European Union, Military Superpower!?!

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 4 2005 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Thankfully if there is one end of the political 'spectrum' Europe won't be looking to for any answers in any of our possible difficulties in future it is the extreme right with their vicious little nasty simplistic siren noise.

(No matter how much they love to avoid actual numbers and play % games and imply their support is growing or claim a handful of low level 'council seats' is evidence of their being on the verge of real power.
)

Been there, done that never repeating the God-aweful experience
(as beautifully illustrated every time any of that crowd ever get so much as a sniff of serious power, 'the people' might be apathetic to some degree about politics but by God they turn out in their droves when it really matters to stop those dangerous simple-minded fools).

As we sit and watch the world respond to one of the worst disasters humanity has, apparantly, ever faced it's rather tragic to see those advocating a mean, more closed, more separate, fearful and more selfish world still refusing to accept there is but one human race and we all need to find ways to live in peace and at ease with each other.

Thankfully the people in the street know this obvious truth and this can be seen in their generosity and rush to help those afflicted by this catastrophe.


[edit on 4-1-2005 by sminkeypinkey]




posted on Jan, 5 2005 @ 01:39 AM
link   
Amen Sminkey, I'll second that one chap! Britain alone has donated Ł75million in private donations alone, which warms my heart that people out there do care.



posted on Jan, 31 2005 @ 12:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX
Sorry I think you got it wrong

The UK would not have lasted without the help of all the Allies with the US and Canada at the top of the list.


Erm, what are you talking about? There is no "Without Canada" or Australia or New Zealand etc. This is the Commonwealth. You are in trouble and your family helps you. It's very simple and unconditional. There is no "at the top of the list". There is no commonwealth country who fought harder than another. There is no commonwealth country who waited hesitantly when they were called on. It's a world war, and as such the world responds. There is no thankyou needed for acting during such times, it is expected. You step up and do your damn job as an ally.

Then 60 years later you have kids on their computers demanding respect for what brave men did for no other reason than because it was right.



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   
What good is military power if you are to cowardly to use it. The history of appeasement is not to be discounted. In fact the appeasement of muslim fanatics ALL over the EU is comical.

Your precious nation is enroute to theocracy. Can you stop it? The Muslim communities are not integrating into existing society, they are seperatists within your society and growing out of control. England cannot even recognize the Hate preached within mosques, surely this is a defeatist mentality that reigns, not in Blair, but in your courts. France is already 10% muslim. They cannot possibly do anything other than demanding they take off the scarves of young muslim women, this is nothing more than looking in the mirror and flexing. Islam will tolerate it only while that have to. Sharia coming soon.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 05:24 PM
link   
Are you a Facist, just wondering? If you are, this argument is wasted.

Its the "few" muslims that do not integrate, you will find. I have met plenty of reindly Muslims, as a fact, they are nice enough, and do not like the Terrorists actions. They want peace as much as anyone else.

The Koran does not preach hatred. Niether did the Bible, but hte Christians used it as an excuse to conquer the World in the name of the British empire.

America isn't, of course, having half the world on an "Axis of Evil" list taking it over in the name of Democracy, no? And Forcing Muslims to flee its was on non-democratic nations?



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kinja
What good is military power if you are to cowardly to use it. The history of appeasement is not to be discounted. In fact the appeasement of muslim fanatics ALL over the EU is comical.

Funny last time I checked there was a serios european force in the middle east at the moment....or is that really US troops in european uniforms?


Your precious nation is enroute to theocracy. Can you stop it? The Muslim communities are not integrating into existing society, they are seperatists within your society and growing out of control. England cannot even recognize the Hate preached within mosques, surely this is a defeatist mentality that reigns, not in Blair, but in your courts. France is already 10% muslim. They cannot possibly do anything other than demanding they take off the scarves of young muslim women, this is nothing more than looking in the mirror and flexing. Islam will tolerate it only while that have to. Sharia coming soon.

So you want us to beat down a race?
The UK (NOT ENGLAND GET IT YET?) is quite fine , we recognise hate preached there but hate is preached every where....



posted on Mar, 23 2005 @ 01:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kinja
What good is military power if you are to cowardly to use it.


