http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2008/03/a-word-to-north.html

Personally,I'd like to see a P.H. vs VDH debate.

@ Kapitein Andre

 1) "Rust neer" is not clear and understandable Dutch. Although both individual words are Dutch, they do not belong together.  I suppose you want to say something like "take it easy", or "take a hike", or "stop", or whatever?   

2) In my last posting I made 2 very SPECIFIC points: (a) your misuse of the word "illegal" and (b) your incoherent economic 'analysis'.   In your response, you did NOT address any of my legal points, but instead reproduced a lengthy POLITICAL statement by Robert McNamarra, which is totally irrelevant to the issue at hand.  What have McNamarra's belated opinions about 'Vietnam' got to do with your specific misuse of the word "illegal"?  Nothing!   Furthermore, your cop-out only confirms how part of the European 'right' continues to parrot the language of the American left.   Also, your 'economic' paragraph has again nothing to do with economics, but is a collection of 'grand' sweeping historical assertions, straight out of popular media who do not understand elementary economics.  If you doubt the latter point, just follow the current chaotic media reporting on the Obama-Clinton fight about NAFTA.  

3) I have clearly explained to you that the Iraq war cannot have been been "illegal", because none of the combatants (the US, its coalition partners, and Iraq itself) had ever delegated such judgemental authority to any judicial body.  "International law", properly understood, can only pertain to 'rules' that countries have FORMALLY agreed to IN ADVANCE.  Under the UN Charter, the Iraq war could ONLY have been "illegal" if the Security Council would have passed a resolution to that effect, i.e. declaring it as such.  Obviously, the SC did not pass such a resolution, and never will.  Why do you think the great powers instituted the veto power of the 'Permanent 5' in the Security Council at the creation of the UN? 

I repeat, the world is not a 'democracy', cannot be a democracy with democratic institutions and separation-of-powers, and never will, because most of its members cannot be relied upon to play 'democratically' (in the sense of faithfully adhering to the provisions of an agreed-upon 'constitutional treaty'). Most of them can't even adhere to their own national 'constitutions'. Now, that is where your term of "paper tiger" would be applicable. So, you got your head in the sand, together with the anti-American multi-cul crowd, and are willing to talk nonsense as long as it can serve your small-minded purpose.  Indeed, the fact that many politicians, all around the world, often willfully misuse the word "illegal" in this context - just like you - is the best proof that the UN can never be the core of a democratic legal order.  The UN is about POLITICS, limited cooperation if possible, more often about pure 'grandstanding', but it is NOT about LAW.  Law has to be 'certain' and 'enforcable'.  And, under "international law", no country can be considered to be under the jurisdiction of any particular 'court' unless it has ratified the statutes of that court. 

For most countries (and politicians) in the world, 'law' is just an instrument they will use if it can serve their purpose, but to be ignored when it does not.  Such 'law' is not genuine "law".  Take for example today's action before the ICC (Colombia wants to indict Chavez of Venezuela because it now has 'proof' that he has been financing the Farc guerillas).  You know as wel as I do that Chavez is not going to abide by any (unlikely) ICC ruling on this matter, even though he signed the ICC statutes.  Luckily the US so far has not done so, together with a few other sensible countries, who are not going to submit themselves to the political games of an inevitably politicised 'court'.  But Chavez has signed the ICC 'treaty', and yet would ignore its rulings. Now, that would be a clear example of "illegal".  Finally, contrary to what you claim, I have had decades of experience in "International Relations" (including in UN institutions), but unlike you and other dishonest ideologues, I know the difference between international law and international politics.   

@ Armor

"Plentie is no deinte, ye see not your owne ease.I see, ye (still) can not see the wood for trees".

John Heywood (1546).

Click ye again.

In the mean time, the dollar has fallen to an all-time low, I believe, against the Euro. One Euro is now 1.51 dollars.

