It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Will the europeans ever be powerful?

page: 23
1
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 1 2005 @ 12:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by AtheiX

Originally posted by NWguy83
Well I read that both Chirac and his wife Shroeder will both be replaced by pro-American leaders. So the answer to the question of this thread, in my opinion, is maybe.

Firstly, don't be sure about Schroeder being replaced.
Secondly, he is not anti-American.
Thirdly, his rivals - if any of them becomes chancellor instead of Schroeder - won't send the Bundeswehr to Iraq.


Isn't Schroeder doing poorly in the polls (always has been)?

Yes, he is. Just not as much as Kim Jong Il.

I never said they would send troops to Iraq. I just love it how people on the site love to mis-quote other people (on purpose).




posted on Aug, 2 2005 @ 02:46 AM
link   
We're already pretty powerful as individual nations. Four trillion dollar economies, SSBNs, SSNs, ICBMs, cruise missiles, stand-off bombs, a space program, etc. It would be interesting if we ever got our act together as a continent but, as was the case in the early days of the American Republic, state's rights and their relationship with the 'federal government' are going to dominate European politics for a long time to come. Ultimately, some crisis will re-define Europe, as they always have.



posted on Apr, 29 2006 @ 09:45 PM
link   
As a whole EU, they are already consider a SUperpower nation. But as just one country, i can't say.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 11:32 AM
link   
I know you Americans dont travel much but I assume at least some of you can read. Have you heard about the Roman Empire, Mongol, Ottoman, British etc. They alll have a start, middle and an end. America has never had an empire and never will, you are financially bankrupt and the EU does not need you or your so called military capability (lets see you do something on your own for a change) The EU is growing stronger every year with more countries wanting to join which increases the EU financially, military and its population, I dont see America growing. Also Europeans understand the devastation of wars in their countries, something Americans have not endured since the civil war I feel sorry for you, you are hurtling along into oblivion and you dont even realise it. America is trying to hang on by fighting foriegn wars and grabbing what it can but this situatuion wont last long. Lets face it you have always been isolated and insular so you should all be used to it when the fall comes. Here's some advice for you, read books, travel the world, educate your self about current events and ignore the daitribe that your media spews out. There's a whole world out here and its not American. And yes the EU will outstrip you and we dont need to fight because a bankrupt isolated country cannot fight wars.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 02:09 PM
link   
^

I find it mildly amusing how you, as a Brit, are trying to lecture our american members about the fallacies of gunpoint diplomacy...

Furthermore, of course the USA isnt growing physically like the EU does, but dont forget that a majority of EU members leeches financial power away because they have to grow into a competing shape first... the US doesnt suffer from this problem. It will take a lot more time before the EU can rival the US supremacy in many fields - if this will EVER be the case. The chinese "threat" is as real and urgent for the EU as it is for the US.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 03:14 PM
link   
Mushroom: it may be an error to continue with that attitude, particularly with further insults such as you began your post with. What good could possibly come from engaging Fredng on that level? My experience, though I don't claim to always heed the warnings thereof, is that rather than plainly telling somone that they are stupid, one should simply make an elephant in the livingroom of that fact with a well thought out and cool-headed response. Sometimes it absolutely drives them nuts.

Anyhow, here's my $ .02 (or roughly € .0158 if you prefer- and neither here nor there, but on the subject of conversions, I've always wondered about something and I feel you may be the person to ask. Over here in the states, an ounce of prevention is supposedly worth a pound of cure. Because of the metric system however, it seems to me that prevention must be worth somewhat more or less in Europe. What units do you fellows use in that old cliche? Perhaps I ought not even ask the followup question, but I will: is any disparity simply the result of bad international organization or does it reflect the quality of European prevention relative to the American variety?)

So as I was saying before I was deputized by the Bureau of Weights and Measures, here is my take on things as far as European power, both in its own right and relative to that of others, as well as some of the explanations given in your analysis.

