Hey, How About the EU wanting to counter the US

[MaryH]

strength. I think that's a great idea. I don't feel comfortable with the US - in its present mindset - being the most powerful country in the world. It's too dangerous.

But if the EU - who are much more centrist - can gain enough strength I really think the world would be a much safer place.

[trotsky]

1. This is what drives the neo-con mindset.

They know that based on population, technology, education, etc. that the US will eventually not be the dominant power on earth. So for now, while we are, the goal is to establish as much of an American "empire" as we can to try and stave off the downfall.

[MaryH]

2. What do they expect when they treat all of Europe

the way they do?

Besides, I think a powerful EU would be much better at negotiating with other European and Asian countries than we could ever be.

[trotsky]

4. Europe knows the ravages of war far better than we do.

Plus they've had to live next to each other for centuries - they KNOW diplomacy. I think this has contributed to Europe being much more reluctant to assert themselves militarily, and given the neo-cons the opening they think they have right now.

I agree, though, the EU is a huge market and in today's world, markets are a lot more powerful than armies.

[NJCher]

18. I heard an expert say today

...that none of this matters anyway as the U.S. is headed for "no influence" in 20 years, although chimpy will probably head "forward" faster than the speed of light and maybe it will be six years until we're irrelevant. This world affairs expert said that it will be China and other Asian nations who will wield the influence.


Cher

[Straight Shooter]

33. It will be China because of their gas consumption and cheap imports

Always makes me snicker to see the "Christians" shop at Wal-Mart, a/k/a China-Mart, after church. They are sealing their own doom.

I just wish they didn't have to drag me down into the abyss, too.

[forgethell]

3. They want to do it,

but without the will to have a strong military, and to use it, how the hell do they expect that to happen?? a man with a gun can always have whatever the unaarmed man has.

[Iris]

7. Not necessarily. Sometimes the man without a gun can use his mind

to get what he wants. All he needs to do is get the gun out of the gunman's hand.

Heard an interview about EU on Fresh Air the other day. You know what they're doing? Well, in countries that are part of the EU, companies cannot lay off workers to save money or just to show a profit, so guess what they do? They have locations in AMERICA where they can freely lay people off. This actually happened in the Burger King corporation - laid of 1,000s of Burger King workers here while protecting jobs there.

[forgethell]

9. Isn't that why

* is withdrawing from all the international treaties? So the "Lilliputians" cannot tie the US down? In other words, so the US keeps the gun in its hands. Yeah, I guess a sufficiently clever unarmed man might get the gun. But then he would be the armed man, now wouldn't he? Dumb as * is, he's not so dumb that the French are going to get his gun. And I repeat. Does the EU have the will to use the gun, even if they had it? Experience would suggest that they don't.

[Iris]

11. If the EU becomes powerful enough, why couldn't they impose

economic sanctions against us, eventually crippling our ability to maintain a military?

[forgethell]

12. Dupe self delete

[forgethell]

13. Because

they will never be so powerful that the USA will be economically significant to them. The USA will always remain an economic powerhouse of vast significance to the world economy. They would hurt themselves as badly as they would hurt us, maybe worse.

And besides, we could just invade them, no?

[Mikimouse]

15. An economic powerhouse, you mean like in 1929?

As far as hurting themselves as badly as they would hurt us, you must consider that they have been hurt very badly in the past. They have recovered and have, in fact, thrived. To think that, if the situation looked to be getting worse, they would not challenge the US economically, would be a mistake. There is a distinct division between economic interests and long established principles.
In addition, it will not just be the EU that issues the challenge. It will probably be an economic alliance of Russia, the EU and China in the end. None of these want to see a rogue nation that is completely out of control and trying to turn the historical clock back to the 14th century, or earlier, to the days of Rome.

[forgethell]

20. Yes, just

exactly like 1929, which , you may or may not recall, was not just the USA. If you try to drag a man (ora nation) into the mud, you're going to get dirty, too.

But economic competition may give them a vibrant economy. In any event, it will be years before the EU will be able to really challenge the USA, economically. and, again, as Chairman Mao said, "power grows out of the barrel of a gun." So far, the EU has shown no inclination to buy a gun. So the US will remain the top military power. And will ignore the EU when it comes as to how they will deploy it.

I'm not saying this is good; I'm not even saying it is bad. I'm just saying that, as of now, that's the way it is.

[Mikimouse]

28. OK, but remember that the Europeans...

are accustomed to getting dirty and being dragged in the mud historically. They recover every time, with fewer ill effects than what we would see here. People here go ballistic if their wants (not needs, wants!) are not met within a short time span. That is characteristic of most adolescent societies, and is generally not a permanent condition. Societies outgrow those things, but they take time. Europe has rebounded from adversity time and time again.Would we rebound as successfully? There is an old HUngarian adage that states: Tobet eszel mint erovel. It means, you accomplish more with your mind than with your strength.