My original posting on this thread contained a series of clear and concise criticisms of Mr. Hanson's claims. Your responses have been marked by incoherence, and given to ad hominem and hunting paper tigers. In such a debate, is it any wonder that I am forced to seize upon individual words and phrases? The following are only retorts to your last two points:

I. My references to international legalities was intended to critique Mr. Hanson's claims, not to explain, expand on or further my personal views or causes. Thus it is unnecessary for me to address the majority of your comments on the UN, ICJ, treaties, tribunals, etc., except to say that you lack even a cursory knowledge of International Relations. Former Defense Secretary Robert McNamara made some important statements in The Fog of War, including: "We are the most powerful nation in the world — economically, politically, and militarily — and we are likely to remain so for decades ahead. But we are not omniscient. If we cannot persuade other nations with similar interests and similar values of the merits of the proposed use of that power, we should not proceed unilaterally except in the unlikely requirement to defend [the United States]." In addition, his eleven lessons of the Vietnam War are equally relevant to the War on Terror:

1. We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.
2. We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.
3. We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.
4. Our judgments of friend and foe alike reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.
5. We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces and doctrine.
6. We failed as well to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.
7. We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.
8. After the action got under way and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening and why we were doing what we did.
9. We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.
10. We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.
11. We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.

II. Again with your accusations of leftist economic values, which are as always wholly false and pure ad hominem. All national economies have their "time in the sun", and the United States' is no exception to the rule. This is not to say that the end is near or that it cannot resurge at a future date. However, it does appear to be waning. Often military and economic power are intertwined, as strong militaries require flourishing economic bases, as Russia discovered during Yeltsin's tenure.Unfortunately, the American people are woefully unprepared for this development, and skill and discipline from the highest levels of government to the lowest-paid worker will be crucial to minimizing any future socio-economic upheaval. Furthermore, market forces require rationality to be beneficial. Living off credit cards and/or government hand-outs aren't supposed to be part of the equation.

re: Genoeg !! ...

http://149.photobucket.com/albums/f278/squeak53177/fox20and20the20hound.jpg

You are in the frame at least twice from what I can see.Bravo!

@ KA

Your method of attacking/commenting singular sentences does not promote clarity.  It leads to dissipation of attention over numerous subjects, most of which will tend to come back anyway, so that there is the additional problem of constant repetition. 

I will address only 2 of the many points you have raised.

1) First, I must object to your misuse of the term "legal".  You do not do 'Europe' any service, nor your cause of 'ethnic nationalism', by falling for the false and leftist mantra of multilaterilism=legality.   Legality has nothing to do with multilateralism nor unilateralism.  In "international law" countries are bound to adhere to what they have 'legally' agreed, nothing more and nothing less.  Neither the USA, nor any other serious country, has agreed to allow other countries (or any group, except the Security Council) to determine whether their military actions are LEGAL or not.  They have bound themselves to a certain behavior code (by subscribing to the UN charter) and to certain bilateral and regional 'agreements' that they have signed (which generally only democratic countries and morally-sensitive regimes) take seriously. But only THOSE countries which have AGREED to give certain SPECIFIC tribunals judicial power are legally bound to follow the judgements of those tribunals.  For example, the US and most countries have given the International Court in The Hague certain judicial powers, but ONLY for those questions which the parties-in-conflict VOLUNTARILY agree to submit to that specific Court.  Also, UN members are bound to follow specific Security Council 'instructions', which implies that these instructions did not face any veto from anyone among the 'permanent 5'.   There is not a single Security Council instruction or Resolution that you can point to that the US government has transgressed.  NOt a single one.  You simply like to jump on the anti-American bandwagon by joining the chorus of ideologues declaring certain US actions "illegal".  Such people do not serve the cause of 'law'. Just the opposite.  They serve the causes of many (generally passing) ideologies.  

2) The basic problem with your economic 'analyses' is that they are 'chaotic' and devoid of empirical historical perspective.  First, you made the mistaken assertion that the US economy is "based" on consumption.  (I know, a lot of 'instant' economists in the media say something similar).  Now, you seem to agree that it is really based on investment, but you hasten to add that "foreign investment cannot be relied upon to fuel the US economy".  How do you know?  Well, let's wait and see, shall we, whether foreign investment 'dries up'.  Let exchange rate movements do their job, and reactive policy adjustments too.  The problem is that you - like most Europeans and American lefties - do not really believe in market forces, because you have been told that anti-market mantra over and over again.  And the current media hysteria is just a repetition of what already happened in the 1970's and 1980's.  Remember when Japan was going to take over the world? etc..... 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/hardtalk/7274865.stm

click,then click again,to watch interview.

