Compare this with the fact that Rome built anti-barbarian wall defenses in Briton, three quarters of a continent from their Italian power base. This was in a time of muscle power, not steam or electric or nuclear. Rome could do such and secure the Britons, yet the morally upright UN and their EU superpower buddy can’t do jack in Africa? What’s missing here? It’s not tech, it’s competence.

The Roman Republic and Empire had it, Europe and the UN never did.

The first non-imperial Empire? Can the European bureacrats get any dumber?

The first non-Imperial Empire is called the United States. Europe, regardless of their conceit for being the first democracies and etc, is only first in creating high numbers of wars. It’s one thing for people like the Romans to wage war on the Gauls, which was France, but it is another thing to start wars and just keep on starting them without ever finishing the previous battles. The wars between France, Germany, and Britain have been occuring since the fall of the Western AND Eastern Roman Empires. They had 1,000 years to get things up to the level and recover from the interregnum of Rome’s fall. Rome, for example, only needed about 300 years to complete their conquest and consolidation of Gaul and the border with the Spanish Luso tribes. From the time when Rome was sacked by Gauls in 300 BC thereabouts, to Caesar’s consolidation of southern Gaul in around 55 BC. Count with me the centuries Europe had devoted to internal and external warfare. 11th century *feudalism*, 12th century, 13th century, 14th century, 15th century, 16 century (buccanneers), 17th century *Spanish new world gold*, 18th century *new world taxes*, 19th century *War of 1812, Napoleonic Wars, Carl Von Clausewitz’s “On War”*, and finally the 20th century *which is obvious*.

What did they do with that time? They spent it trying to create empires and colonies. Empires that they inevitably weren’t strong enough to keep. Napoleon sold half of America to Americans because it gave him more money to fight the British with. It also gave someone else the responsibility of defending people on the frontier, things France was too busy to deal with. As if they were ever not busy.

Guess what happened to the rest of Europe’s colonies after their empires in the new world broke up. Right after WWII, most of Europe was too weak and disheartened to even want to do their duty for their colonies. So that went up in smoke and now we have female genital mutilation in Africa, and we can’t fix it cause the Europeans would call us Imperialists and colonalists for effecting the solutions that would change a backward culture for the better. Just cause Europe failed and flunked the test of nations and empires, it must mean America must fail as well.

Europe is conceited, for their claims are nothing but imaginary products of a feeble mind and hand. Empires are maintained through military force, regardless of how they came to be. There is no incentive for disparate people to work as a team, if there lacks a central military force that can guarantee protection for all in return for all sacrificing for the team.

People see Americans as arrogant, since Americans actually have truth to their claims of security, power, might, wisdom, and greatness. France, for example, is not full of arrogant people at the upper echelons. France is full of conceited people. Those that believe that they are part of the new wave, called “non-imperial Empires”.

Here are one of the common idiot squads to go along with the bureacrats. A comment at youtube.

Let history reflect that Europe has been the greatest superpower that has ever existed in this world. The Spanish Empire, The British Empire, the French Empire, the German Empire and even the Portugese and Dutch Empire were all superpowers in their own time. Europe ruled the world for centuries - your post shows a lack of intellect and historic knowledge.

Greetings from a Dutch-American

The greatest superpower? Europe wasted more manpower and resources in fighting each other than the Romans ever did. Rome actually had civil wars between 2 or 3 factions, but they were competent enough to “win”. Which is something that can’t be said for this mythical European “superpower” that just kept on fighting until the American superpower, actual superpower, stepped in and told the Euros to stop or else.

Do people actually know that in the 12th century, Britain had lands in France. thus it was just one of the various different dynastic wars going on between the French and the English? How many centuries did that go on? It’s fine for the aristocrats, they get an excuse to grind the peasants underheel in their many wars. Fun and exciting when you don’t got modern entertainment.

Dutch-Ami here isn’t even content with saying the “greatest superpower in recent history”. No, he has to say “greatest superpower in history”. As if these people know anything about history except how to ape it.

