Kosovo band-aid

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-09-22 09:30am

Replace troops in Balkans with a European force, allowing more troops for Iraq

Problem with this is there are only 4,000 troops in the Balkans- 1,500 in Bosnia and 2,500 in Kosovo. They make up a minority of the 20,000 other peacekeepers in the region. So even if Europe was to fill in the gap with 4,000 troops, it wouldn't make much of a dent in the Iraq situation.

Stormbringer · Post by **Stormbringer** » 2003-09-22 01:11pm

The troops have got to come from somewhere. If the UN member nations won't get involved we'll have to find them somehow.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2003-09-22 02:26pm

If the US pulls those troops out it can kiss NATO goodbye, even Blair is starting to side with the French on the independent EU force and once that comes into being NATO will be side lined in very short order.

Of course I like that idea so I hope the US does pull those forces out very soon indeed, especially since it looks like the UN deal is inching towards given the US what it needs to come in half the planet to help out.

Post by **Sea Skimmer** » 2003-09-22 04:20pm

TheDarkling wrote:If the US pulls those troops out it can kiss NATO goodbye, even Blair is starting to side with the French on the independent EU force and once that comes into being NATO will be side lined in very short order.

NATO has no point at the moment so disbanding it is no great loss.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2003-09-22 04:33pm

Sea Skimmer wrote: NATO has no point at the moment so disbanding it is no great loss.

I agree but certain elements in Washington seem to regard it as a way to a good way to control Europe, given the choice the US would prefer a strong NATO than a strong (relatively speaking) independent EU military which is why Blair is so afraid to get onboard that particular endeavour even though it is obvious he secretly supports it.

Oberleutnant · Post by **Oberleutnant** » 2003-09-23 05:40am

Disbanding the Nato would be a huge blow for the former Eastern Bloc countries, especially for the three Baltic states who have been trying to become members ever since their independence. It would force them all to make a decision between EU and USA.

We need to get the common EU defence underway soon. It may be a paper tiger, but at least it would be a big step to the right direction.

Post by **Vympel** » 2003-09-23 06:27am

Common EU defense would be the way to go. Defense against who is a pretty good question, though.

Post by **Edi** » 2003-09-23 06:32am

For the Balts, and to an extent to us as well, that will always be Russia, and in the short term the Eastern European countries aren't going to regard Russia very warmly either on that score.

Edi

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-09-23 07:32am

Oberleutnant wrote:Disbanding the Nato would be a huge blow for the former Eastern Bloc countries, especially for the three Baltic states who have been trying to become members ever since their independence. It would force them all to make a decision between EU and USA.

We need to get the common EU defence underway soon. It may be a paper tiger, but at least it would be a big step to the right direction.

I guarantee they follow the deepest pockets too. Washington would be wise to build strong alliances in Eastern Europe to counter a rising EU power.....if it ever gets beyond bickering and beurocracy.

Oberleutnant · Post by **Oberleutnant** » 2003-09-23 08:03am

Crackpot, I suggest you take a look at the list of most important trade partners of "Eastern European" countries. There's no way how USA can compete with EU in this aspect, especially not after the EU enlargement which happens next year.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-09-23 01:09pm

Oberleutnant wrote:Crackpot, I suggest you take a look at the list of most important trade partners of "Eastern European" countries. There's no way how USA can compete with EU in this aspect, especially not after the EU enlargement which happens next year.

Most of the European powers are socialistic-lite bloated time bombs. The populations in the developed EU are decreasing. The birthrate is already down to 1.5 births per woman. That is a rather drastic net loss.

The BBC wrote:On average, women in Europe now have a fertility rate of 1.5 births each.

If this continues until 2020, they say it could lead to at least 88m fewer people living in the EU in 2100, assuming constant levels of mortality and no significant effects of migration.

In 2000, the EU population was around 375m, so this would mean a fall of more than 23%.

