[Batko]

Sure the Euros are not more enlightened then others, but it will may be more difficult for a EU govt to convince those damn bastards that a war for the control of oil resources is necessary to protect them against terror and ghost-WMDs.

That's my point.

[Devlar]

*skips over the obvious baiting from the Protest Warrior Retard* I think its warrior monk reincarnated

Europe stands its largest chance for dominance if it achieves a balance in terms of strategic armermants. This isn't my area of expertise but can anyone tell me if any country in Europe has ICBMs and Nukes? or if two countries have each have one of the two?

Europe doesn't need to be a strategic and military giant, what it does need is a deterrent. Nuclear technology with all its faults provides at least one assurance, mutually assured destruction, and the forcing of positive sum games.

Personally, I'd rather see Europe go in this direction than having its own army, that way money isn't wasted on a military industrialization complex when it could be spent ensuring welfare, education and medicine.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

[quote="Devlar"]
This isn't my area of expertise but can anyone tell me if any country in Europe has ICBMs and Nukes? or if two countries have each have one of the two?
quote]

France and the UK do. Also Ukrain I'm sure has some even though they were supposed to move them to Russia.

[Boondock Saint]

Sure the Euros are not more enlightened then others, but it will may be more difficult for a EU govt to convince those damn bastards that a war for the control of oil resources is necessary to protect them against terror and ghost-WMDs.

That's my point.

Oh I understand your point my freind ... I just disagree.

You see imo it was impossible to rally Europeans to aid the American aggression war ... but it wasnt difficult to rally the Americans to the 'self defense' war ... see what I mean?

Its all how you sell it and your perspective of the issue.

Europeans may very well be more then willing to beat the drums of war if and when European cities start to blow up. Now, I know I know your going to point out Madrid but that was a result of the American war of agression. I am talking about an 'unprovoked' attack on European cities. Ones unrelated to the US.

I know its difficult to seperate ourselves from this Iraq debacle right now ...

[Comrade Ogilvy]

My point is this, if the EU one days decides that it needs to expand or use military force then it will ...

That's funny. Will with what?
Who is going to make the decision and who will keep the French from peeing all over themselves?
This is a joke right?
The EU decide to use force?
Who will make the decision?
Who will pay the bill? France? Don't make me laugh.
The test for Euroguts and Euroresolve came at Kosovo.
The Euros answered in typical Euro fashion.
"Please Mr. Bill, when you and Monika are finished, please do something about Kosovo"
The US steped in and cleaned up the European mess.
So please, this stuff about Europower is really funny, but it's really old as well.
Find new jokes to tell.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Well thank you Rostem, my respect for your country (or at the very least, your state) has dropped by about 50points. I cannot believe that anyone who lives in such times of free movement and vast wells of information that anyone can actually be that retarded.

Well, you have me beat I must admit that. I have absolutely no respect for any of the continental nations. Their history up until the US moved in and decided to do some real supervising has been nothing but deplorable.
From Napoleon to Hitler it was nothing but big talk and macho gesturing.
Now that the US more or less has clamped down on Europe so hard that no one can fart without our permission folks once again talk about Europower.

Some of you talk as if there were any actual Europower and of building a Euroarmy.
It's all nonsense and a pipe dream.
The richest European countries are broke. They cannot finance their social programs without deficit much less pay for an army.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... 0427151847

I doubt seriously that anyone could talk Germany or France into going to war again. That would have to come as a last resort. I think the Germans are totally fed up with that and will not go to war under anything but extreme conditions and the French just pee in their pants at the mention of the word, so that is not an option.
There will not be a Euro Army because that would demand will and treasure, both of which are in very short supply.

