified front without being lead to it, the bickering and infighting lead to inaction, while the ethnic cleansing and the rape camps continued to operate in your backyard Lin.
Nothing was learned from World War 1
Nothing was learned from World War 2

You better pray to God you never get your wish Lin

that this land and its people are unlikely to start killing each other anytime soon (British excluded).

France has made up for it in scores elsewhere, so they get a golfclap for at least learning to shit on other people's lawns. The Balkans are still the seriously fucked up place it was in 1914. The Russian threat, while quite diminished, still exists. There is no particular reason to believe that if a radical Islamic regime got their hands on actual industry that they would not aggressively invade other territories, possibly into Europe (see Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt).

Moreover, most of the US military forces in Europe are there by invitation. If you really want American troops out of Europe, I suggest you try to get your states to disband from NATO. Good luck, though.

I can't see how people are upset about having the ultimate insurance policy against ever being threatened. No one is going to go to war with any major European power ever again precisely because the US and Britain are obligated to assist in their defense (the means of which will be reducing the offensive capacity of the aggressor to 0).

--

Incidently, regardless of whether or not you agree with invading Iraq in the first place (it's largely a moot issue at this point), it's naive to believe the US will not leave a sizable contigent of troops on station there for the indefinite future since that has been proven to be such an effective deterent over the years. A rarely mentioned but significant factor in the Iraqi regime change is the opportunity to get US assets the hell out of Saudi Arabia. I haven't really kept up with official Saudi response to the whole situation, but I'll bet they're none too happy about their future of being politically expendable.

'There is no particular reason to believe that if a radical Islamic regime got their hands on actual industry that they would not aggressively invade other territories, possibly into Europe (see Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt).'

- ROFLMAO!!! Oh my god. Get a grip on yourself.
And I thought American paranoia was actually cooling off a bit these days.

Examples of Islamic states that have staged invasions in the last 50 years is paranoia? Paranoia is "I'm never going to Europe because the ISLAMIC HORDE may invade!" Looking at potential threats based on past behavior is called planning. It's not exactly far fetched that a currently non-industrial nation with large oil reserves could transform itself into an industrial power in a decade or two, since significantly less advantaged nations have in the past.

The suggestion that either of those states, or other islamic states, could invade Europe or any of its members is laughable, if you weren't being so tragically serious.

Most of those suggested are being used by you on the basis of their participation in the Six Day War, a set of circumstances so fixed in a context, it couldn't possibly be used to justify spontaneous aggression against other countries besides, well, Israel.


OH NOZ, THE ARABS R COMIN!11

I for one would welcome an assault on Europe, by any nation. It's the last step we'd need to unify under one banner and produce a political and military behemoth.

That is, until the Tower of Babalon came crashing down from internal differences once again Eh Kiv?


What dahell is up with my title btw?;P

Fandros

Hey you know how it works Fan. As long as we profit more from being unified, it'll work out. Sure it'll be messy for the first twenty years or so but by then people will have realized how much oomph we have with a unified military behind EU politics.

As far as I'm concerned, the only problems we'd have would be to keep the US from lobbying the concept to a grinding halt. Because you know you would.

And your title is one of the new automated ones.

Europeans probably don't have to worry about a literal army of Arabs storming the gates, but you'd be foolish to think that radical Islam doesn't pose a serious threat to you as well.

American influence means you all have to put up with McDonald's and the rest of our "wonderful" culture - but that's a heck of a lot better than putting up with sharia law. Maybe the EU will develop its own identity, something different from both - but that's not currently happening.

Aye. Europe has no culture.


ROFL!

You have no idea what terrorists could pull off till you see a jet collide with a building... I'll never forget that day coming off my first deployment from the gulf. Don't under estimate political and religious fanatics, they view the world much different from you and I. As for conditions in Iraq they are much better, go back to your whining and complaining and leave the real work for the big boys.

Eriol...!

ps. Please mind your own business and stop telling us who we should invite into the EU. Inviting eastern European countries in so soon was enough of a mistake as it is. For the last time; TURKEY IS NOT IN EUROPE!!!!!!!
I tell you what Lin, when you Euros can keep your opinions to yourself about US politics we'll gladly stop telling you ours about the EU(SSR).

Frankly, the fact that none of you Euros were particularly troubled when Chirac was telling nations to shut up or else put their EU memberships in danger is kind of worrisome.

Oh, and Turkey is indeed in Europe..thanks for showcasing the failures of a European education.

Actually, no. Only the Turkish lands West of the Bosphorus is considered part of Europe (Thrace). The rest (Anatolia) is placed in Asia/Minor.

Thanks for show-casing American ignorance.

Did I say it was completely in Europe?

No?

Thank you for show-casing Euro ignorance.

This is a reply to several people. Take offense where offense is due, and at least think some about if its you I'm verbally trying to rape.