- Oh spare us, another one who thinks anyone daring to actually make use of our (supposedly shared) great value of freedom (of action, of speech, to disagree etc etc) = cowardise?

Jayzuss wept.



The history of appeasement is not to be discounted. In fact the appeasement of muslim fanatics ALL over the EU is comical.


- What "appeasement"?

( By the way please feel free to list this terrible and enormous amount of appeasement that you imagine has European civillisation on the verge of collapse.
)


Your precious nation is enroute to theocracy.


- This is so ludicrous it isn't worthy of a response other than derisive laughter tinged with slightly embarrassed (for you) pity.


Can you stop it?


- Well seeing as it is not actually happening in the first place there isn't anything to stop is there?


The Muslim communities are not integrating into existing society, they are seperatists within your society and growing out of control.


- Complete rubbish. Clearly you know little or nothing about how things are here.

Firstly there is no homogenous "Muslim Community", all thinking and acting in a particular way.

There are members of that community that are extremist nutters but then every community is (it seems) aflicted with a brainless loony element.


England cannot even recognize the Hate preached within mosques, surely this is a defeatist mentality that reigns, not in Blair, but in your courts.


- For all the little problems we encounter along the way the sky is not falling down.
'We' are managing fine, actually. 'We' have one of the better records of racial integration actually.


France is already 10% muslim.


- So what?
There is no such thing as a 'typical' French Muslim; like any other ethnic group they hold a huge range of diversity of opinion, view and religious values.


They cannot possibly do anything other than demanding they take off the scarves of young muslim women, this is nothing more than looking in the mirror and flexing.


- I see, so the fact that they have passed this law to you means they have little influence?




Islam will tolerate it only while that have to.


- If you knew the slightest thing about what went on in France over this you'd know that Muslim opinion was divided and many supported this, not merely tolerated it.


Sharia coming soon.


- In your dreams, obviously.

Meanwhile back in the real world, this is just pure garbage.

(But carry on. Troll away in your ignorance if you must.......love the 'Christian values' - "Jesus saves", apparantly - there too....can you say "hypocrite"?)

[edit on 23-3-2005 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 11:40 AM
link   
Sheeesh, I am just glad I live in a country where the right to defend yourself (yes yourself, even in todays world some form of self effciencyis useful) with personal firearms is allowed, where there is plenty of backwoods area to escape when things go haywire, and the government stays out of your life to a reasonable level, and there is less loaded mosques with terrorists preaching.



posted on Apr, 2 2005 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedOctober90
Sheeesh, I am just glad I live in a country where the right to defend yourself (yes yourself, even in todays world some form of self effciencyis useful) with personal firearms is allowed, where there is plenty of backwoods area to escape when things go haywire, and the government stays out of your life to a reasonable level, and there is less loaded mosques with terrorists preaching.

Ok firstly are you trying to be racist or inadvertantly being racist?
We can own firearms but in britian we rarely need to attack one another for anything...we dont need cordite to solve our social, political, ethical, medical or moral problems..
We can defend ourselves...thats what the armed forces are for...the armed forces are still people...they would not create a kind of "military state" due to them takeing orders from the civilians.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 07:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyIvan

good tech? WOO HOW BOUT THAT MANGINO LINE?
The Maginot Line was good from the technical point of view. The German army omitted the Maginot Line by attacking through the Belgian and Luxembourg territory.

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
look dont make me break out french military history!

Don't make me tell you again how many mistakes are there in your post in the "A brief French military history" thread.



posted on May, 21 2005 @ 02:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kakugo
Well, if you look at military expeditures in percentage over GDP, the only countries to come close to the US are the UK and Greece.

The UK? The British were defeated many times. See the "A brief British military history" thread.
We Germans come close to the US. Here's our brief military history:

Roman conquest
Romans conquered only the left bank of the Rhine river.

Fall of Rome
Germanic tribes defeated Rome.

Charlemagne’s conquest
Frankish king Charlemagne conquered most of Germany but he was a great leader.

