Such a comical argument. Europe doesn't need large standing armies, there is no military threat to Europe. The US is not in Europe to protect it, the US is in Europe to maintain it's power projection capabilities in the region. You think if the US left Europe would pour money into their militarys? Don't be ridiculous.
Spending other people's money to prop up a socialist dystopia. Stop funding thise pinkos! We have got to reign in spending socialism ETC or we will collapse. Then govnerment inEurope ill collapseas well.
wow that's a different take on the Glorious Revolution than I've ever heard. As far as I understand it the assention of William and Mary to the English thrown was the final deathblow to the English Monarchy, from that point on the King and Queen ruled at the pleasure of the Parliament and no longer by the grace of God. William was asked to invade England to
What a nonsensical vid. Relying upon the US army?
Anno 2010 the world looks like this:
1) Every EU country has an army. Most have state of the art technology. The EU need fear noone, cause it could neber be overrun. A war against Germany alone tends to keep the planet occupied for 4 to 5 years.
2) EU countries invest what is necessary: no bullshit adventures like Iraq and Afghanistan, better control on government spending, and simply outcompeting the US industrially.
Thats why America is having a difficult time. We are too busy stimulating the economies of failed nations with failed economic systems than stimulating the economy at home and freeing up our markets
We are actually subsidizing Europe, starting with Greece. We are borrowing or printing dollars to prop up the failed socialist Country of Greece. We are propping up a Ponzi Scheme with fiat dollars.
"socialism is in effect nothing but a ponzi scheme"
You do realise that "Eur. socialism" is just capitalism with higher taxes that the US has, do you?. So, you do realise that "Eur. socialism" is simply capitalism, do you? So you do realise how immensely stupid you comment actually is, do you?
@surfstomp "We are borrowing or printing dollars to prop up the failed socialist Country "
Oh boy, an utterly bankrupt failure borrowing huge amounts from China, with ridiculously low taxes, and even buying its own treasury bonds would be subsidising Europe .......
so you mean the whole america is being a sugardaddy for europe?.. dont bullshit me.. Here in sweden we got free school, free health care, free Dental Services. all this made by socialdemocracy. i havent seen any american involvement in this.stop saying lies that the ''whole europe'' is getting money from america because its not true. and if you have any proof saying that it is true, i will gladly look over it.
Oh fogg. Nobody believes that Supermarkets story. The Russians fucked off after 1989, but 20 years after the end of the Cold War, we are still annexed by the US.
The Japanese at least dare protest against the US miliary bases.
@RachelBartlett Annexed? You mena these few pathetic military bases? Let them stay. They are no good for our defense as they've become totally redundant, but these soldiers are spending some money into local economy. Nice for shop keepers.
They bases are a typical example of why the US is not doing well. They probably cost a fortune to maintain and have no use whatsoever.
Furthermore, just look at what the English Channel has done for England. Those 21 miles of ocean kept the Nazi Blitzkrieg out. England hasn't been successfully invaded by an enemy since 1066. Think what 3,000 miles of ocean can do. The logistics to create a beachhead in the U.S. across a 3,000 mile ocean is impossible and that doesn't even take into account the fact that the U.S. has the largest domestic militia in the world. With 150 Million American Men yielding over 300 Million Arms.
@pschiffforsenate This is incorrect, amte. England has been successfully invaded by a Dutchman towards the end of the 17th century. This William didn't come by himself but with thousands and thouasand of Dutch soldiers. Basically he invaded Britain and Britain at the time wad divided and had nothing to put in the field against it. Britain and Holland struck a deal: William became king of Britain. Britain calls this "The glorious revolution" which simply was a Dutch invasion.
overthrow a tyrannical King with his daughter Mary II and son-in-law William, who just happened to be the King of the Netherlands. This was a one sided civil war with foreign interventionist troops, Europe has seen it happen many times, and this is far from the definition of an invasion (look up real invasions like the invasion of Russia in 1812 or 1941 and you'll see the difference). When George I became King of England; was this also an invasion of England? this time by Germany
@pschiffforsenate Really, why does everyone call it an invasion then? :-) This is NOT a civil war. Certainly Charles wasn't loved very much but clearly in power. This inavsion was secretly negotiated by a minority of Britsih politicians who had ties with William. Support for Charles only crumbled due to the presence of a Dutch army. Basically this was a coup d'etat backed up by an .... invasion of Britain.