BEGIN RANT---
Please Crist0, humor us, tell us how many percent of Turkey's area resides in Europe, and how much of it resides in Asia?

They have one city. One. Count 'em, one. One city in Europe, and that makes them "european"? With their cultural heritage, America is more european. At least you have a european language as your official language. Turkey is far more arabic than european in nature.

As for terrorists being a threat to europe? Most definately. Although anyone believing Europe is "something that resides between the US and the middle-east" is a fucking flaming retard. Think your culture is what stands between us and "sharia law"? Take a hike bozo. We founded your culture. How's that on the scale of things? What, you think we're fucking defenseless over here? I'll take Germany over any fricking aircraft carrier when it comes to winning battles. Remember WW1? WW2? Yeah, you bailed us out. From whom? From the fuckers that are now our freaking allies. The guys who nearly conquered a continent. Twice. And held it for over half a decade. With inferior numbers. Fuck, I'll take the germans any day of the week in a fight.

But yes, I did see the jet collide with the building. I stood in front of the TV in my fucking boxershorts almost pissing myself considering what this meant for the world in general, and the US in particular. There's a quote from those days that still rings true. "Today we're all americans". And we were. We mourned your dead. We screamed in outrage. We stood with our heads bowed - all across europe, thinking about the poor people that were victimized in such a brutal manner.

What we disagree with is people like Bush, and his politics. Go figure, think any european (except possibly turkey, go crist0!) would ever strike such a blow to free abortions? You know something? The anti-abortion/pro death penalty attitude is over here considered barbaric. It's considered beneath humanity. That's why we're so "anti-us" (read: bush). If a more competent president would've treated the UN with a little more respect, and more importantly: Knew how to fucking not insult every last living non-american in the world with his pure incompetence, we'd marched by your sides in your "white jihad".

Man. Idiots still piss me the fuck off. Now where's my prozac.

That is what we call in Europe "Le Smack Down".

13minutes for the Halo congradulatory post...you were off by one, L2 !

SHIT!

I misunderestimated the speed at which an english nose travels to a rectum!

SHIT!

I misunderestimated the speed at which an english nose travels to a rectum!
:D :D

Wanna find out how quickly an English foot travels to a rectum?

Remember WW1? WW2? Yeah, you bailed us out. From whom? From the fuckers that are now our freaking allies. The guys who nearly conquered a continent. Twice. And held it for over half a decade. With inferior numbers. Fuck, I'll take the germans any day of the week in a fight.

Didn't you mean:


Erinnern Sie sich an WW1? WW2? Ja, bürgten Sie uns heraus. Von wem? Von den Bumsern, die jetzt unser sind, verbindet. Die halteseile, die fast einen kontinent eroberten. Zweimal. Und gehalten ihm für Überhälfte ein dekade. Mit minderwertigen Zahlen. Scheisse, ich dauert den Deutschen jeden möglichen tag der Woche in einem kampf.

Need to start practicing for when the Germans realize that the Bundeswehr is the only real army left in Europe in 2019 and come back for round 3! :>

Seriously though, even with the combined military power of Britain and Germany, why exactly are Europeans unhappy that their trans-Atlantic NATO allies have long-term defense commitments to their corner of the world?

And what does any of this have to do with Iraq?

Don't under estimate political and religious fanatics, they view the world much different from you and I.

That sums up in a nutshell why I can not vote for Bush again.

Fil

When using the "you'd be speaking German!" analogy, do people forget what exactly English is? Anglo-saxon Germanic language. Helllllo?

Didn't you mean:

Need to start practicing for when the Germans realize that the Bundeswehr is the only real army left in Europe in 2019 and come back for round 3! :>

Seriously though, even with the combined military power of Britain and Germany, why exactly are Europeans unhappy that their trans-Atlantic NATO allies have long-term defense commitments to their corner of the world?

And what does any of this have to do with Iraq?
Iraq? Nothing. Besides the whole concept of why many europeans are agaisnt it. This was a response to european vs us attitudes, and to crist0s "lecturing" on what's european soil and what isn't.
What do I have against you keeping troops on european soil? Nothing. You don't have anything in my country. Hell, we bust your chops if you want to use our air space.

When using the "you'd be speaking German!" analogy, do people forget what exactly English is? Anglo-saxon Germanic language. Helllllo?
Firstly, that's not an analogy. Secondly, I'm well aware English is a Germanic language, which isn't in any way relevant unless you're trying to draw some bizarre conclusion about lingual inheritance.

That was an abysmally weak attempt at a comeback. Just let Kiv do the talking for you.

Please Crist0, humor us, tell us how many percent of Turkey's area resides in Europe, and how much of it resides in Asia?

They have one city. One. Count 'em, one.