Conquests of German emperors in the Middle Ages
German Emperors managed to conquer and make dependent the following territories: Poland (which sometimes gained independence), Czech principality, West Pomerania and Sicille and they also managed to acquire the Jerusalem Kingdom for a short time.

Fighting for “Dominium Mundi”
It took more than 150 years for the Popes to defeat the German emperors as rivals for world domination. However the Popes didn’t gain world domination either.

The Thirty Years War (1618-1648)
Lost. Mainly because of the French.

War over Austrian Succession
While the Prussian king didn’t end the existence of the Austrian Empire, he defeated Austria and took over Silesia – a province that previously belonged to Austria.

Partitions of Poland
Together with Austria and Russia, Prussia has defeated Poland and the three victorious countries took over all of Polish territory. Which has remained under the rules of the three victorious powers for 123 years (with the exception of the existence of the not-independent Polish state called the Warsaw Principality in 1807-1815).

Napoleonic Wars
While it took around 15 years for the anti-Napoleonic coalition to defeat Napoleon, it was mainly Prussia and Austria who defeated Napoleon. Regarding battle of Waterloo it must be remembered that if the Prussian General Gebhard Bluecher didn’t help Prince Wellington, Prince Wellington would be defeated.

The Spring of the Nations
The Poles from the Prussian partition started an insurection which has been quelled by the Prussian army.

War against Denmark (1864)
Prussia and Austria defeated Denmark.

War against Austria (1866)
Prussia has defeated Austria.

War against France (1870-1871)
Prussia defeated France. But our chancellor Otto von Bismarck has published offensive content in the newspapers so the French had no choice but to declare war on us.

World War I (1914-1918)
Lost. Mainly to the French, who – by defeating us at Marne in 1914 – made it impossible for us to win.

World War II (1939-1945)
The German 3rd Reich lost the war that it has declared on most of the world. But it took 6 years for the Allies to defeat the 3rd Reich, and before that happened, the 3rd Reich managed to conquer most of Europe, including Poland, western parts of the European part of the USSR, France, Norway and Denmark.


[edit on 21-5-2005 by AtheiX]

[edit on 21-5-2005 by AtheiX]

[edit on 21-5-2005 by AtheiX]



posted on Jul, 15 2005 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX
Fighting for “Dominium Mundi”
It took more than 150 years for the Popes to defeat the German emperors as rivals for world domination. However the Popes didn’t gain world domination either.

The Thirty Years War (1618-1648)
Lost. Mainly because of the French.


Regarding fighting for "Dominium Mundi", it should be counted as a tie, not as a loss. That's because the German emperors didn't gain world domination, but the Popes didn't gain world domination either.

Regarding the Thirty Years War, it was only lost by a part of Germany - the catholic part.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 05:36 AM
link   
The EU will NEVER become a superpower. Its population is declining, its economy is the sick man of the world, and its military power is - zero. Brtitain is the only country in the EUwith any real military power.

By 2030, the Eu will only have the 3rd largest economy in the world, after China and the US.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 05:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX

Originally posted by Kakugo
Well, if you look at military expeditures in percentage over GDP, the only countries to come close to the US are the UK and Greece.

The UK? The British were defeated many times. See the "A brief British military history" thread.
We Germans come close to the US. Here's our brief military history:

Roman conquest
Romans conquered only the left bank of the Rhine river.

Fall of Rome
Germanic tribes defeated Rome.

Charlemagne’s conquest
Frankish king Charlemagne conquered most of Germany but he was a great leader.

Conquests of German emperors in the Middle Ages
German Emperors managed to conquer and make dependent the following territories: Poland (which sometimes gained independence), Czech principality, West Pomerania and Sicille and they also managed to acquire the Jerusalem Kingdom for a short time.

Fighting for “Dominium Mundi”
It took more than 150 years for the Popes to defeat the German emperors as rivals for world domination. However the Popes didn’t gain world domination either.

The Thirty Years War (1618-1648)
Lost. Mainly because of the French.

War over Austrian Succession
While the Prussian king didn’t end the existence of the Austrian Empire, he defeated Austria and took over Silesia – a province that previously belonged to Austria.