Then there is the serious matter of the European delusion that wars are history, that wars will no longer come. Nevermind that 3000 years of European history say otherwise.
No the point of a resurgence in European power is laughable.
Most of the Europeans think that wars indeed are a thing of the past and that armies are just a waste of money.
Perhaps they are right, I doubt it but perhaps they are.
Certainly there is no Europower in evidence today.
That is the subject of this thread, the resurgence of Europower, something that only lives dimly in the minds of some.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Your analysis is tawdry, you still haven't bothered answering the one question I asked of you, and it is quite clear now that you see the whole thread as an exercise in bashing the 'continental nations'.

If a deficit means that 'European countries are broke', then this analysis plays out very badly indeed for a US economy with record deficits.

Rather than going for simplistic insults and cheap arguments, why not talk through the issues rationally?

[liberalist]

The richest European countries are broke. They cannot finance their social programs without deficit much less pay for an army.

True. But it is a little ironic for an american to be critisising Europe for running a deficit. How many times has the US government ran at a profit in the last 40 years? Is it 3 or 4 times? And how big is the US deficit now - billions, trillions? The US deficit is by far larger than that in Europe.

I doubt seriously that anyone could talk Germany or France into going to war again. That would have to come as a last resort.

And thats a bad thing? Europe has learnt the price of war. The US has not. As more terrorists stike the US, they will learn the price of war.

[Piano Red]

Your analysis is tawdry, you still haven't bothered answering the one question I asked of you, and it is quite clear now that you see the whole thread as an exercise in bashing the 'continental nations'.

If a deficit means that 'European countries are broke', then this analysis plays out very badly indeed for a US economy with record deficits.

Rather than going for simplistic insults and cheap arguments, why not talk through the issues rationally?

The door swings both ways, Maxim.

[Maxim Litvinov]

By this you mean?

I addressed Rostem's concept that historical clashes between European nations would prevent European integration. I took him to task on Poland, specifically, and pointed out that while some of his points were valid, others were counter-intuitive, and that the actual status of Poland suggested that European integration was on the rise.

I haven't bothered with simplistic insults thus far. I certainly haven't seen this thread as an excuse to make my own posts on 'why the US is better than the EU' or vice versa. This is not the topic. If someone has challenged me, then I have attempted to back up my points rationally.

I think all sides would benefit from talking about this rationally and not seeing it as some sort of popularity contest between the US and the EU. The issue, for me, is the projected success of EU integration, and not how laughable the defence capabilities of European nations are, or World War II, or whether European integration is a good thing...

More reason. Less one line posts.

[Devlar]

This isn't my area of expertise but can anyone tell me if any country in Europe has ICBMs and Nukes? or if two countries have each have one of the two?

France and the UK do. Also Ukrain I'm sure has some even though they were supposed to move them to Russia.

Both France and the UK have ICBMs?
As far as I'm aware Ukraine no longer has any nuclear weapons, they sold them to the Russians in 1991 (All of them). I'm not sure if they have ICBMs either. Since the weapon is half the equation, you need the delivery system also

[Comrade Ogilvy]

If a deficit means that 'European countries are broke', then this analysis plays out very badly indeed for a US economy with record deficits.

There are two answers here, but you obviously know the answers.

A: The US has much greater earnings than any of the 6 mentioned, has paid off the debt once and will do so again.

B: The US already has a eye-popping military power, so it's not an additional burden as it would be for the EU nations.

This is not a question of who can buy more, that answer has already been made, the question is "who is willing to add huge sums" for a credible military force?

The EU would have to add that to their budgets, while all the US does is maintain.

The Germans already have a good military but they are not about to share it with anyone else. Hello? Where's your unity there?
Even with their pretty good military the Germans would have to spend hundreds of bilions on transports, air refuelers, AWACS, submarines, and of course the Germans never built an aircraft carrier, the one toy most needed in order to project power. Perhaps they could call it the Bismark.

The German military is designed to defend Germany and not to project power. Still, they are not about to turn over control to the French or Belgians or anyone else.

You people talk, talk, talk about Europpower and a United Europe but the fact is all nations jealously hang on to their military and refuse to share it. Most won't even allow other EU states to park their military on their soil.
I never see anything said about the very real questions and problems facing a truly United Europe. Never.
All you read here are silly pipe dreams.