Uh...maybe YOU should count em? There are 3 Turkish cities in Europe with a population over 100,000, including the largest Istanbul which is home to 15% of the country's total population(there are more Turks living in that one European city than your country's entire population Kivorn).

3% of Turkey is in Europe.

In other words, TURKEY IS IN EUROPE, even if only a part of it. Russia has only a portion of its land in Europe...do you deny they are a part of it too?

Shit, is Denmark part of Europe Kivorn?

If you count their territories less than 1% of Denmark's land is in Europe.

Halo, if "Le Smack Down" means getting totally owned on facts then yes, Kivorn just did that.

Shit, is Denmark part of Europe Kivorn?
The jury's out on that one. Sure, actually I believe there's 4 "major" cities on European soil as far as Turkey is concerned. I could be wrong though. I'm no expert.

But this, is what people know, believe, and hold true:
http://wonderclub.com/Atlas/tr__725.htm
Istanbul. The only part that matters.

Its like... no offense guys. But we really don't care about anything besides istanbul, and that's what we'll base our arguments on. Ignorant? Probably.

'I'm well aware English is a Germanic language, which isn't in any way relevant unless you're trying to draw some bizarre conclusion about lingual inheritance.'

- I'm sorry, English being a Germanic language isn't relevent when somebody's trying to mount an insult on us speaking German if it weren't for the mighty Yanks?
What could be more relevant?


'That was an abysmally weak attempt at a comeback. Just let Kiv do the talking for you.'

- I actually like to do the talking myself. I'll reverse that one on you, though. Why don't you do some actual talking, instead of taking painfully weak punches inbetween Crist0 and the Right Yank Gang spouting their mouths off?

Halo greatly fears the m0nkey man. Don't make me sic him on ya Halo!

http://home.comcast.net/~lightloch/Monkey_small.jpg

I'm sorry, English being a Germanic language isn't relevent when somebody's trying to mount an insult on us speaking German if it weren't for the mighty Yanks?
What could be more relevant?
I'm sorry, I seem to have mistaken you for someone that could read. I made a joke about Kiv exalting the virtues of Germany's military strength. You utterly failed to make a comeback that fully exposed your lack of understanding of lingual structures (most students learn what an analogy is by their early teens.)

So in response to "What could be more relevant," quite likely nothing you're going to say.

But we really don't care about anything besides istanbul, and that's what we'll base our arguments on. Ignorant? Probably.

/shrug

The first step is admitting you have a problem I guess.

Seriously though, even with the combined military power of Britain and Germany, why exactly are Europeans unhappy that their trans-Atlantic NATO allies have long-term defense commitments to their corner of the world?
I dont know how people in western countrys think about it, but after having soviet troops in my country for 45 years, and before that german troops for 2+ years, I seriously think we need some time to enjoy our freedom and wait with the invitation of the next army ;)

And about Turkey:

It is pretty dangerous to get them into the EU. It is an arabic state, with islam being their main religion. They had death sentence and some other undemocratic laws live until the very recent days. They have serious issues with the greeks and with the kurds. I do not wonder if the EU first wants to make sure Turkey accepts the ruleset at mentality of the EU 100% before getting it in. And this is a question when GWB has 0% competency...

Death sentence an undemocratic law? Not in some circumstances.

The EU charter prevents any state from becoming a member until it has met certain requirements. Turkey fails on several levels on everything from healthcare to the persecution of their kurdic minority to their inhumane treatment of their prisoners, the list goes on. Imbedded in that list is the abolishment of the Death Penalty. Unless they abolish the death penalty they won't get in, simple as that.

There are no other answers to a seriel murderer than Death.

Tho I agree on the other points. Turkey has far too much instability to join any larger union.

Fandros

It is pretty dangerous to get them into the EU. It is an arabic state, with islam being their main religion.

Now that's a statement oozing racism and prejudice.

I thought you Euros were supposed to be enlightened and beyond all that?


The EU charter prevents any state from becoming a member until it has met certain requirements.

Yes, the EU likes to force changes to things that go far and away beyond economic issues, from making them institute socialism into healthcare(as you mentioned) to telling them how to run their criminal justice systems.

Long live the European Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Comrade!

Death sentence an undemocratic law? Not in some circumstances.democracy isnt an issue of 'circumstances'. democracy' advantage over other form of ruling is that it (should be) is objective. For me a death penalty isnt adjusted to democratic countrys law because you can not say 'sorry we were wrong' later on. Of course it doesnt make US less democratic country as the real meaning of democracy, its just me who thinks the 2 things r related.

'There are no other answers to a seriel murderer than Death.'

- So, the guy who takes it upon himself to kill others, is then killed by a state who takes it upon themselves to kill the killers.

Are you just...not seeing the irony, here?

On the one hand, you're trying to stress that killing is wrong. And you do this by...killing.