Partitions of Poland
Together with Austria and Russia, Prussia has defeated Poland and the three victorious countries took over all of Polish territory. Which has remained under the rules of the three victorious powers for 123 years (with the exception of the existence of the not-independent Polish state called the Warsaw Principality in 1807-1815).

Napoleonic Wars
While it took around 15 years for the anti-Napoleonic coalition to defeat Napoleon, it was mainly Prussia and Austria who defeated Napoleon. Regarding battle of Waterloo it must be remembered that if the Prussian General Gebhard Bluecher didn’t help Prince Wellington, Prince Wellington would be defeated.

The Spring of the Nations
The Poles from the Prussian partition started an insurection which has been quelled by the Prussian army.

War against Denmark (1864)
Prussia and Austria defeated Denmark.

War against Austria (1866)
Prussia has defeated Austria.

War against France (1870-1871)
Prussia defeated France. But our chancellor Otto von Bismarck has published offensive content in the newspapers so the French had no choice but to declare war on us.

World War I (1914-1918)
Lost. Mainly to the French, who – by defeating us at Marne in 1914 – made it impossible for us to win.

World War II (1939-1945)
The German 3rd Reich lost the war that it has declared on most of the world. But it took 6 years for the Allies to defeat the 3rd Reich, and before that happened, the 3rd Reich managed to conquer most of Europe, including Poland, western parts of the European part of the USSR, France, Norway and Denmark.


[edit on 21-5-2005 by AtheiX]

[edit on 21-5-2005 by AtheiX]

[edit on 21-5-2005 by AtheiX]


No. The British have the best military record in the world.

I once read a magazine that had a "War League" table in it. It gave three points for countries that won, 1 point for draws, and 0 points for countries that lose a war.

Britain was at the top of the table. Germany was about mid-table.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 05:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Pelayo
The European Union will be a military superpower for sure.


Hmmmmmm.



Britain is the only country in Europe with a decent and strong military.

France, Germany and the rest are falling behind the US and the UK militarily.


It's now becoming more and more obvious that "European Armies" are just the extension of their socialist agenda. Statistics show that most European nations, notably, France and Germany, spend more money on their personnel rather than vital military equipment. Thus the Army has just turned into another socialist employment scheme of people, who are otherwise unemployable. Neither France nor Germany or for that matter any European nation, except Great Britain, has the capacity to defend itself when attacked.

France and Germany should really stop pretending they are world powers. Bruce Bartlett 2003.


capmag.com . . .

When it came down to it, two of America's closest Cold War allies -- France and Germany -- were unwilling to bear the responsibility of major powers when it came to Iraq. They weren't there when we -- and the world -- needed them. Instead, they carped, complained, delayed and even sabotaged efforts by the United States to make the fight in Iraq a united front. Rather than prevent war, they made it impossible to avoid. Had France and Germany joined a united Europe and United States in confronting Saddam Hussein, it is very likely that the crisis in Iraq would have been resolved peacefully.

American opinion is divided on whether France and Germany's failure of will is the result of cowardice or just fecklessness. I am inclined toward the latter. I think the truth is that neither country has the means any longer to wage a serious military campaign and were too proud to admit it. Rather than exhibit their weakness for the entire world to see, they pretended that their objection to military action in Iraq was based on some ill-defined principle. But I don't think they could have done much of anything militarily in Iraq even if they had stood with us shoulder-to-shoulder.

The sad truth is that France, which once conquered most of Europe under Napoleon, and Germany, whose military prowess in World War II was monumental, have become military weaklings. Neither could fight their way out of a paper bag today.

The reason is that the welfare state has severely weakened both France and Germany to the point where their armed forces are just extensions of it. Their armies, navies and air forces exist not to fight, but to provide jobs with lifetime security for the otherwise unemployable. Moreover, the welfare state -- and the high taxes that go with it -- have so weakened them economically and technologically that they couldn't afford a 21st century military even if it were a matter of national survival.

According to a recent report from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, last year the United States spent 3.3 percent of its gross domestic product on national defense, while France spent 2.5 percent and Germany spent just 1.5 percent. At first glance, the difference may not seem that great, but the United States spends much more of its defense budget on weaponry and equipment, while France and Germany spend most of theirs on personnel. According to NATO, France and Germany spend over 60 percent of their defense budgets on pay and benefits, while the United States spends only 34.7 percent. The United States also spends 24.9 percent of its defense budget on equipment, while France and Germany spend just 19.6 percent and 12.2 percent, respectively.