Why do you Euros even dream about a military role?
It's laughable.

The Brits have all of these toys and can project power, but they are not about to share them either, so that leaves the dream of a credible EU force a pipe-dream.
It's OK to talk, but talk is cheap.

The last time the so-called EU tried to project power was during the Suez crises when President Eisenhower slapped Britain and France on their knuckles and sent them packing. That was almost 50 years ago.
Then came Kosovo and the world saw how the EU could take care of problems in their own backyard.
They ran to the Americans. No projection of power was needed but they had to have American help never-the-less.

When Great Britain got attacked in the Falklands, the EU sat on their hands, NATO did nothing, and the UN was useless as usual.
The US stepped up, helped the Brits with re-supply and other functions.
It's always the Brits and the Americans that do and the Europweenies that talk.
Always.
Answer that!
There is no "can-do" attitude with the EU, it's just talk. Mostly the French volunteering others to step up to the plate.


Dreams are OK, and that is all you people write about.

[Devlar]

This is not a question of who can buy more, that answer has already been made, the question is "who is willing to add huge sums" for a credible military force?

Except in this day and age you don't need an army of soldiers when you have a nuclear missile and a delivery system. Europe's military power doesn't and won't be offensive, because the Europeans have nothing to gain from playing zero sum politics

[Maxim Litvinov]

Words, words, words - that's all you can come up with, huh Rostem?

The truth is - words are the only thing that either side can come up with. We can't look into the future. Instead, we have to make meaningful extrapolations.

Of course the EU doesn't have a united military policy at the moment. Perhaps it never will. I don't actually think that the military is that important. The truth is that it is more and more viable for countries to use non-military means to achieve their goals - and the idea that the US will get real gains and not make a substantial loss out of its recent forays into Iraq and Afghanistan is moot.

All I have suggested is this: that thirty years ago, the idea of a Euro, a Common Agricultural Policy, or centralised economic and political decision-making would be laughable. Since then, despite obvious opposition, the EU has progressed faster than most would have expected.

If you want to argue that the EU integration process is about to come to a grinding halt, then you really have to put forward a viable and LARGE impediment to the current momentum that has built up. The concept of 'historical antagonisms' alone is not worth much, because it hasn't really been much of an obstacle thus far. The idea of 'economic instability' is also not a viable argument for you, because, if anything, it is the economies of scale that an EU offers which makes it economically MORE advantageous than individual state rule.

I want to know what is stopping further EU integration. For me I can't find this big anti-Euro monster that is supposedly over the horizon - I can't see an economic or an historical monster lurking. There might be the possibility for widespread disenchantment slowing oozing out as a result of a loss of national sovereignty on certain issues - but you haven't tried to address this.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I did address what is impeding any further union in the EU.
The member states dont' trust each other.
I addressed this many times but you Euroboosters keep ignoring.
Germany is not about to put it's forces at the disposal of Brussels.
No nation has said anything about wanting to give up sovereignty.
Yes, economic ties for sure, but that is where it ends.
The EU has failed every tested handed to them and the last failure was probably the one that closed the coffin on any Eurogrande dreams.
The newest and smallest nations such as Lithuania and Poland sided against EU policy and helped the US, even though Germany and France threatened them with unspecified repurcussions.
If anyone is stupid enough to think these nations will ever sign over their sovereignty to Brussles then please contact me about buying a bridge I know of.
It's all a pipe dream, just like the dream of French military power.

In 1969 five French-built torpedo boats, purchased and paid for by Israel, were successfully brought from Cherbourg port to Haifa, despite French arms embargo while the French hid in amongst their frogs and snails hoping the IDF would not march down the Champs Elysees and take the
Eiffel Tower as well.
That is where its at.
Euros talk, others do.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Now most of you want to gloss over all the EU failures and especially the French and German failures I have posted about. Fine.