Wake up, the civilized world has abolished the death penalty... FOR A REASON.

There are no other answers to a seriel murderer than Death.

Tho I agree on the other points. Turkey has far too much instability to join any larger union.

Fandros
i do agree, anyone killing a person for selfish reasons (not like selfdefense, etc) deserves death. But on the other hand there is always a chance for mistakes especially on the field of law, and the risk ofexecution of 1 innocent man doesnt worth the right to execute 1000 who deserved.

turkey is a hard question. there are pros and contras to get it into the EU. What is sure, its not the business of GWB, as it is not ours to ask you to take Mexico as a US state.

I'm sorry Halo, but I don't count the Euro's as anymore civ than us backwoods Americans.

We just have less tolerance for bullshit, and providing room and board for someone who's taken it upon themselves to erase another human being isn't something I'm willing to do anymore.

It's too damn expensive and too weakneed for my liking.

Fandros

ya so they can get out of jail and kill again (which happens quite often). Ill take the civilization I live in.

Now that's a statement oozing racism and prejudice.

I thought you Euros were supposed to be enlightened and beyond all that?
i dont think you know what racism and prejudice means than. it is dangerous because vast part of the population supports ideology and organization, which doesnt accept the basic ideology and mentality of the EU'S (and it's member's, seperately) constitution, like multiculturality (does that word exist? :)) democracy, and so on. And meanwhile we do not intervene while they practice their ideology in their country...it is their right to do, we do surely do not want a country into the community, which has a chance to change into a leadership that can't cooperate with the another 25 members. Its not racism, this did applied to my country for the last 14 years, it did apply to Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia until the very recent days, and it still does apply to Ukraine, Belorussia, and Russia itself. It was not good to hear that for years, but it was right to see if the new society model works well in the recently joined countries, and i think it was still a bit too early to accept all the 10 new members. Turkey have done much in the recenty years, but they still have to do much.


Yes, the EU likes to force changes to things that go far and away beyond economic issues, from making them institute socialism into healthcare(as you mentioned) to telling them how to run their criminal justice systems.

Long live the European Union of Soviet Socialist Republics Comrade!
Crist0, your stupid demagogue and ignorance is unbelievable. Obviously you have no idea what the USSR was about if you pull any paralelity between the EU and Soviet comrades...EU is of course not only about economy for some decades now, sorry if you missed it and havent refreshed your knowledge since the secondary school. (sidemark: for economic cooperation you do not need an union with independent decision-making structure) EU still grants the freedom of choice to it's members governments in many important (very important) cases, like foreign policy, military, many economy, institutional and yes, healtcare questions. To tell you the truth the decision which are made in the EU and the local governments is still around the 20-80% to the localgovernments, and the more important ones are in the 80%. We have to start somewhere :)

ya so they can get out of jail and kill again (which happens quite often). Ill take the civilization I live in.The question is: Why can they get out?


edit: fix based jeopardy' lecture :)

Crist0, the EU has surpassed its predecessor the ECU. It's no longer about free trade cooperation. It's about tying European nations closer to one another.

Or like their own site says:

The European Union (EU) is a family of democratic European countries, committed to working together for peace and prosperity. It is not a State intended to replace existing states, but it is more than any other international organisation. The EU is, in fact, unique. Its Member States have set up common institutions to which they delegate some of their sovereignty so that decisions on specific matters of joint interest can be made democratically at European level.This pooling of sovereignty is also called "European integration".

As far as Turkey's concerned, if they want to join us they might as well think of us as The Borg.

The question is: Why they can get out? No, I think the question is: Why can they get out? :p

Understanding the EU 101, chapter 1





By Robert Cooper. Source: Re-Ordering the World

In 1989 the political systems of three centuries came to an end in Europe: the balance-of-power and the imperial urge. That year marked not just the end of the Cold War, but also, and more significantly, the end of a state system in Europe which dated from the Thirty Years War. September 11 showed us one of the implications of the change.

To understand the present, we must first understand the past, for the past is still with us. International order used to be based either on hegemony or on balance. Hegemony came first. In the ancient world, order meant empire. Those within the empire had order, culture and civilisation. Outside it lay barbarians, chaos and disorder. The image of peace and order through a single hegemonic power centre has remained strong ever since. Empires, however, are ill-designed for promoting change. Holding the empire together - and it is the essence of empires that they are diverse - usually requires an authoritarian political style; innovation, especially in society and politics, would lead to instability. Historically, empires have generally been static.

In Europe, a middle way was found between the stasis of chaos and the stasis of empire, namely the small state. The small state succeeded in establishing sovereignty, but only within a geographically limited jurisdiction. Thus domestic order was purchased at the price of international anarchy. The competition between the small states of Europe was a source of progress, but the system was also constantly threatened by a relapse into chaos on one side and by the hegemony of a single power on the other. The solution to this was the balance-of-power, a system of counter-balancing alliances which became seen as the condition of liberty in Europe. Coalitions were successfully put together to thwart the hegemonic ambitions firstly of Spain, then of France, and finally of Germany.