We don't need a standing army we have 2 giant oceans to protect us from the psychopaths that our ancestors emigrated to get away from. They've served us pretty good considering the U.S. hasn't been invaded since the War of 1812 whereas France was invaded by Germany 3 times from 1870-1940 with millions of Frenchman being slaughtered. So what we lost 6,000 Americans in 2 sneak attacks in a 200 year span. I'd say we're pretty safe over here on our island. Lets bring our troops home!
The United States 1 Trillion Dollar a year "defense" budget hurts the U.S. far more than it helps Europe. Secondly, why does Germany need a large standing army? Why does the U.S? Why does anyone? Who are we going to have a ground war with? Dismantle the world's military's and let's live in peace and trade with each-other. Many of our founding fathers detested the idea of a standing army in peacetime b/c it's a classical sign of a police state.
Such a comical argument. Europe doesn't need large standing armies, there is no military threat to Europe. The US is not in Europe to protect it, the US is in Europe to maintain it's power projection capabilities in the region. You think if the US left Europe would pour money into their militarys? Don't be ridiculous.
01000001011100100111 1 month ago
So is not-so-failed-socialist Germany. And all other EU countries for that matter
But true story, the Greece example really shows how not to run a social democratic country.
qw2b 1 year ago
Mark Steyn rules!
ACORNHOLEFANNYFISTER 1 year ago
infinite sick leave, welfare state, retirement at 50, tax and regulated too death.
what could go wrong?
nephilimgorilla 1 year ago
@nephilimgorilla retirement at 48 to be precise
qw2b 1 year ago
Get America out of Europe and European socialism out of america now!
Denverlibertarion 1 year ago
@Denverlibertarion
Yes indeed, get America out of Europe.
Efteling4Ever 8 months ago
Spending other people's money to prop up a socialist dystopia. Stop funding thise pinkos! We have got to reign in spending socialism ETC or we will collapse. Then govnerment inEurope ill collapseas well.
minnesotastategop 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
pschiffforsenate 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
wow that's a different take on the Glorious Revolution than I've ever heard. As far as I understand it the assention of William and Mary to the English thrown was the final deathblow to the English Monarchy, from that point on the King and Queen ruled at the pleasure of the Parliament and no longer by the grace of God. William was asked to invade England to
pschiffforsenate 1 year ago
What a nonsensical vid. Relying upon the US army?
Anno 2010 the world looks like this:
1) Every EU country has an army. Most have state of the art technology. The EU need fear noone, cause it could neber be overrun. A war against Germany alone tends to keep the planet occupied for 4 to 5 years.
2) EU countries invest what is necessary: no bullshit adventures like Iraq and Afghanistan, better control on government spending, and simply outcompeting the US industrially.
Efteling4Ever 1 year ago
Thats why America is having a difficult time. We are too busy stimulating the economies of failed nations with failed economic systems than stimulating the economy at home and freeing up our markets
calstategop 1 year ago
Europeans have it better than we do in the US. The US is all about greed and money.
jmkpns 1 year ago
We are actually subsidizing Europe, starting with Greece. We are borrowing or printing dollars to prop up the failed socialist Country of Greece. We are propping up a Ponzi Scheme with fiat dollars.
surfstomp 1 year ago 5
@surfstomp socialism is in effect nothing but a ponzi scheme.
minnesotastategop 1 year ago
@minnesotastategop
"socialism is in effect nothing but a ponzi scheme"
You do realise that "Eur. socialism" is just capitalism with higher taxes that the US has, do you?. So, you do realise that "Eur. socialism" is simply capitalism, do you? So you do realise how immensely stupid you comment actually is, do you?