V. Mr. Hanson clearly stated that Americans "spend billions trying to jump start democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq". Therefore, he is either implying that American intentions were always to transform these countries from tyrannical regimes into flourishing liberal democracies, or omitting a crucial fact: the motive behind these operations. Is it not self-evident that if the United States seeks to occupy a moral highground in international relations, that it must "better" the conditions of those countries that it unilaterally and therefore illegally invades and occupies? Is Mr. Hanson desirous of acclaim for the fact that American forces remained in both countries instead of merely levelling them and withdrawing? In any event, I fail to understand how criticism of the War on Terror becomes associated with support for multiculturalism. Lastly, it is debatable whether the funds are going to "jump start democracy" or to combat and occupation. Indeed, the lion's share of British expenditures destined for Afghanistan are for operations against the Taleban, not reconstruction.

 
VI. Indeed, (IV) was a sarcastic response to Mr. Hanson's claim that Americans, "keep the peace on the high seas, whether in the Persian Gulf, the Aegean, or the Korea Sea, and run up enormous deficit in the international free commerce that ensues." Take note that this claim was related to the "jumpstart democracy" one and was therefore dealing with foreign policy as opposed to trade.

VII. The ABCP "credit crunch" is ruining America's image in the minds of global investors, including sovereign wealth funds. Moreover, international investment cannot be relied upon to fuel the American economy, while Americans spend even more money they don't have on consumer goods or the government issues them cheques in the mail.
  

I. I admit that I was exaggerating the extent of immigrant impact on U.S. population growth, although according to Passel and Cohn of the Pew Research Center, 82% of its growth from 2005 to 2050 will be attributable to immigrants and their descendants. My criticism of Hanson's juxtaposition of American and Western European population fertility rates is that it belies the fact that the rates of Whites on both sides of the Atlantic are comparable. The fertility rates of indigenous Western European peoples vary from country to country, including ones on the rise and in decline. However, although the absolute number of Whites in the United States is increasing (barely), they are the "slowest growing" group according to the U.S. Census Bureau. Essentially, population growth in Western countries is being mainly driven by non-Whites i.e. immigrants and their descendants (save Aboriginal peoples and African-Americans). Thus, as Europe is being flooded by West Asians, South Asians and Africans, the United States is being flooded by Hispanics, and Mr. Hanson cannot claim a 'victory' for the United States over Western Europe in this area. Indeed, it is Mexican America that is "growing its population".

II. Long-term observation of American culture, race relations and demographics conclude that the "melting pot" is a colossal failure, and that divisions will only be exacerbated by the eclipse of the White majority in 50-odd years hence. Fortunately, the U.S. government has not embraced multiculturalism and therefore has not suppressed public discussion and debate on the matter as has occurred in Western Europe. By the way, which American cities did you reside in, and for how long? Which sporting events and schools have you attended there?

III. American isolationism would have a negligible impact on European security. EU member states are more than capable of crushing Russia in an arms race, including development and production of nuclear weapons, were they to so choose. Moreover, it has yet to be determined whether or not American major military operations since the First Gulf War have actually been in the interest of the international community. Indeed, it is equally debatable whether they have served the national interest, excepting the ouster of the Taleban.

IV. The "new Cold War" - if it can be so referred to - is as much due to Washington's attempts to secure access to Central Asian natural resources, as it is to Russian intransigence. For this and economic considerations, it is advisable that the EU take a middle position in order to not alienate either party nor heighten tensions.

What do you think about my "modest proposal for Middle East peace"? And no Germanic sarcasm if you please.

Not for the first time do you pick up on the cryptic subtext often to be found in what at first sight might appear to be a simple (or "sarcastic")  posting of mine.Are you part fox too I wonder?