SOURCE

In the United States the birthrate per mother is somewhere between 2.1 and 2.4. a modest net gain. Also, last time i checked there were tens of millions a year from Central and South America as well as Asia knocking on the door.
SOURCE

All that being said this EU expansion seems to me as a desperate "plug in the leaky dyke" to stop or reduce Europe's rapid population decrease.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2003-09-23 03:13pm

So the EU's population may decline by 88 Million (not counting immigration) over the next century...... well that has, got what point again?

Once the EU enlarges it will have a substantially larger population than the US and within a decade or two of so it could easily be more than double the US's dependant upon which potential candidates get let in.

That being said population isn't everything and the EU has other problems.

theski · Post by **theski** » 2003-09-23 03:43pm

Darkling wrote:

That being said population isn't everything and the EU has other problems.

Such as

Pedro Solbes, the European Union's commissioner for monetary and economic affairs, issued a strongly worded warning to Germany, France, and Italy yesterday to act on their burgeoning budget deficits. He indicated that "unsound" levels of public expenditure in the EU's largest economies and delayed structural reforms seriously undermine the bloc's economic potential and leave it unable to close the gap with the United States.

Liberal social progams strike again

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-09-23 07:00pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:
Oberleutnant wrote:Crackpot, I suggest you take a look at the list of most important trade partners of "Eastern European" countries. There's no way how USA can compete with EU in this aspect, especially not after the EU enlargement which happens next year.
Most of the European powers are socialistic-lite bloated time bombs. The populations in the developed EU are decreasing. The birthrate is already down to 1.5 births per woman. That is a rather drastic net loss.

And? That has nothing to do with the simple fact that we're by far the major trading partners (and investors) of western Europe. Also, the E.U population has actually increased in number in the last years. A consequence of having the other Europeans, Africans, and asians willing to sacrifice everything for a chance of living here.

If this continues until 2020, they say it could lead to at least 88m fewer people living in the EU in 2100, assuming constant levels of mortality and no significant effects of migration.

In 2000, the EU population was around 375m, so this would mean a fall of more than 23%.

Buahaha, in 2004 we will be about 500 million with tendency to increase, even if Turkey never joins (and it will). Even if the birthrate in the E.U first ones doesn't increase, that and the flow of emmigrants are enough, I think.

All that being said this EU expansion seems to me as a desperate "plug in the leaky dyke" to stop or reduce Europe's rapid population decrease.

No, it's a step to achieve the goal of a peaceful, solidary and wealthy Europe.

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-09-23 07:22pm

Colonel Olrik wrote: And? That has nothing to do with the simple fact that we're by far the major trading partners (and investors) of western Europe. Also, the E.U population has actually increased in number in the last years. A consequence of having the other Europeans, Africans, and asians willing to sacrifice everything for a chance of living here.

The same is true for immigrants desperate to get into the US. The Us, however, is not dependant on immigration for population growth. But, lets look at that. To maintain current population levels Europe needs to import 86 million people over the next 20 years! The downside of that is that immigrants typically need one full generation to integrate themselves into society. That first generation is also much more likely to need social services.

Buahaha, in 2004 we will be about 500 million with tendency to increase, even if Turkey never joins (and it will). Even if the birthrate in the E.U first ones doesn't increase, that and the flow of emmigrants are enough, I think.

yeah, and in 2020 23% of those people (according to the BBC article) will be dead. You are not reproducing fast enough to maintain a population base!

No, it's a step to achieve the goal of a peaceful, solidary and wealthy Europe.

As envisioned by the ideologues Paris and Berlin. I'm sure they have Portugal's best interests at heart.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2003-09-23 07:46pm

Col. Crackpot wrote: The same is true for immigrants desperate to get into the US. The Us, however, is not dependant on immigration for population growth. But, lets look at that. To maintain current population levels Europe needs to import 86 million people over the next 20 years!