What is glaringly obvious with the deficits France and Germany are running is the fact that they could not care less about what the EU might think or wish, they will do what is politically expedient in their individual countries and the EU can do nothing. However, France and Germany are not loath to try and impose their will on the smaller members.
Good luck with your dreams of unity.

[Maxim Litvinov]

Again - on the one hand you talk of dreams of unity, try to build a case against the EU seemingly because you seem to have some prejudice against Germany and France rather than a desire for truth, and declare forthrightly that no nation will ever give up its sovereignty.

But if you bother to look at the EU you will see that nations have already systematically given up their sovereignty over the past two decades. Power has devolved to Brussels. Power to legislate welfare provisions, power over national health schemes, power over trade policy, power over foreign loans, power over certain judicial procedures, power over all manner of laws. If nations are willing to sign away their sovereignty in this manner, then there is no logical barrier to them signing away other policies - from immigration to defence.

[Liberal]

Very true, Maxim. Who stopped people for EU to keep their sovereignty?
No one. Who forded them to give up of part of it? Again...no one. It was the belief in a coomon future(and the common interests) that brought(and still is bringing) European people together in EU.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I will be amazed to see any further devolving of national sovereignty from this point on.

I will be astounded to see some sort of powerful leadership post created. Some sort of leader like Prime Minister.

I will be truly astounded to see all the various governments superceded by a EU national government. I would be blown away to see that.

However, all of this has little to do with the original thread and which I am more interested in since I can't predict the future.
I mean, OK you THINK it will happen and I THINK it won't. Time will prove one or the other correct.

The originating thread of this post is:

Well it has been occuring for some time but I was wondering how the EU's economic success or rise has faltered, Americas power and how would the USA try to counter this?

I find that post so fallacious and silly as to be laughable.
The US has an unemployment rate of 6% and SHRINKING while the EU has had a persistant and ongoing rate of 10+%. That is an indicator that the EU is standing still at best but if you consider the shrinking workers population then the EU is sliding backwards.

I find this topic far more interesting because it really goes to the heart of the two political systems of Socialism which stands for mediocrity and has been discredited all over the planet and capitalism which stands for excellence and dominates the planet. Even the Chicoms have bought into capitalism after decades of rot and backsliding.
So, the originating author on this thread must be under illusion and must not read the papers.
Unemployment figures for the EU are unacceptably high and persistant at the 10% level.
National deficits replect this morass as Germany and France, neither of which spends much on national defense compared to the US, try to pay for their growing social expenses.
There is another problem the EUROs face and this thread has not touched on. The working population is shrinking year by year while the retiring population is inceasing year by year. This trend has been in force for some time now but even with a shrinking workforce in the major industrial EU powers, unemployment stays at 10+%!
One can actually see that job creation is falling year by year and the only thing that keeps unemployment from going much higher is the fact that workers are retiring and not looking for jobs.
Europe is sliding into economic insignificance and that also of course leads to military insignificance and no leadership. It takes money to be the boss.
The US on the other hand has a rising illegal alien problem with seemingly every Mexican in Mexico trying to get into the US and FINDING work!
I don't mind Mexicans swarming into our country because they provide a young and vibrant workforce for the US.
Even with this daily increase in the US labor force our unemployment is very low and shrinking.

[Batko]

Very true, Maxim. Who stopped people for EU to keep their sovereignty?
No one. Who forded them to give up of part of it? Again...no one. It was the belief in a coomon future(and the common interests) that brought(and still is bringing) European people together in EU.

You're right, Lib, That's what is annoying so much anti-EUs, the Europe is going forward, despite of the hurdles, the dream is becoming reality. Soon we'll have a new constitution, which, even if it's not a perfect one, will allow the EU to make a big step towards the unification.
They smell the danger is big for their corporate interests, so they become a little nervous, trying to find any reason to comfort themselves that it can not work.

But it works, and whatever they may say against it, we'll do it.