But the balance-of-power system too had an inherent instability, the ever-present risk of war, and it was this that eventually caused it to collapse. German unification in 1871 created a state too powerful to be balanced by any European alliance; technological changes raised the costs of war to an unbearable level; and the development of mass society and democratic politics, rendered impossible the amoral calculating mindset necessary to make the balance of power system function. Nevertheless, in the absence of any obvious alternative it persisted, and what emerged in 1945 was not so much a new system as the culmination of the old one. The old multi-lateral balance-of-power in Europe became a bilateral balance of terror worldwide, a final simplification of the balance of power. But it was not built to last. The balance of power never suited the more universalistic, moralist spirit of the late twentieth century.

The second half of the twentieth Century has seen not just the end of the balance of power but also the waning of the imperial urge: in some degree the two go together. A world that started the century divided among European empires finishes it with all or almost all of them gone: the Ottoman, German, Austrian, French , British and finally Soviet Empires are now no more than a memory. This leaves us with two new types of state: first there are now states - often former colonies - where in some sense the state has almost ceased to exist a 'premodern' zone where the state has failed and a Hobbesian war of all against all is underway (countries such as Somalia and, until recently, Afghanistan). Second, there are the post imperial, postmodern states who no longer think of security primarily in terms of conquest. And thirdly, of course there remain the traditional "modern" states who behave as states always have, following Machiavellian principles and raison d'état (one thinks of countries such as India, Pakistan and China).

The postmodern system in which we Europeans live does not rely on balance; nor does it emphasise sovereignty or the separation of domestic and foreign affairs. The European Union has become a highly developed system for mutual interference in each other's domestic affairs, right down to beer and sausages. The CFE Treaty, under which parties to the treaty have to notify the location of their heavy weapons and allow inspections, subjects areas close to the core of sovereignty to international constraints. It is important to realise what an extraordinary revolution this is. It mirrors the paradox of the nuclear age, that in order to defend yourself, you had to be prepared to destroy yourself. The shared interest of European countries in avoiding a nuclear catastrophe has proved enough to overcome the normal strategic logic of distrust and concealment. Mutual vulnerability has become mutual transparency.

The main characteristics of the postmodern world are as follows:

· The breaking down of the distinction between domestic and foreign affairs.

· Mutual interference in (traditional) domestic affairs and mutual surveillance.

· The rejection of force for resolving disputes and the consequent codification of self-enforced rules of behaviour.

· The growing irrelevance of borders: this has come about both through the changing role of the state, but also through missiles, motor cars and satellites.

· Security is based on transparency, mutual openness, interdependence and mutual vulnerability.

The conception of an International Criminal Court is a striking example of the postmodern breakdown of the distinction between domestic and foreign affairs. In the postmodern world, raison d'état and the amorality of Machiavelli's theories of statecraft, which defined international relations in the modern era, have been replaced by a moral consciousness that applies to international relations as well as to domestic affairs: hence the renewed interest in what constitutes a just war.

While such a system does deal with the problems that made the balance-of-power unworkable, it does not entail the demise of the nation state. While economy, law-making and defence may be increasingly embedded in international frameworks, and the borders of territory may be less important, identity and democratic institutions remain primarily national. Thus traditional states will remain the fundamental unit of international relations for the foreseeable future, even though some of them may have ceased to behave in traditional ways.

What is the origin of this basic change in the state system? The fundamental point is that 'the world's grown honest' . A large number of the most powerful states no longer want to fight or conquer. It is this that gives rise to both the pre-modern and postmodern worlds. Imperialism in the traditional sense is dead, at least among the Western powers.

If this is true, it follows that we should not think of the EU or even NATO as the root cause of the half century of peace we have enjoyed in Western Europe. The basic fact is that Western European countries no longer want to fight each other. NATO and the EU have, nevertheless, played an important role in reinforcing and sustaining this position. NATO's most valuable contribution has been the openness it has created. NATO was, and is a massive intra-western confidence-building measure. It was NATO and the EU that provided the framework within which Germany could be reunited without posing a threat to the rest of Europe as its original unification had in 1871. Both give rise to thousands of meetings of ministers and officials, so that all those concerned with decisions involving war and peace know each other well. Compared with the past, this represents a quality and stability of political relations never known before.

The EU is the most developed example of a postmodern system. It represents security through transparency, and transparency through interdependence. The EU is more a transnational than a supra-national system, a voluntary association of states rather than the subordination of states to a central power. The dream of a European state is one left from a previous age. It rests on the assumption that nation states are fundamentally dangerous and that the only way to tame the anarchy of nations is to impose hegemony on them. But if the nation-state is a problem then the super-state is certainly not a solution.