You read it wrong, it says if things don't change by 2020 then come 2100 the EU with have shrunk by 86 million, the population change you seem to think was going to happen is absurd.
To put things in perspective, by 2050 Latinos will be the biggest racial group in America, the population of white folks over there is also dwindling it is just that you have more of other groups so the trend isn't as pronounced.

yeah, and in 2020 23% of those people (according to the BBC article) will be dead. You are not reproducing fast enough to maintain a population base!

Read it again.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-09-23 07:48pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:To maintain current population levels Europe needs to import 86 million people over the next 20 years! The downside of that is that immigrants typically need one full generation to integrate themselves into society. That first generation is also much more likely to need social services.

The eastern countries that are to join in 2004 have higher birth rates. Also, according to your article, those 86 million less is for the year 2100. 860.000 emmigrant/year represents about 0.15% of the European population each year, it doesn't seem too much. And the emmigrant wave from Russia and other countries is actually quite cult and come with a strong desire to work and they can integrate in society in a few years. America used to be more open to emmigration.

yeah, and in 2020 23% of those people (according to the BBC article) will be dead. You are not reproducing fast enough to maintain a population base!

No, those 23% are based from the year 2000 population number. In 2004, we'll be 500 million, and the eastern countries birthrates are higher than ours.

As envisioned by the ideologues Paris and Berlin. I'm sure they have Portugal's best interests at heart.

You should have visited my country twenty years ago and now to see the good the E.U has done.

In other words: An infusion of 10 million Euros / day for ten years as structural funds will do wonders for a region, being it Portugal, Ireland or Greece. In a federation, solidarity is more garanteed than in state to states relations of competition.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2003-09-23 08:05pm

Colonel Olrik: I would check the figures on the pop grwoth rates of the former Eastern Bloc members, it seems that they lost the will to breed under Communism because there Pop growth rates are far worse than western Europes.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-09-23 08:07pm

TheDarkling wrote:Colonel Olrik: I would check the figures on the pop grwoth rates of the former Eastern Bloc members, it seems that they lost the will to breed under Communism because there Pop growth rates are far worse than western Europes.

It is

I thought they were breeding well. My bad then. I'm still going to check it out.

edit: I was wrong, indeed. They seem to be having motivation problems. Maybe we could send to Poland a few tons of quality porn as a bonus to all the money they'll get..

Col. Crackpot · Post by **Col. Crackpot** » 2003-09-23 08:51pm

Colonel Olrik wrote:
TheDarkling wrote:Colonel Olrik: I would check the figures on the pop grwoth rates of the former Eastern Bloc members, it seems that they lost the will to breed under Communism because there Pop growth rates are far worse than western Europes.
It is I thought they were breeding well. My bad then. I'm still going to check it out.

edit: I was wrong, indeed. They seem to be having motivation problems. Maybe we could send to Poland a few tons of quality porn as a bonus to all the money they'll get..

wow! i thought the Poles were strong catholic "every sperm is sacred" types.

Post by **Colonel Olrik** » 2003-09-23 09:09pm

Col. Crackpot wrote: wow! i thought the Poles were strong catholic "every sperm is sacred" types.

Apparently, they like to swallow..

To hell with the Poles. They're not even in the club yet and already were demanding for biblical references in the E.U Constitution.. Talk about delusions of grandeur..

Oberleutnant · Post by **Oberleutnant** » 2003-09-23 09:13pm

Col. Crackpot wrote:
Oberleutnant wrote:Crackpot, I suggest you take a look at the list of most important trade partners of "Eastern European" countries. There's no way how USA can compete with EU in this aspect, especially not after the EU enlargement which happens next year.
Most of the European powers are socialistic-lite bloated time bombs. The populations in the developed EU are decreasing. The birthrate is already down to 1.5 births per woman. That is a rather drastic net loss.

That's nice way to evade your the statement you made earlier:

"I guarantee they follow the deepest pockets too. Washington would be wise to build strong alliances in Eastern Europe to counter a rising EU power.....if it ever gets beyond bickering and beurocracy."