@ Atlanticist

Hanson's article containing "the modest proposal for Middle East peace" (your sarcastic words) is a good read, because it exposes again the hypocrisy and SELECTIVE outrage by the Arab world and most of Europe regarding the 'Palestinians'.  Yes, a worldwide conference exposing the plight of all displaced, massacred, and/or currently "occupied" peoples, together with establishing principles to deal with these problems, would be a good way of exposing said hypocrisy by muslims worldwide and by most Europeans today.  But, as you know, such a fantastical conference is not in the cards.  What is in the cards, however, is another Durban-style UN conference condemning "racism" (of 1 kind only !) and Israel (of course).

I must review/withdraw an earlier hasty 'concession' made to Kappert.  In Armor'(ou)'s racist world, Victor Hanson is not really an American, but rather a 'European'.  And, obviously, he is a 'European' of Scandinavian descent, which makes him (northern) 'Germanic'.   Yet, his article is full of sarcasm (I particularly liked the last paragraph).  We can safely say that 'Germanics' can be sarcastic.  And if Victor Hanson also often is very 'direct' (and thus clarifies matters beautifully), instead of being superciliously 'diplomatic' and cryptic, it probably is because he is (and thinks of himself first and foremost as) an 'American citizen'.   

http://www.motherearth.org/nowar/

@Armor

"I wonder why Hanson dislikes the UN.They clearly share his views".

Contact: [email protected]

More Hanson (Epilogue).

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson020708.html

A Modest Proposal for Middle East Peace.

http://www.victorhanson.com/articles/hanson022408.html

Yippie Ti Yi Yo,Europe!

"Once one insists on an equality of result, not one of mere opportunity, then, as Plato warned, there is no logical end to what the government will think up and the people will demand." VDH is here stridently talking about Europe, but Barack Hussein Obama is a walking allegory illustrating this epigraph.

VDH tends to paint a too rosy picture of assimilation. European-Americans had to make concessions beginning in the 1960s simply because the percentage of non-European people living in the US was so high. Guilt was an afterthought and justification. The big difference between the US and Europe isn't the US's success at assimilation, not unless you consider Justin Timberlake and body piercing a success, nor a scarcity of "enabling elites [which] assure [immigrants] that their problems and pathologies are all the fault of the host" but the cultural (i.e. religious) difference between minorities living in Europe with those in the United States. Could Obama anticipate Islamization? Now there's a thought to conjure with.

Well,it looks like I was correct in my belief that a VDH article would generate considerable debate at the BJ,doesn't it? Who's next?  Peter Hitchens I hope. 

It would be nice if our European friends could actually respond to VDH's charges against Europe, instead of launching a counter-attack.  A counter-attack does not refute the charges.. instead it tells me that you cant' defend Europe, so counter-attacking is all you have.

Reading your comments I often get the impression that your heart is in the right place but your brain isn't.Please,try to take marcfrans' sage advice.True,he offers you that advice in a far less sarcastic manner than I would but I believe we both offer that advice to you with the same degree of sincerity.Kenavo!

I'll keep this short and to the point.I made the statement that it was "great to see the BJ publish a VDH article on this issue" for the same reason I believe articles by PETER Hitchens should also receive greater coverage here at the BJ.Why? Because I believe Europeans could benefit from reading Hanson and Americans could benefit (greatly) from reading Peter H.This is not to say that I agree with everything either of them has to say,but that doesn't blind me to the fact that what they have to say is both informative and thought provoking. 

@ Armor

It is probably futile to try to explain complexity to someone who cannot even distinguish between culture and race, but it might still be useful for other readers.

I will only address your last point, because it illustrates so beautifully how bad your reading skills are (which accounts in part for the low quality of opinions you express in the earlier paragraphs).

Follow the chronology carefully!!

1) First, Mr Hanson wrote that "the US spends billions of dollars to jump start democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan".   That is a factual statement of his, on which we all should be able to agree, for the US is IN FACT spending billions there in trying to jumpstart democracy. 

