His remarks on Europe, no doubt, are incendiary, but Europe has had a difficult time handling regional conflicts and wars on its own. However, I'm willing to bet O'Reilly's reasons for thinking so do not address how two World Wars fought on their continent within 20 years of each other have effected the greater "consciousness" of Europe, not to forget to mention that the US stuck around after WWII and acted as protector of Europe throughout the Cold War so Europe never had to assume such responsibilities.

But the people of Iraq are "prehistoric group"??? What the fuck is that all about?

if the US hadn't intervened in WW2 or militarily propped up the European nations afterward, the Soviets would have controlled Europe, the soviet empire would have fallen apart much faster, and europe would be a jumble of somewhat democratic nations within the sphere of america's soft empire

how is that different from today

"but Europe has had a difficult time handling regional conflicts and wars on its own."

I hope that by re-reading that portion of your own comment, you will realize how epically stupid it is.

Yugoslavia comes to mind. A repeat of genocide on the continent seems to speak to my point.

I'll admit "regional conflicts" is perhaps overreaching, and definition is required. I wouldn't include revolutions or communists falling out of power. And I probably would exclude Russian action in places like Chechnya and Georgia.