Here's some information about the countries which are the most important export and import partners of the new "eastern" EU member countries. All information comes from CIA's The World Factbook, which can be read at http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook

Czech Republic

Exports - partners:
Germany 35.4%, Slovakia 7.3%, UK 5.5%, Austria 5.3%, Poland 5.2%, (2001)

Imports - partners:
Germany 32.9%, Slovakia 6.4%, Russia 6.0%, Italy 5.8%, Austria 4.6% (2001)

Estonia

Exports - partners:
Finland 33.8%, Sweden 14%, Latvia 6.9%, Germany 6.9%, UK 4.2 (2001)

Imports - partners:
Finland 18%, Germany 11%, Sweden 9%, China 9%, Russia 8% (2001)

Hungary

Exports - partners:
Germany 34.9%, Austria 8.7%, Italy 5.9%, US 5.6% (2000)

Imports - partners:
Germany 26.4%, Italy 8.3%, Austria 7.9%, Russia 6.8% (2000 est.)

Latvia

Exports - partners:
Germany 17%, UK 16%, Sweden 10%, Lithuania 8%, Russia 6% (2000)

Imports ? partners:
Germany 17%, Russia 9%, Lithuania 8%, Finland 8%, Sweden 7% (2000)

Lithuania

Exports - partners:
UK 13.8%, Latvia 12.6%, Germany 12.6%, Russia 11%, Poland 6.3% (1999)

Imports ? partners:
Russia 25.3%, Germany 17.2%, Poland 4.9%, Italy 4.2%, France 3.8% (1999)

Poland

Exports - partners:
Germany 34.3%, Italy 5.4%, France 5.4%, UK 5.0% (1999)

Imports - partners:
Germany 23.9%, Russia 8.8%, Italy 8.2%, France 6.8% (1998)

Slovakia

Exports - partners:
EU 59.9% (Germany 27.0%, Italy 8.8%, Austria 8.1%), Czech Republic 16.6% (2001)

Imports - partners:
EU 49.8% (Germany 24.7%, Italy 6.4%), Czech Republic 15.1%, Russia 14.8% (2001)

Slovenia

Exports - partners:
Germany 26.0%, Italy 12.4%, Croatia 8.6%, Austria 7.4%, France 6.7% (2000)

Imports - partners:
Germany 19.6%, Italy 18.0%, France 10.8%, Austria 8.5%, Croatia 4.0% (2000)

USA and American companies certainly already have a major role in the economies of this area of Europe, don't they?

Of course this list doesn't include information about who are the biggest investors, but it shouldn't be hard to figure out. In Central Europe, Germany and German companies are major investors, especially in Poland and Czech Republic. In the Baltics for example, Sweden and Finland have Germany's role.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2003-09-23 09:15pm

Col. Crackpot wrote: wow! i thought the Poles were strong catholic "every sperm is sacred" types.

Indeed they are, prehaps they just don't have a lot of sex.

Oberleutnant · Post by **Oberleutnant** » 2003-09-23 09:16pm

Colonel Olrik wrote:
Col. Crackpot wrote: wow! i thought the Poles were strong catholic "every sperm is sacred" types.
Apparently, they like to swallow..

To hell with the Poles. They're not even in the club yet and already were demanding for biblical references in the E.U Constitution.. Talk about delusions of grandeur..

That's what you get when the most pious European country joins this merry little group of nations.

TheDarkling · Post by **TheDarkling** » 2003-09-23 09:20pm

And does anyone still not understand why Germany is very happy about the enlargement?

One additional note on the Poles is that there Birth rate is higher than the other eastern bloc countries (they are just about breaking even with net migration unlike some of the other which are shrinking).

I just look forward to the uber EU numbering 600 million with a combined defence budget, might actually be able to have a nice fleet (a half dozen carriers of good size).