The first consideration I raise comes from the conspiracy theorist in me. Money, and therefore debt, are no more relevant than a given population makes them. Note that the real value of paper currency, were it supported by nothing, is probably less than that of an equivalent amount in coin, and that the real value of neither, were the simply their constituent materials rather than money, is less than their face value by an absolutely mind-blowing margin. A nation, given the realization thatit's economy is utterly destroyed, could theoretically, if it had a sufficiently educated and civic-minded population, or even just a very large and heavy handed police force, freeze prices at an arbitrary level and force production of the most necessary goods and services. Afterall, no matter what currency etc. are doing, the economy is OK as long as necessities are produced and distributed by some means in a sustainable manner. A war effort would be perfectly sustainable in this manner on only two conditions: the nation in question must be self-sufficient at least for long enough to sieze control of areas holding whatever vital resources it lacks and the people must percieve the cause of the situation to be foreign rather than domestic, to ensure they are willing to support the prosecution of the war.

The reverse side of that same coin is that a nation can fall virtue of the same realization if that realization is not supported and operated upon by the government, or if the people do not find the fruit of their labor to be worthwhile.

In so many words, it is well within the capability of any large number of people either concentrated in a few militaristic states or spread throughout the industrial world to destroy the global economic power structure which the current status quo relies upon.


Next in regards to whether or not America had an empire: we annex most of what we take, thus the traditional misunderstanding that American imperialism was shortlived. We fought for land beyond our own borders during the revolution, we made a go at Canada but it never worked out, we took a huge swath of this continent, we took Hawaii for the Dole fruit company and made a state of it less than a century ago, we fought Spain for Cuba and the Philippines, established Liberia but then forgot where we put it up until recently, we had our hand in China along with the Europeans, and our intelligence services have been making puppets left and right through election engineering for the better part of the last century. If we're not just another imperialisic plague of locusts, it's only because we found our own way of doing it.


How powerful is Europe? Depends on the location and nature of a given conflict. There is a mild danger that oil crises could result in certain nations attempting to isolate their oil supplies from global demand through conquest of suppliers. Suppose a given power had control of Iran and the UAE, either by invasion or by cooperation with them, and used that to earmark a certain portion of the Gulf's oil for themselves without price competition? I'm not convinced Europe could project the force to that region against Russia, China, or America. They could place separating forces in Kuwait, Saudi, etc to deter further aggression- when it comes to regional wars between nuclear powers afterall, "tactics is gettin' there the firstest with the mostest". Then they'd have to play an extended chess match, going for non-conquest arrangements in Egypt, Syria, and Sudan (and this is assuming for the post part that Turkey is on board) and attempt to secure the Med and the Red as an alternate route for Saudi oil. If the foe was China or America it's likely that Indonesia would be a lost cause if the aggressor wanted it.

For want of wordspace I'll cut that scenario short, but my point is that the European model of power has its breaking-point. Europe is very well suited to handle small conflicts that can be handled by non-military or low-intensity military means, but when someone is just bent on being a jerk, another jerk (like the US) is best suited to dealing with the situation.

The way I see it, in light of the rise of China and India, Europe and America should probably keep cozy and compliment eachothers strengths in order to be assured that they can handle any political or military contingencies which might develop from those economic changes. Europe is powerful within its chosen form, America is too. Together they are powerful at any point on the force continuum.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 04:06 PM
link   
hello Lonestar/Vagabond thank you for your replies, it is not my intention to lecture or insult anyone but I find comments from some of your compatriots quite disturbing. Articles/attitudes on this site, the media and conversations with Americans at home and abroad seem to relish American induced murder and mayhem. phrases like we should nuke them ragheads in the middle east do not inspire you to belive that you are communicating with well educated enlightened people. The UK has been involved in wars of various magnitudes over the last several hundred years and it has got us nowhere at the end of the day. Germay was beaten to a pulp in ww2 yet has emerged as one of the strongest (financially) countries in the world (same for japan). Mankind has not learnt much over the last 2 thousand years were still making the same mistakes, you know the murder and mayhem bit. Arent we, as inteligent lifeforms supposed to advance, to put aside are petty squables and prejudices otherwise what hope is there for any of us. Remember its the power mad and the rich who have got us all at each others throats. Its not about who is strong or weak but one world and one people. And if I may be so bold its gunboat diplomacy and 2 pennyworth



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by magicmushroomphrases like we should nuke them ragheads in the middle east do not inspire you to belive that you are communicating with well educated enlightened people.