The Europeans didn’t even rule themselves. How do you expect them to rule over others? They had no Republic as Rome did. They were always backwards. Their endless warfare is only one example of how war accelerates research and development in weapons and tech.

European empires were a snap of the finger compared to Rome’s 500 years and the Roman Empires 1000 years.

If you look at the early history of Rome, you will see just as much interest in conquering new territory as the Europeans showed. What you don’t see is the European need for aristocracy and feudalism. That prevented Europe from truly becoming united, for feudalism and the aristocrats in feudalism will always prevent unity. For unity breaks the power of a small elite. What do the peasants need protection given to them from the Lords, Earls, and Dukes when the peasants have national armies levied from their neighbors and brothers and husbands?

What do you need rich people for when the legions of Rome were recruited professionally from non-citzens, allied city states, auxiliary local forces, and the plebian class? When the taxes Rome collects, pays for the arms and armor of such legions, instead of the citizens having to pay for their own equipment?

What do you need a class of aristocrats for then?

Without Rome to teach the barbarians in Europe what it means to lose in war, Europe would have been sitting around their camp fires still consuming drink and drugs. Without Greek knowledge and skills, the “Europeans” couldn’t pump their own water to bath themselves with.

Whatever claim to fame and greatness Europe had, it rested upon the ashes of the greatest actual Empire in history.

Having endless wars every decade out of every century is not the epitomy of skill in war. That’s why bush fights between tribes are nasty, but they don’t prepare such tribes to face an organized army like Rome’s or America’s. Nor was Europe prepared for the German blitzkrieg.

Europe is absolutely right that people should not get to wage war and invade people just because they can. Only competent people and nations should be allowed the opportunity to make something better from the aftermath of war. Incompetent people, like Europeans and Ayrabs, should be barred from participating in warfare, forever.

They don’t get to call themselves an empire of 27 states, regardless of what happens. America got there first. America is also the first non-expansionist Empire. Something the EU is not going to challenge, regardless of how many people they subject to second class citizenship.

Going by the history, popular revolutions (Cartoon Jihad, France riots) will overthrow the monarchies, ushering in a socialist paradise once again. Which, of course, inevitably leads to the socialist party leaders becoming the new aristocracy. Which in turn leads to more rebellions and wars.

This is known as human nature not open to modification by the Left.

Btw, here’s a funny answer to the question of “Is Europe a country”.

Link

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2Ralocq9uE

But if the people voted down an “American Union” Constitution, only to have it instituted by a Treaty signed by Senators, those Senators would soon be history along with the Treaty.

I am certain that before the USA would hand over its sovereignty to a “NUC” there would be a succession of States and/or war.

OK, I’m not certain, since the country seems to be 50/50 split. I hope.

You know I’m right.

The EU was originally envisioned as a counter-balancing force against American Power.

Obviouslly when you have people out to create a counter-balancingforce for liberty, security, and strength, you will get disunity, crime, and police states out of it.

It is very logical.

It’s worse here in Germany. There was a discussion on TV last night about the need to have Kultur become a part of the Grundgesetz (Basic Law). Basically, this means that people could go to court if they felt a piece of legislation or a budget the government did not fulfill its the cultural responsibilities. Animal rights has already been included, and because of several recent murders and severe abuses of children by parents, children’s rights are now being discussed for inclusion. It simply doesn’t occur to people here that these issues should be hashed out and dealt with by legislators who are directly accountable to the people. People don’t know or care who their judges are, how they are selected, or what their juducial philosophies might be.

Democracy deficiencies in the EU and the new “constitutional treaty” have been pointed out by two Constitutional Court judges , one of whom served on the court before becoming President of Germany. Their op/ed articles provoked practically no discussion because the people are ignorant of the legal principles. The whole situation elicits warn fuzzy feelings in me for America’s gun-totin 2nd amendment defenders. At least the know what a constitution is about..