European states are not the only members of the postmodern world. Outside Europe, Canada is certainly a postmodern state; Japan is by inclination a postmodern state, but its location prevents it developing more fully in this direction. The USA is the more doubtful case since it is not clear that the US government or Congress accepts either the necessity or desirability of interdependence, or its corollaries of openness, mutual surveillance and mutual interference, to the same extent as most European governments now do. Elsewhere, what in Europe has become a reality is in many other parts of the world an aspiration. ASEAN, NAFTA, MERCOSUR and even OAU suggest at least the desire for a postmodern environment, and though this wish is unlikely to be realised quickly, imitation is undoubtedly easier than invention.

Within the postmodern world, there are no security threats in the traditional sense; that is to say, its members do not consider invading each other. Whereas in the modern world , following Clausewitz' dictum war is an instrument of policy in the postmodern world it is a sign of policy failure. But while the members of the postmodern world may not represent a danger to one another, both the modern and pre-modern zones pose threats. The threat from the modern world is the most familiar. Here, the classical state system, from which the postmodern world has only recently emerged, remains intact, and continues to operate by the principles of empire and the supremacy of national interest. If there is to be stability it will come from a balance among the aggressive forces. It is notable how few are the areas of the world where such a balance exists. And how sharp the risk is that in some areas there may soon be a nuclear element in the equation. The challenge to the postmodern world is to get used to the idea of double standards. Among ourselves, we operate on the basis of laws and open cooperative security. But when dealing with more old-fashioned kinds of states outside the postmodern continent of Europe, we need to revert to the rougher methods of an earlier era - force, pre-emptive attack, deception, whatever is necessary to deal with those who still live in the nineteenth century world of every state for itself. Among ourselves, we keep the law but when we are operating in the jungle, we must also use the laws of the jungle. In the prolonged period of peace in Europe, there has been a temptation to neglect our defences, both physical and psychological. This represents one of the great dangers of the postmodern state.

The challenge posed by the pre-modern world is a new one. The pre-modern world is a world of failed states. Here the state no longer fulfils Weber's criterion of having the monopoly on the legitimate use of force. Either it has lost the legitimacy or it has lost the monopoly of the use of force; often the two go together. Examples of total collapse are relatively rare, but the number of countries at risk grows all the time. Some areas of the former Soviet Union are candidates, including Chechnya. All of the world's major drug-producing areas are part of the pre-modern world. Until recently there was no real sovereign authority in Afghanistan; nor is there in upcountry Burma or in some parts of South America, where drug barons threaten the state's monopoly on force. All over Africa countries are at risk. No area of the world is without its dangerous cases. In such areas chaos is the norm and war is a way of life. In so far as there is a government it operates in a way similar to an organised crime syndicate.

The premodern state may be too weak even to secure its home territory, let alone pose a threat internationally, but it can provide a base for non-state actors who may represent a danger to the postmodern world. If non-state actors, notably drug, crime, or terrorist syndicates take to using premodern bases for attacks on the more orderly parts of the world, then the organised states may eventually have to respond. If they become too dangerous for established states to tolerate, it is possible to imagine a defensive imperialism. It is not going too far to view the West's response to Afghanistan in this light.

How should we deal with the pre-modern chaos? To become involved in a zone of chaos is risky; if the intervention is prolonged it may become unsustainable in public opinion; if the intervention is unsuccessful it may be damaging to the government that ordered it. But the risks of letting countries rot, as the West did Afghanistan, may be even greater.

What form should intervention take? The most logical way to deal with chaos, and the one most employed in the past is colonisation. But colonisation is unacceptable to postmodern states (and, as it happens, to some modern states too). It is precisely because of the death of imperialism that we are seeing the emergence of the pre-modern world. Empire and imperialism are words that have become a form of abuse in the postmodern world. Today, there are no colonial powers willing to take on the job, though the opportunities, perhaps even the need for colonisation is as great as it ever was in the nineteenth century. Those left out of the global economy risk falling into a vicious circle. Weak government means disorder and that means falling investment. In the 1950s, South Korea had a lower GNP per head than Zambia: the one has achieved membership of the global economy, the other has not.

All the conditions for imperialism are there, but both the supply and demand for imperialism have dried up. And yet the weak still need the strong and the strong still need an orderly world. A world in which the efficient and well governed export stability and liberty, and which is open for investment and growth - all of this seems eminently desirable.

What is needed then is a new kind of imperialism, one acceptable to a world of human rights and cosmopolitan values. We can already discern its outline: an imperialism which, like all imperialism, aims to bring order and organisation but which rests today on the voluntary principle.