[forgethell]

29. Now you are theorizing,

I think America is a much more flexible society than most of those in Europe. Fewer ill effects. I guess that's why we had a Marshall Plan. we have never had a Napoleon, a Hitler, a Stalin.

As for adolescent societies, well we have the oldest written constitution in the world. How many "republics" are the French on? Germany's modern society begins with the end of WW2. I suppose it depends on what the definition of 'adolescent' is, but let's not get carried away with European pretensions. Not that they are wrong about everything, but condescension is an adolescent habit of which they are very fond.

[Mikimouse]

30. That's the response I expected...

Never mind that this society had all of Europe's mistakes to learn from, and never mind that some of those socieites are well over a thousand years old, despite their internal (or external) conflicts. All of those societies have gone through their adolescence and have emerged, having actaully learned from their adverse experiences. Can we say the same? Honestly?
Before you start in on the achetypical argument about the French, remember that they have gone from an absolute monarchy through a period of constitutional monarchy to a modern social democracy, a transition that the US did not go through, largely because it had their example, among others, to observe. The same could be argued for the Germans. The Germans were the most technologically advanced nation in Europe, but were still ruled by an absolute monarchy and a very strong noble class. The political hierarchy changed little between WWI and WWII, other than the real emergence of a democratically elected leadership (to a point). If you are suggesting that this natio has nothing to leanr from Europe, you are very sadly mistaken. George Santayana perhaps said it best: "Those who pay no mind to history, are bound to repeat it."

One last thing. You say that we have never had a Napoleon, a Hitler, or a Stalin. Might I suggest to you that you left out a key word? How about adding 'Yet' to the statement?

[forgethell]

31. No, I never suggested that we had

nothing to learn from Europe. As for whether these societies have learned from their own experiences, I would say that was open to debate, but saying it doesns't make it so, any more thaan it makes my position so.

As for Hitler, Stalin, and Napoleon. True, we may have one in the future. But we haven't yet. hypotheticals do not trump concretes. We haven't, they have. It is the rock all your throizing is going to flounder on, I believe. When Hitler arrives, you let me know. Ok?

[Mikimouse]

32. Believe me, you'll know when it happens...

National arrogance is usually what allows these things to happen, so I suspect that it isn't too far off. Let me know if the formal operational stage arrives, would you?

[forgethell]

34. Yes, I thought that i would.

I'll do that.

[MaryH]

8. Oh, I don't know - our military is all tied up in Iraq.

It looks like their might have been better ways to deal with Iraq than the one we chose - which was the military alternative. It doesn't seem to be working very well.

[forgethell]

10. So what are you saying?

that the EU can invade us at will? What, exactly, is your point. We can always withdraw from Iraq if another hot spot becomes mmmore urgent.

[bacchant]

17. At this point I wish the EU would invade us, we need liberation n/t

[forgethell]

21. The mouse that roared n/t

[Deja Q]

14. Not necessarily. Remember, WW II started long before US involvement

And the US got involved ONLY because it was attacked.

[forgethell]

22. Exactly right.

But that was then, this is now. European experience has taught them that war is dangerous to their health. So they are reluctant to use it. It taught the US the same thing, but being Americans, they decided that better 'they' should fear us than we should fear 'them'. The best defense, etc.

Which way is right? Well, do you mean morally, socially, or who is left standing when the smoke dies down?

Remeber America historically has been reluctant to get into other people's fights, but when they do, they are completely ruthless. check out the Northern army in the US Civil War, for example. Hiroshima?

[BlueEyedSon]

5. You think they (the EU) haven't already been thinking this?

They are already there economically.

And yes, it looks like a great place to relocate to

[Flagg]

6. With such US-independant members as the UK and "New Europe"

It's never gonna happen.

[markomalley]

16. Hopefully in a few years they will be able to liberate us from ...

...the fascists that have illegally taken power in this country.

[demgrrrll]

19. What about the Chinese calling in our debt? That would be very

worrisome.

[markomalley]

24. That works too...

...but the ones who are hurt by that won't be the corporate whores, the ones hurt will be the working class.

[demgrrrll]

25. We are going to be hurt anyway you look at it. I think Congress

will do what they can to stop the steamroller. Maybe they will fend off a few things but not everything.

[Cleita]

23. This is why I really believe we should split into two

countries with separate federal governments. It would provide a balance of power in case any country became radical like ours has become.

[geek tragedy]

26. They need to take military power seriously.

Right now, Europe is not capable of projecting military power beyond its own borders.

They also need to become much more unified. When Spain had a dispute over some islands with Morocco, France stabbed them in the back and refused to allow the EU to take Spain's side.

Who wound up mediating the dispute? Colin Powell.

[markomalley]

27. The new EU constitution will minimize that

as they will have more central power and will only require a majority vote for policy, rather than a unamimous vote. I think that is a good thing. Fascists like the ones in power now need a viable counterbalanace. The only ones who can do that are the Europeans, acting as a single entity.