Not true. We could feed much more people that live on the planet now. We could eliminate CO2 emissions and not lower our standard of living. The way developed nations survived energy crisis in 1973 shows that capitalist economy can adapt to changed circumstances and maintain, or even increase, the standard of living.
Notice how every time an earthquake hits a third world country like Mexico or Turkey, thousands of people die because their concrete houses collapse?
It's not just because people in thirld world country live in concrete houses. It's mainly because these houses are built with utter disregard for building codes and laws of engineering (in Europe, Turkish construction companies don't get much of a good publicity). Also, many people die in mud slides or other accidents which happen and bring casualties because society is worse organized than in the USA. I read somewhere that when a flood hit some town in the rural USA, the authorities quickly dispensed many walkie-talkies to people, allowing them to coordinate the rescue and evacuation operation.
Seriously though, when Saddam got picked up a year ago I was surprised that they didn't actually try this using him. I guess they needed to announce a victory at that point in the war, despite a boogeyman on the loose being better for controlling the populace than one in jail.
Quite the opposite. Saddam in jail, humiliated and weak, is better for the USA. Arabs don't cheer losers.
I don't know which is funnier, the notion that Europe would ever fund defense at US levels (with the resultant sacrfices required by the welfare stare)
According to US military, some European countries spend nearly the same amount of GDP on defense as the USA. On the average, EU would have to spend additional 2.5% of GDP on defense, to match the USA. Now, according to Goethe Institut, EU spent on average in 1999 around 28% of GDP on welfare. Moving 2.5% from welfare to defense would be a noticeable, but not drastic policy shift. The reason why Europe is so drastically outperformed by the USA in terms of military capabilities is that European armies are mostly (UK is an exception --- not surprising, since it is shielded by sea) cold-war style, prepared to fight a large scale land war against the Russian invasion. Such armies are useless in today's combat fields, be it Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq. USA did not have to pay this 'Russian tax', being separated by an ocean. You could develop a more mobile army (leaving aside technological superiority). Given some time, Europe will remodel its armies, abolish the draft entirely and increase the spending. Creating an common foreign policy will give the incentive to do this, and creating a common army will give the economies of scale.
the notion that Europe would ever be able to do anything but what it's done since the end of WWII (namely: kow-tow to whoever has the guns, be it the US, USSR, or now, increasingly, Muslim extremists)
The USA could well afford to be more rash with the USSR, being shielded by an arsenal of nukes and an ocean. Europe has its problems with sending soldiers abroad (again: abolishing the draft will lessen them), but we were not afraid to send soldiers to Afghanistan. Some EU countries fight in Iraq (UK, Poland, Netherlands) and their experiences (if we still have the UK in the EU in the future) will add to EU military capabilities. The fact that other countries opposed war with Iraq does not mean that they do not fight terrorists. They simple were sane enough to notice that there were no terrorists in Iraq before the war.
the notion that somehow a united, militarized Europe would actually threaten the US, or be seen as threatening by the US.
The EU is not going to wage a war against the USA. It is only going to be taken more seriously by the USA, seriously enough to able to say 'we don't like your blowing up satellites in the sky' and be taken into account by the USA.
If you evaluate your voting power by dividing the number of votes assigned to your state by its population, you're doing it wrong. Voting power indices are not calculated this way. Read about Banzhaf index.
There was a similar debate recently in the EU. The Constitution treaty changed the voting rules in the European Council (not to be confused with the European Commission) as set by the previous treaty of Nice. During this debate, I read that if you want to assign weights (i.e. number of votes in Electoral College) to member states in a "just" way, that each citizen's vote has the same power (when the states vote either for or against the candidates), you should assign them proportionally to the square root of the states' populations.
Co2 emissions isn't pollution. Carbon gas emissions are a completely natural part of organic life and use of energy to further human goals and allow humans to achieve prosperity.
While CO2 emissions are not pollution in itself, emissions big enough to change the CO2 levels in atmosphere certainly are. Many chemical substances' emissions are not pollutions in themselves, they become pollutions when they are large enough to change the environment to the detriment of living species. In certain circumstances, hot water is a polluting substance, too.
And of course those that would die in American bombings are the people who cut off other people's heads? Not likely. What is likely, is that Zarkawi and friends sit in a hideout and laugh while American forces kill innocent people, making America more hated than before.
The state department is a body responsible for representing the USA abroad (AFAIR). No matter what the state department's motives were (if they did it to 'play nice' it means that Colin Powell is doing a lousy job indeed), they officially asked OSCE to monitor the elections. Which proves my point of the said 'slap in the face' being self-inflicted.
Slashdot Mirror
Not true. We could feed much more people that live on the planet now. We could eliminate CO2 emissions and not lower our standard of living. The way developed nations survived energy crisis in 1973 shows that capitalist economy can adapt to changed circumstances and maintain, or even increase, the standard of living.
Notice how every time an earthquake hits a third world country like Mexico or Turkey, thousands of people die because their concrete houses collapse?
It's not just because people in thirld world country live in concrete houses. It's mainly because these houses are built with utter disregard for building codes and laws of engineering (in Europe, Turkish construction companies don't get much of a good publicity). Also, many people die in mud slides or other accidents which happen and bring casualties because society is worse organized than in the USA. I read somewhere that when a flood hit some town in the rural USA, the authorities quickly dispensed many walkie-talkies to people, allowing them to coordinate the rescue and evacuation operation.
One of the most interesting posts I ever read on Slashdot. A question springs to mind: Why wasn't US Army interested in getting Osama alive?