Postmodern imperialism takes two forms. First there is the voluntary imperialism of the global economy. This is usually operated by an international consortium through International Financial Institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank - it is characteristic of the new imperialism that it is multilateral. These institutions provide help to states wishing to find their way back into the global economy and into the virtuous circle of investment and prosperity. In return they make demands which, they hope, address the political and economic failures that have contributed to the original need for assistance. Aid theology today increasingly emphasises governance. If states wish to benefit, they must open themselves up to the interference of international organisations and foreign states (just as, for different reasons, the postmodern world has also opened itself up.)

The second form of postmodern imperialism might be called the imperialism of neighbours. Instability in your neighbourhood poses threats which no state can ignore. Misgovernment, ethnic violence and crime in the Balkans poses a threat to Europe. The response has been to create something like a voluntary UN protectorate in Bosnia and Kosovo. It is no surprise that in both cases the High Representative is European. Europe provides most of the aid that keeps Bosnia and Kosovo running and most of the soldiers (though the US presence is an indispensable stabilising factor). In a further unprecedented move, the EU has offered unilateral free-market access to all the countries of the former Yugoslavia for all products including most agricultural produce. It is not just soldiers that come from the international community; it is police, judges, prison officers, central bankers and others. Elections are organised and monitored by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). Local police are financed and trained by the UN. As auxiliaries to this effort - in many areas indispensable to it - are over a hundred NGOs.

One additional point needs to be made. It is dangerous if a neighbouring state is taken over in some way by organised or disorganised crime - which is what state collapse usually amounts to. But Usama bin Laden has now demonstrated for those who had not already realised, that today all the world is, potentially at least, our neighbour.

The Balkans are a special case. Elsewhere in Central and Eastern Europe the EU is engaged in a programme which will eventually lead to massive enlargement. In the past empires have imposed their laws and systems of government; in this case no one is imposing anything. Instead, a voluntary movement of self-imposition is taking place. While you are a candidate for EU membership you have to accept what is given - a whole mass of laws and regulations - as subject countries once did. But the prize is that once you are inside you will have a voice in the commonwealth. If this process is a kind of voluntary imperialism, the end state might be describes as a cooperative empire. 'Commonwealth' might indeed not be a bad name.

The postmodern EU offers a vision of cooperative empire, a common liberty and a common security without the ethnic domination and centralised absolutism to which past empires have been subject, but also without the ethnic exclusiveness that is the hallmark of the nation state - inappropriate in an era without borders and unworkable in regions such as the Balkans. A cooperative empire might be the domestic political framework that best matches the altered substance of the postmodern state: a framework in which each has a share in the government, in which no single country dominates and in which the governing principles are not ethnic but legal. The lightest of touches will be required from the centre; the 'imperial bureaucracy' must be under control, accountable, and the servant, not the master, of the commonwealth. Such an institution must be as dedicated to liberty and democracy as its constituent parts. Like Rome, this commonwealth would provide its citizens with some of its laws, some coins and the occasional road.

That perhaps is the vision. Can it be realised? Only time will tell. The question is how much time there may be. In the modern world the secret race to acquire nuclear weapons goes on. In the premodern world the interests of organised crime -including international terrorism - grow greater and faster than the state. There may not be much time left.

Great article.

Outlines all my hopes and fears for the European Union.

The only way is up, baby.

Its Member States have set up common institutions to which they delegate some of their sovereignty

So it is a union..of socialist..republics.

Thanks, that totally proved me wrong.

Comrade.

Every nation in europe is liberal/socialistic in nature. It's just that some are more than others.

Shit, no matter the gripes we have in Sweden regarding our own parties, we wouldn't even register on the US scale. We're smack dab in the middle.

we should not think of the EU or even NATO as the root cause of the half century of peace we have enjoyed in Western Europe. The basic fact is that Western European countries no longer want to fight each other.

Oh yes, the reason we had troops in western Europe was so western European countries wouldn't fight each other.
The author of that article is clueless, and that one section is all the proof anyone should need of it.

Let me ask this to the Euros in the crowd - do you see the end result of this being anything as organized as the federal system of the US, as occurred between the original colonies back in 1776? (analogize France to Virginia; Belgium to Rhode Island or something...)

Nah, there are too many differences between European countries, both ethnic and in past, to become one gigantic state. The original 13 American colonies were all the same people, and they had to unite to defeat England anyway.

The USA is the more doubtful case since it is not clear that the US government or Congress accepts either the necessity or desirability of interdependence, or its corollaries of openness, mutual surveillance and mutual interference, to the same extent as most European governments now do.

