It’s a military alliance. Nothing new about that. It’s not trying to run our lives.
It’s also a military alliance in search of a reason to still exist. Can anyone tells us what NATO’s mission is any more?
Decisions should be taken at the levels closest to the individuals involved, and often that means a single individual. But sometimes larger scales are appropriate, even at the EU level. Very often decisions are made by some level of government when it would be best left to lower levels or to the free market. That doesn’t mean there isn’t room for an EU, even if like all governments it is guilty of meddling and overreach.
The size of the country also matters, NL is so small that many decisions are logically taken at a larger geographical scale.
When NATO decides how much of your GNP should be dedicated to defense is it trying to run your life or not?
One key characteristic of intelligence is the ability to learn from experience. What Slaughter advocates has been tried repeatedly and it has consistently failed. While she may be credentialed and even “book smart” to a degree, she is a stupid person unable to learn from experience.
“Donning a “realist” cap, Professor Slaughter argues that the glory days of the special relationship with the U.S. are over, meaning Britain must integrate itself into the EU or “risk” becoming a bit player in global politics.”
Clearly Obama agrees that relationship is no more.
Britain became a bit player on global politics after WWII ended and they lost their Empire. Try reading about the Suez Canal crisis. It put the final nail into the concept that there is any sort of capacity for the former European powers to intervene on global politics. Back then the UK and France combined could not face off against US and Soviet pressure. Back then they had more military resources at their disposal than they have today. It would take an army funded by the entire EU to be able to play the superpower game. With the Euro failing where is the money going to come from?
NATO is a transnational organisation.
It’s a military alliance. Nothing new about that. It’s not trying to run our lives.
It’s also a military alliance in search of a reason to still exist. Can anyone tells us what NATO’s mission is any more?
Decisions should be taken at the levels closest to the individuals involved, and often that means a single individual. But sometimes larger scales are appropriate, even at the EU level. Very often decisions are made by some level of government when it would be best left to lower levels or to the free market. That doesn’t mean there isn’t room for an EU, even if like all governments it is guilty of meddling and overreach.
The size of the country also matters, NL is so small that many decisions are logically taken at a larger geographical scale.
When NATO decides how much of your GNP should be dedicated to defense is it trying to run your life or not?
One key characteristic of intelligence is the ability to learn from experience. What Slaughter advocates has been tried repeatedly and it has consistently failed. While she may be credentialed and even “book smart” to a degree, she is a stupid person unable to learn from experience.
“Donning a “realist” cap, Professor Slaughter argues that the glory days of the special relationship with the U.S. are over, meaning Britain must integrate itself into the EU or “risk” becoming a bit player in global politics.”
Clearly Obama agrees that relationship is no more.
Britain became a bit player on global politics after WWII ended and they lost their Empire. Try reading about the Suez Canal crisis. It put the final nail into the concept that there is any sort of capacity for the former European powers to intervene on global politics. Back then the UK and France combined could not face off against US and Soviet pressure. Back then they had more military resources at their disposal than they have today. It would take an army funded by the entire EU to be able to play the superpower game. With the Euro failing where is the money going to come from?