BTW, gen. Musharraf (Pakistan dictator) says he believes Osama is alive.
Seriously though, when Saddam got picked up a year ago I was surprised that they didn't actually try this using him. I guess they needed to announce a victory at that point in the war, despite a boogeyman on the loose being better for controlling the populace than one in jail.
Quite the opposite. Saddam in jail, humiliated and weak, is better for the USA. Arabs don't cheer losers.
the ill-fated Warsaw rebellion in 1945.
1944, to be precise.
there were still significant numbers of Europeans from these countries (particularly, Norway and France) fighting in the allied side
I may biased here, but Poland also deserves a mention.
I agree with you that the problem is a lack of will, not some mystical impossibility touted by your fellow countrymen (assuming you're an American).
Europe can produce its own military equipment, and already does.
I don't know which is funnier, the notion that Europe would ever fund defense at US levels (with the resultant sacrfices required by the welfare stare)
According to US military, some European countries spend nearly the same amount of GDP on defense as the USA. On the average, EU would have to spend additional 2.5% of GDP on defense, to match the USA. Now, according to Goethe Institut, EU spent on average in 1999 around 28% of GDP on welfare. Moving 2.5% from welfare to defense would be a noticeable, but not drastic policy shift. The reason why Europe is so drastically outperformed by the USA in terms of military capabilities is that European armies are mostly (UK is an exception --- not surprising, since it is shielded by sea) cold-war style, prepared to fight a large scale land war against the Russian invasion. Such armies are useless in today's combat fields, be it Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq. USA did not have to pay this 'Russian tax', being separated by an ocean. You could develop a more mobile army (leaving aside technological superiority). Given some time, Europe will remodel its armies, abolish the draft entirely and increase the spending. Creating an common foreign policy will give the incentive to do this, and creating a common army will give the economies of scale.
the notion that Europe would ever be able to do anything but what it's done since the end of WWII (namely: kow-tow to whoever has the guns, be it the US, USSR, or now, increasingly, Muslim extremists)
The USA could well afford to be more rash with the USSR, being shielded by an arsenal of nukes and an ocean. Europe has its problems with sending soldiers abroad (again: abolishing the draft will lessen them), but we were not afraid to send soldiers to Afghanistan. Some EU countries fight in Iraq (UK, Poland, Netherlands) and their experiences (if we still have the UK in the EU in the future) will add to EU military capabilities. The fact that other countries opposed war with Iraq does not mean that they do not fight terrorists. They simple were sane enough to notice that there were no terrorists in Iraq before the war.
the notion that somehow a united, militarized Europe would actually threaten the US, or be seen as threatening by the US.
The EU is not going to wage a war against the USA. It is only going to be taken more seriously by the USA, seriously enough to able to say 'we don't like your blowing up satellites in the sky' and be taken into account by the USA.
Because? EU is something which never happened before in the European history. It already achieved things thought before to be impossible.
Imagine the damage high-altitude air burst EMP weapons could do to our digital economy.
Entirely null. EMP weapons are close-ranged.
The USSR isn't there any more to deter the US, so the US can do pretty much what they want.
That's why we need common European defense and common European foreign policy, both funded at levels comparable with the US.
In times when people switch TV channels every 15 seconds, random voting makes sense as an assumption.
If you evaluate your voting power by dividing the number of votes assigned to your state by its population, you're doing it wrong. Voting power indices are not calculated this way. Read about Banzhaf index.
There was a similar debate recently in the EU. The Constitution treaty changed the voting rules in the European Council (not to be confused with the European Commission) as set by the previous treaty of Nice. During this debate, I read that if you want to assign weights (i.e. number of votes in Electoral College) to member states in a "just" way, that each citizen's vote has the same power (when the states vote either for or against the candidates), you should assign them proportionally to the square root of the states' populations.
Co2 emissions isn't pollution. Carbon gas emissions are a completely natural part of organic life and use of energy to further human goals and allow humans to achieve prosperity.
While CO2 emissions are not pollution in itself, emissions big enough to change the CO2 levels in atmosphere certainly are. Many chemical substances' emissions are not pollutions in themselves, they become pollutions when they are large enough to change the environment to the detriment of living species. In certain circumstances, hot water is a polluting substance, too.
An Kyoto is about dumping toxic waste in the rivers, right?
who go on bragging about the 'end of democracy in the USA'. It is alive and defending itself against abuse, as the NY ruling shows.
During the WW II, German civilians in occupied countries were often killed. The name 'terrorist' sometimes has relative meaning.
I meant the English Civil War, in the XVIIth century.
AFAIK Sun offers support for its version of OpenOffice.
And of course those that would die in American bombings are the people who cut off other people's heads? Not likely. What is likely, is that Zarkawi and friends sit in a hideout and laugh while American forces kill innocent people, making America more hated than before.
The state department is a body responsible for representing the USA abroad (AFAIR). No matter what the state department's motives were (if they did it to 'play nice' it means that Colin Powell is doing a lousy job indeed), they officially asked OSCE to monitor the elections. Which proves my point of the said 'slap in the face' being self-inflicted.
Poland elected its kings since XVIth century, limited their power quite severely and elected most of the local authorities.
I don't know the usa laws about this, but in any free nation you could get smacked with charges of some kind for pulling off this kinda stunt
Actually, in some countries (like Australia) voting is compulsory and you pay a fine if you don't vote.
A minor correction: don't call any brainwashed coward who blows up innocent people a martyr. Martyrs are supposed to die bravely for a just cause.