...I seriously doubt that this author has ever lived in American. Having two levels (Federal and State for us) provide for exactly what he is saying. There is absolutely an acknowledgement of the ''necessity or desirability of interdependence or its corollaries of openess, mutual surveillance and mutual interference''. I'd argue that it is more present in the United States simply because the fact that we are the United States first and New York, California, South Daktota etc. second. That's not the case in the EU yet, you live in France, England, Belgium, Germany, etc not in the European Union state of...France, England, Belgium or Germany.

The collective money of each State is used to fund the programs that are used to provide for cross state surveillance and interference...the states don't act as individual countries, but as subordinates of one country, which is probably a better system and only allowed for by the fact that at the time of its inception there was a common enemy (and heritage) in (and from) Britain.

This is something the EU lacks. I'm not saying that in order to unify Europe World War 3 needs to break out, but realistically there will never be 1 government that rules over Europe simply because not all the countries will agree with it due to their heritage and their customs and to an extent their ecnomic stability. Remember Britain not wanting to bother with the EU because...they didn't really need it? Think back to how Virginia was during the drafting and signing of the Constitution.

I think the integration will be deeper and deeper, more and more decisions will be made by the EU council, and soon enough European Parlament going to have more rights than it currently has. This is a process, a slow and complicated one, and of course hurts many interests, but in long term a strong central leadership for the EU members is needed.

Oh I agree Talid.
But to believe the European countries cannot intergrate in to one super-state doesn't mean it lacks function, dedication, or progress.
I hope it never does form one gigantic superstate. It would be more powerful than American economically, politically, and just generally, and that is something I just wouldn't want to see (don't act too suprise).
Besides that, the ultimate goal of the EU is not to be the United Kingdom/states of Europe, it's just not why it exists.
And that would never happen. There is far too much differing culture, tradition, heritige, history, every country is utterly unique. The differences are too strong, and I hope, will remain so. But like I said, a super-state Europe just isn't what is on the cards.

Despite what Crist0 may wish to be the case, Europe - Western inparticular - just hasn't wanted to fight eachother, or anyone else, since it was torn apart, twice, by war. We've laid down about 2, 500 years of empire and war, and as you can see on the Iraq issue, it's the last thing we, as a continent, wish to pursue.
The union then is utterly significant and spectacular, that countries with such histories can come so close as to benefit eachother, even to the point of sharing soverignity on matters such as the law and international politics. It has such a long way to go, but why not? It's young, very young, and whoever wants to slate it at such a stage, where there is still a LOT of Europe left to even join, then they'll just show the fears or envies they have about the whole concept.

'but in long term a strong central leadership for the EU members is needed.'

- Yes, one where Chirac and Schroeder have less influence on decisions and policy.

Do you believe what the author of that article does Halo?

That NATO, and specifically US troops, were stationed in Europe to stop western European countries from fighting each other?

The major problem with the EU is that it lends itself too readily to being a tool for people like Chirac to bully other nations using membership as leverage.

Remember classic statements like "They missed a great opportunity to shut up" or calling them "reckless and not very well behaved" in reference to the governments of Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic and several Balkan nations?

More EU Goodness:


One diplomat from the region said M Chirac spoke in a tone that not even the Soviet Union would have used with its Warsaw Pact clients during its 40-year dominance of the region.


French defence minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie, who reminded the eight states preparing for EU accession on May Day next year that their place in the club was not guaranteed. A blocking referendum could be called at any time in any EU member state before then, she noted.


We could have expected that the countries that want to join us strike up a cautious position


I'm worried, and I say it very clearly, because the entry into the EU has to be ratified.

I rest my case.

http://www.portal.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/02/19/wnato19.xml&sSheet=/portal/2003/02/19/ixportaltop.html

I rest my case.
You don't have a case. Nice to see you are a fan of the British tabloid press, very classy.


The author of that article is clueless
He is an important and influencial man, both within the UK and the EU foreign policy decision-making process. He most certainly knows what he is talking about, the same could not be possibly said about you.

http://www.derechos.org/nizkor/excep/cooper.html

Nice to see you are a fan of the British tabloid press

Waaait a minute, are you saying Chirac and his Defense Minister didn't say those things?


He is an important and influencial man, both within the UK and the EU foreign policy decision-making process

Then the UK and EU have my sympathy.

Since Halo didn't answer, is that what YOU believe?

That US troops were stationed in Europe to stop western European countries from fighting amongst themselves?


He most certainly knows what he is talking about

Sure he does ;)

Was that sarcasm?!

That depends, are you using the Bowler definition or the actual definition?

Iraq is an "incomparably better" country since Saddam's removal, but Americans shouldn't expect an "American-style democracy" to emerge immediately, the former U.S. administrator in Iraq said Sunday. "We shouldn't kid ourselves. It'll be sloppy and messy at the beginning," L. Paul Bremer said on "Fox News Sunday." "People forget it took us 12 years to write our own Constitution. It wasn't very pretty around here between 1776 and 1787."

Things take time.