Composition of Defense Outlays, 2002 (percent) How European nations lag behind US and UK

Country Personnel Equipment
Italy .......71.9.......... 13.3
Belgium .....70.7...... 8.1
Spain .....65.0 ..........13.7
France 60.3............. 19.6
Germany 60.2.......... 12.2
Canada 43.5............ 13.3
U.K. 39.3................ 24.2
U.S. 34.7................ 24.9


Source: NATO

According to a February 13 Wall Street Journal report, no nation in Europe has a military that can be depended upon in time of war. "Europe's military muscle has grown soft," it states. Its troops are poorly equipped and poorly trained. Europe's technology is old and obsolete, and there is no money to upgrade it because its troops are too highly paid and enjoy lavish benefits. Indeed, many are unionized and routinely go on strike for such things as increased vacations. Like most workers in Europe, soldiers cannot be fired for incompetence and essentially have jobs for life.

According to a March 18 report in The New York Times, Germany's once powerful army has become a "basket case." It is "one of the worst military laggards" in NATO, it says. Germany's budget for equipment is so small that it had to lease old planes from Ukraine [!!!] just to send a few troops to Afghanistan to help out with peacekeeping last year. It spends $1 billion per year on maintaining its aging fleet of trucks, but spends just $40 million buying new ones.

The same is true throughout Europe. Indeed, a spokesman for Belgium's defense ministry even admitted that its armed forces are a joke. "I'm not sure that the mission of the Belgian military is to fight," he said. Not surprisingly, Belgium strongly supported France's efforts to block military action in Iraq.

While Europe's military has grown soft and weak since the collapse of communism, the United States has continued to upgrade and modernize its forces. We have the best-trained, best-equipped and best-led military on earth. Our military is so strong and so powerful it is frightening. I think that is a key reason why the Germans and French opposed us. They cannot compete, and they know it.

If France and Germany want to be fat and lazy welfare states, that is their choice. But if so, they should have the decency to resign from the world stage and not pretend to be major powers any longer.

About the Author: Bruce Bartlett is a Senior Fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) studying the Anglo-American relationship.

[edit on 29-7-2005 by AdamB]

[edit on 29-7-2005 by AdamB]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 05:48 AM
link   
The European militaries even lag behind Canada.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 05:53 AM
link   
Even Italy spends more on military equipment than Germany.

The only main NATO country that spends less than Germany on military equipment is Belgium.



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Sure the_Gerbil. The pound may be cool. And the Brits are in their right to keep with the pound as long as they want. But the longer the Brits wait to adopt the euro, the more difficult for them will be to meet the requirements and the later will be the benefits for the whole EU, and this is something that the Brit people should take into account.


Do you think we are crazy? The Euro has given the countries that have it, such as France and germany, with low growth and 12% unemployment.

Britain, which kept the pound, is now outperforming every Continental Western European nation. Our economy grew 3.5% last year, whereas France barely managed 1.5% and Germany and Italy's economies shrank.

When Foreign Direct Investment fell in Germany and France in 2004, in Britain in TREBLED.

Britain adopting the Euro will be like someone buying a ticket for the Titanic.

But now we have people from countries that have the Euro, whose economies are suffering, saying that maybe the british people should consider joining the Euro.

No way. Our economy is booming. If you lot what to keep the Euro and have damaged economies, it isn't our problem.

[edit on 29-7-2005 by AdamB]



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 06:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by AdamB
The EU will NEVER become a superpower.


- I presume you mean "superpower" in the manner of the USA?

Since when was that ever on anyone's agenda?

The 'Euro-sceptic' element still has yet to digest the fact that the French and Dutch referendum votes illustrate that this idea of a 'super-state' was never going to happen, no matter how much they fantasized about one.


Its population is declining


- So?
It is now, 30 - 40 yrs ago it was expanding at a record rate with the baby boomers.