2) Second, on the basis of that FACTUAL Hanson statement,  Kapitein Andre expressed an OPINION, i.e. that the Bush Administration invaded Iraq in order NOT "to jump start democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq".  The Kapitein expressed that opinion in a negative way, i.e. he said "I can assure you that the Bush.....did not invade Iraq to jumpstart democracy".  Thus the Kapitein implied (in my view correctly) that the invasion occurred for other reasons, although he thinks for nefarious reasons, whereas I think for noble reasons, but this is immaterial to the point here.

3) Thirdly, I tell the Kapitein that Hanson did NOT claim that Bush invaded to jumpstart democracy.  In fact, Hanson did not say anything about the possible reasons for the American decison to remove the Saddam regime.  Hanson simply stated (as part of a list of 'positive' American actons around the globe, e.g. protecting commerce on the high seas, Korea, etc..) that "....Americans spend billions trying to jumpstart democracy in etc...".

Now, for any intelligent reader, the inevitable conclusion is that the Kapitein was setting up a false 'strawman'.  He was attacking something that Hanson never said.  And believe me, the Kapitein knows this by now, but you apparently still do not, and probably never will.

Atlanticist911: " Great to see the BJ publish a VDH article on this issue"

What is it you like so much about him? I read the original interview and my conclusion is that he is a bogus conservative who supports mass immigration from the third world (except Mexico) and miscegenation between the whites and the third-worlders. What is so great about that? Besides, he defends the absurd idea that the product of racial mixing will be as good as American. In fact, what makes Americans American is their European ancestry. For example, African Americans do not behave at all like European Americans.

Somewhere in his interview, he says this: "When the individual believes in nothing transcendent, has no allegiance to a notion of nationhood, and believes nothing is worth sacrificing for, stasis sets in, lethargy follows..."

I don't understand how he can make that kind of statement while supporting mass immigration, which is destroying the American nation.

--
Bosch Ferretti: " VDH represents an intellectualized version of the ugly American"

He sounds childish more than intellectual. It is not helpful to retaliate against anti-American rhetoric with equally silly anti-European rhetoric. In fact, I don't think most Europeans dislike the United States. The anti-American propaganda mainly comes from the media. Those same media also vilify Russia and wish to destroy Europe by the method of mass immigration.

--
Marcfrans: " In recent decades immigration has accounted for ABOUT HALF of population growth in the US, not for the total"

The important thing is: the white percentage of the population has kept falling. I read on VDare that "minorities would account for half of all U.S. births by 2011 and more than 60 percent by 2021". In 1965, the USA was 90% white.

By the way, I don't think the USA will go on policing the world when European Americans become a minority. Every non white minority will ask the administration to spend less on war and defense and more on welfare payments so that they can make more babies. I don't think Hispanics are interested in peddling democracy in the Middle East.

Marcfrans: "Mr Hanson knows better than you that the US did NOT invade Afghanistan and Iraq in order "to jump start democracy". He never made such a claim "

You need to take a rest from BJ commenting! Look for Hanson's very words on this very page: [Americans] "spend billions trying to jump start democracy in Afghanistan and Iraq ”

Now what do you have to say for your defense ?

@ Bosch Ferretti

1) While Kapitein Andre at least attempted to formulate some rational response to specific points raised by Hanson, you dispense with that altogether and engage in an irrational anti-American rant of the following sort: "...third world cess pool of pc, vulgarity, trash culture, homogenization of all experience (that is a 'good' one, how biased can you get!), worship of money divorced from taste etc...".  In so doing, you only confirm that Hanson's anger about widespread and irrational European hatred for America is not without basis.

2) What specific complaints did Hanson make about 'Europe' today?  He complained mainly about: minimal defense, socialism, atheism/agnosticism, and continental governance (the latter presumably means "too centralized governance").  These are all 'faults' that America also posesses, but clearly to a lesser degree.   The US DOES have more defense, less socialism,and less atheism, but the issue of 'continental governance' is less clearcut.  