Efteling4Ever 8 months ago
@Efteling4Ever Europe is capitalist the same way that California is a cheap state to live in.
minnesotastategop 7 months ago
@surfstomp "We are borrowing or printing dollars to prop up the failed socialist Country "
Oh boy, an utterly bankrupt failure borrowing huge amounts from China, with ridiculously low taxes, and even buying its own treasury bonds would be subsidising Europe .......
LOOOOOOL
Efteling4Ever 8 months ago
so you mean the whole america is being a sugardaddy for europe?.. dont bullshit me.. Here in sweden we got free school, free health care, free Dental Services. all this made by socialdemocracy. i havent seen any american involvement in this.stop saying lies that the ''whole europe'' is getting money from america because its not true. and if you have any proof saying that it is true, i will gladly look over it.
aliveTerraN 1 year ago
Oh fogg. Nobody believes that Supermarkets story. The Russians fucked off after 1989, but 20 years after the end of the Cold War, we are still annexed by the US.
The Japanese at least dare protest against the US miliary bases.
RachelBartlett 1 year ago
@RachelBartlett Annexed? You mena these few pathetic military bases? Let them stay. They are no good for our defense as they've become totally redundant, but these soldiers are spending some money into local economy. Nice for shop keepers.
They bases are a typical example of why the US is not doing well. They probably cost a fortune to maintain and have no use whatsoever.
Efteling4Ever 1 year ago
Furthermore, just look at what the English Channel has done for England. Those 21 miles of ocean kept the Nazi Blitzkrieg out. England hasn't been successfully invaded by an enemy since 1066. Think what 3,000 miles of ocean can do. The logistics to create a beachhead in the U.S. across a 3,000 mile ocean is impossible and that doesn't even take into account the fact that the U.S. has the largest domestic militia in the world. With 150 Million American Men yielding over 300 Million Arms.
pschiffforsenate 1 year ago
@pschiffforsenate This is incorrect, amte. England has been successfully invaded by a Dutchman towards the end of the 17th century. This William didn't come by himself but with thousands and thouasand of Dutch soldiers. Basically he invaded Britain and Britain at the time wad divided and had nothing to put in the field against it. Britain and Holland struck a deal: William became king of Britain. Britain calls this "The glorious revolution" which simply was a Dutch invasion.
Efteling4Ever 1 year ago
Comment removed
pschiffforsenate 1 year ago
@Efteling4Ever
overthrow a tyrannical King with his daughter Mary II and son-in-law William, who just happened to be the King of the Netherlands. This was a one sided civil war with foreign interventionist troops, Europe has seen it happen many times, and this is far from the definition of an invasion (look up real invasions like the invasion of Russia in 1812 or 1941 and you'll see the difference). When George I became King of England; was this also an invasion of England? this time by Germany
pschiffforsenate 1 year ago
@pschiffforsenate Really, why does everyone call it an invasion then? :-) This is NOT a civil war. Certainly Charles wasn't loved very much but clearly in power. This inavsion was secretly negotiated by a minority of Britsih politicians who had ties with William. Support for Charles only crumbled due to the presence of a Dutch army. Basically this was a coup d'etat backed up by an .... invasion of Britain.
Efteling4Ever 1 year ago
We don't need a standing army we have 2 giant oceans to protect us from the psychopaths that our ancestors emigrated to get away from. They've served us pretty good considering the U.S. hasn't been invaded since the War of 1812 whereas France was invaded by Germany 3 times from 1870-1940 with millions of Frenchman being slaughtered. So what we lost 6,000 Americans in 2 sneak attacks in a 200 year span. I'd say we're pretty safe over here on our island. Lets bring our troops home!
pschiffforsenate 1 year ago
The United States 1 Trillion Dollar a year "defense" budget hurts the U.S. far more than it helps Europe. Secondly, why does Germany need a large standing army? Why does the U.S? Why does anyone? Who are we going to have a ground war with? Dismantle the world's military's and let's live in peace and trade with each-other. Many of our founding fathers detested the idea of a standing army in peacetime b/c it's a classical sign of a police state.
pschiffforsenate 1 year ago 3