The situation is so variable that it is impossible to make too much of short-term tends.


its economy is the sick man of the world


-

This is so detached from reality as to be funny.
Europe is one of the richest places on earth and one of the best places to live just because we prefer not to emulate the US version of capitalism (with all the wider down-sides that entails) to describe Europe as "the world's sick man" is laughable.


and its military power is - zero.


- That must be why the Americans got so touchy about "Europe" not going along with their ME plans, huh?

Again this is an absurd statement.
Go look at a 'league table'.
The nations of Europe are at the top militarily.
Just because Europe refuses to engage in a pointless arms race with the US is no grounds for claiming Europe has no military power.


Brtitain is the only country in the EUwith any real military power.


- Wtrong again I'm afraid.
You'll find France also has it's own completely independant, just modernised, submarine based nuclear deterrent, large aircraft carriers.


By 2030, the Eu will only have the 3rd largest economy in the world, after China and the US.


- Maybe.
And. So. What?

Historically China has accounted for 25% of world trade, just because China is recovering something closer to that situation is hardly grounds for imagining the sky is falling in.

Maybe you might like to rethink the economic system you appear to like, afterall it is 'liberal economics' that have led to population decline in Europe as 2 parents must now earn to support what one was once able to support and it is overseas investment in emergent economies that has reduced the share of world trade for Europe and led to China growing so rapidly, hmmm?



posted on Jul, 29 2005 @ 07:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by AdamB
The Euro has given the countries that have it, such as France and germany, with low growth and 12% unemployment.


- No it hasn't. The main reason for the dip in European growth is Germany (Europe's largest single economy and what was 'Europe's engine') still struggling to reunify. Given that this was always going to happen some time it is IMO better it happen now and be accomplished sooner rather than later.

(also an indication that the anti-EU crowd with their ludicrous siren-song - "they're trying to make us all into a superstate" - were so wrong)

You are not comparing like with like.
The countries across Europe do not calculate unemployment in the same way. Germany for instance counts people in part-time work who want full-time work in it's unemployment figure. Imagine what that would do to the British figure!


Britain, which kept the pound, is now outperforming every Continental Western European nation. Our economy grew 3.5% last year, whereas France barely managed 1.5% and Germany and Italy's economies shrank.


- Net growth (the bald growth figure less inflation) looks a lot less rosey for the UK and a lot better a comparison for Europe.


When Foreign Direct Investment fell in Germany and France in 2004, in Britain in TREBLED.


- It rises and falls.
......and just watch it drop like a stone the day a British gov was ever dumb enough to rule out joining the Euro.


Britain adopting the Euro will be like someone buying a ticket for the Titanic.


- Nonsense. This is pure personal (political) opinion.

The whole issue will depend upon the conditions under which the UK joins.
If they join at an unsustainable rate (as the tory party was stupid enough to do when they entered the ERM in their usual expedient manner - ie completely the wrong reasons) it would be a disaster.
If it is done right it could and should lead to economic benefit.


But now we have people from countries that have the Euro, whose economies are suffering, saying that maybe the british people should consider joining the Euro.

No way. Our economy is booming. If you lot what to keep the Euro and have damaged economies, it isn't our problem.


- It is undeniable there have been and still are some problems with the Euro for some, but since when was such a massive change ever going to be achieved quickly and without difficulty?
Such expectations are surely daft and rather childish.

Just as when the UK switched to a decimal currency there were problems and complaints for years but that did not out-weigh the benefit of such a change.
So, IMO, it will be with the Euro.

To pretend there have been no benefits to date nor any benefit on-going and write the whole thing off as "damaged economies" is just ignorant and alarmist.

Once things start to be established, settle and especially when Germany begins to recover from the costs of unity Europe will be well positioned.

(......and I take it you are not seriously suggesting that commerce in Europe would be better off if the costs of all the different currencies were reintroduced by those now with the Euro?!)

IMO a lot of the anti-Euro propaganda is coming from the US and their UK media-owning pals as they attempt to slow the decline of the $.
Afterall given the current position of the $ and US gov & private debt as well as their trade deficit the economic logic is that the $ will decline seriously.





new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8 >>

log in

join