3) As I said, instead of addressing Hanson's specific complaints, all you can do is hurl back a series of insults (see supra), and making false charges. To illustrate the latter: nowhere does Hanson say that "you people must become American". That particular strawman exists only entirely in your mind (not in Hanson's text).  But, he does show great anger at the manifest reality of widespread (and irrational) anti-Americanism in Europe.  And if you deny the latter, then you got your head in the sand.  Anti-American demonstrations by large-scale crowds are common fare in Europe.  There is nothing like that in America, when European leaders visit!  But, a visit by an American President or a Secretary of State to Europe can easily bring many tens of thousands of 'demonstrators' on the streets.  And, note that visits to Europe by some of the world's worst tyrants do NOT even have such an effect!  They do not seem to elicit any particular 'concern'.  Furthermore, any serious and honest observer of the major media in both Europe and America must admit that anti-Americanism is being propagated by the European media (and by some American media too), wheras there is no comparable anti-Europeanism being propagated by the major US media.  The main reason is because the cultural left dominates Europe and NOT YET the US.

4) Hanson's main thesis is that the dominant characteristics mentioned (minimal defense, socialism, atheism, continental governance) are a prescription for long-term disaster.  In that assesment or prediction he is probably right.  I even suspect that you agree with that thesis (if your judgment were not so clouded by your own cultivated anti-Americanism).

Your serious point is that "European conservatives must look to themselves" to save their own culture.  And that is probably right too.  But by adding the silly notion that the US is not part of Western civilization, you only show how deep irrational emotion is clouding your judgment.  If this were to be a widespread attitude among "conservatives" in Europe, then the prospect for Europe and for Western civilization would be dire indeed. One must hope that there are many conservatives left in Europe who show better judgment than you, for Europe's sake (and to some extent for America's too).  

It is always sad to see the decline of a writer from a thinker into a propagandist.  This man has nothing left to say.  He is embarrasing himself.  This "you people" must become Americans nonsense is the very reason "you people" hate America.  The United States has become a third world cesspool of political correctness, vulgarity, trash culture, homogenization of all experience, consumerism, worship of money divorced from taste or merit, black anger and all else.  European conservatives must look to themselves to save Western culture and drop the pretense that America and its neocon masters are part of or give a damn about Western Civilization.  They care about American exceptionalism, Mexicans, Budweiser and the fate of Israel, not about the Vatican, Westminster and the Uffizi.

America is not in a position to tell anyone how to do anything except run a business. VDH represents an intellectualized version of the ugly American.

@kappert

Could you kindly post a link to the VDH article upon which you have based those interesting conclusions? As a frequent visitor to the Hanson website (as well as the proud owner of many of his excellent books) I am extremely familiar with its layout, but even I coudn't find it.

@ KA

While the gist of Hanson's assessment is correct, his 'manner of speaking' is bound to offend Europeans, and that is also probably his intention.  But, in your understandable anger, you are making serious mistakes.

1)  You are wrong on demographics, on economics, and on the "melting pot". 

-- In recent decades immigration has accounted for ABOUT HALF of population growth in the US, not for the total. 

-- And yes, the US has boosted "Indian call centers and Chinese factories", but the changing policy-stances of recent Indian and Chinese governments were an essential prerequisite to make that possible. The main point, however, is that job creation has been also abundant in the US itself, as the economic statistics confirm.  The US has serious economic policy problems at present, but job creation is not one of them.

-- Your assesment of the US "melting pot" is biased and ideological, but contrary to factual observation.   Given the open and 'liberal' nature of the American 'system' or body politic, the melting pot will always be 'churning' and somewhat problematic.  But any serious long-time observer could not possibly conclude that "racial differences remain as salient as ever".  Your mind is simply 'stuck', like a broken record, and you are ignorant of the 'facts on the ground' (in a broad picture sense).  You forget that freedom of speech is 'real' in the US, unlike in most of Europe, and therefore 'details' can easily get blown up in biased media.  To get the big picture, you would have to actually go and live for a while in the suburbs of Denver, Washington DC, Boston, Seattle, etc... Go and attend some baseball or football games, and attend some 'typical' suburban or exurban public school, and you would see that your assertion about "racial differences" is all in your mind (where it was put by leftist media with an agenda).

2) You misread Hanson.   He is not questioning the "adequacy" of the EU's military forces in the present world where the US military is constraining a variety of totalitarian forces.  He is questioning the EU's political will to use its forces for 'public good' purposes at a global level.  And he will be proven right about the EU's military inadequacy in the foreseeable future, because inevitably a new phase of US isolationism is likely to follow.

It is also natural that "American overseas forces have been dwindling since the end of the Cold War".  But in recent months, the American (Democrat-led) Congress has already been laying the groundwork for a renewed expansion of the US military in the coming years. This is based on the accurate assumption of a renewed "Cold War".   Are Europe's publics and politicians preparing, or even aware, of the "renewed cold war"?  Surely, voices like Hanson's suggest that the Great Satan is slowly learning to make better distinctions among real and imaginary 'allies'.

3) Your third point is totally silly.  Mr Hanson knows better than you that the US did NOT invade Afghanistan and Iraq in order "to jump start democracy".  He never made such a claim, so you are trotting out a massive 'strawman'.  The fact remains, nevertheless, that the US is trying to "jump start democracy" in those places....at least for now, and regardless of whether you and I like that or not.  So what is your point?  Silly needless Bush-bashing, as far as I can see, in unison with the multicul crowd.

4) I guess your point 4 is more "sarcasm".  But what is your point, actually?  Is there a serious point?   Maybe, a worldwide economic 'depression' in the future might enligthen you?  We will see.

5) I agree with you that American national savings are too low at present.  But you are wrong in stating that the US economy is "based" on "consumption".  No economy is "based" on consumption. That would be confusing short-term business cycles with the underlying economy, as so much of the superficial media does.  The economy is fundamentally based on INVESTMENT, and as long as the rest of the world keeps on putting its 'surplus savings' into the US economy (for understandable reasons to nonideological people), the US economy will be doing fine. And when the rest of the world will no longer do this, my prediction is that the American 'system' will respond by 'adjusting' its national savings rate via appropriate policy measures. 

Europeans longing for multi-polar world where they could continue to enjoy some measure of influence beyond their importance through stacking multi-lateral institutions (i.e. the UNSC, where Europe is already overrepresented in relation to world power).

Remember the rhetoric around Iraq, where France/Germany were going to be a counter-weight to the US in the new multi-polar world; hasn't really worked out, has it? With Europeans' dreams dashed (which, of course, must be Bush's fault, or the Jews), they still long for a multi-polar world, except with rising powers of China and Russia for counter-weights, as if their lives would be so much better in such a world. It's not rational, and alarmingly not that different from the periodic hatred of the other epidemics that have swept across Europe in the past.

So Europe should upgrade their military equipment (to keep peace, of course!) and build as many prisons as in the U.S. (for all these immigration kids) to keep the streets clear for the mainstream, worried about 'the existential demographic catastrophy'? I like to see Mr. Hanson when the American bubble blows.

I. The American population has grown exclusively due to immigrants and the children of immigrants, especially Hispanics, and perhaps the efforts of some industrious polygamists. Nor has assimilation accompanied diversification as racial differences remain as salient as ever and the 'melting-pot' has been widely regarded as a failure for decades. And yes, the United States is providing employment, mainly to Indian call centers and Chinese factories.

II. The combined militaries of the European Union are more than adequate for self-defense; moreover, American overseas forces have been dwindling since the end of the Cold War. Russia is in no position to use military force against the EU or threaten the use of it. Nor is China. However, some 30 million Muslims as well as other non-Europeans do pose an existential threat that could transform Western Europe into the next Beirut.

III. I can assure Mr. Hanson, that the rhetoric of the Bush administration - which has been caught numerous times issuing grossly false statements - did not invade Afghanistan and Iraq to "jump start democracy". Indeed, the lion's share of the 3 trillion dollars has gone to its armed services and contractors.

IV. Why would the United States protect vital trade routes on which are carried its imports (e.g. oil and gas), but not Rwanda or Darfur? I cannot fathom this one.

V. The American economy is based not upon national savings which can be used for re-investment back into the economy for new plant and equipment, re-tooling, R&D, etc., and therefore increased export revenues, as Japan's was, but on consumer spending. This makes it crucial for Americans to have access to inexpensive Chinese goods and Indian services in order to keep inflation down.

Great to see the BJ publish a VDH article on this issue.Thanks.