That's just it. When you hear such a phrase you aren't communicating with people. You are being spoken to by a person. Find me country with no idiots and not only will I move there but I'll show my gratitude by paying your moving expenses too.
As my drill instructor used to put, there's always that 10%. To be completely honest, when you factor in youth and idealogues it shoots up to something like 50-70%.



And if I may be so bold its gunboat diplomacy and 2 pennyworth


Yes yes, but if I'd said penny and/or cents a few people would have missed the point on exchange rates and my pointless rant about conversion to metric in old sayings would have fallen apart.

If I didn't break things down barney-style when I posted I'm not sure that many people would follow.

As for diplomacy, I'd say that "gunboat" is a tad outdated. Granted that "Tomahawk" or "F-16" diplomacy just doesn't have the same ring to it, but there is something to be said for accuracy.


Then as for evolving past war; we're not there yet. Behaviors can only evolve in the directions supported by the environment (sociologically speaking, not ecologically).
We're just not there yet. Too many desires, too little stuff: somebody's destined to get the short end of the stick and it's all a matter of how far you're willing to go to make sure it isn't you.

I'm all for finding a better way, but if a workable one had been found so far we wouldn't still be killing one another now would we? In my humble opinion, the various tactics currently at our disposal, be they economic, diplomatic, etc, are all predicated upon force if not necessarily violence. Take sanctions for example: what's humane about starving a nation rather than shooting at it?

So I conclude that the key to advancing beyond war is not merely choosing other tactics, but effecting a fundamental change either in human aims or in the ability of the world as a whole to meet those aims for all. As long as people want things they can only get at the expense of others, there will be force, whether economic, military, or otherwise.

[edit on 30-4-2006 by The Vagabond]



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 05:01 PM
link   
Russia is. Russia is the most powerful. It IS part of Europe.
But somehow when people mention Europe, they don't mention Russia.
Is it because Russia is in Asia and Europe? I don't think Russia will ever unite with the rest of Europe. So if you want to consider all the countries of Europe united as a single power, exclude Russia.



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 05:02 PM
link   
Intresting read, Of course the simple answer is "Europeans" are already powerfull. But, we are much more intrested in our own countries than some one elses for once. (Let America still likes to lead Britain astray). As it should be! There are alot more problems in good old' England and Im sure Wales,Scottland and Northern Ireland for sure that need sorting before we try our hand are playing "World Police".

Large armies have nevr has a big advantage over a smaller force. Take the 300 Spartans at Thermopylae.

One thing I'm was upset about was all the French bashing, Does no one remember FishGuard. The worlds most succesfull invasion?!?!

www.historic-uk.com...



posted on Apr, 30 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Russian soldier
Russia is. Russia is the most powerful. It IS part of Europe.
But somehow when people mention Europe, they don't mention Russia.
Is it because Russia is in Asia and Europe? I don't think Russia will ever unite with the rest of Europe. So if you want to consider all the countries of Europe united as a single power, exclude Russia.


Funny you say that, I was just dicussing this with a Polish friend of mine. While Russia is considered more "Eurasia" then Europe alone. We both agree with you that Russia wouldnt consdier joining the EU anytime soon.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 03:05 AM
link   
Will the Europeans ever be powerful?

This question is silly, as I will demonstrate…

Economics…

The European Union had a GDP of 14.2 trillion US dollars in 2005 (source The Economist). This is c. 8% larger then the USA who have a GDP of 13.1 T USD. If you include the non EU states, then the GDP of Europe approaches 16.5 T USD which is circa 20% graeter than the USA.

However, the capability of the EU - and Europe generally - is greater than the US by a significant margin, based primarily on population. The population of the USA is 298 M, EU is 459 M and ALL Europe is 792 M. It is population which will determine economy size in the long-run.

Lastly, much of the “old Europe” is economically backward due to their association with the old Soviet Union. These economies can only improve, so the rate of general growth should widen the gap with the USA in the medium term. Some of these nations are already part of the expanding EU.

So, the question is silly because the Europeans ARE already powerful. The fact that they spend less on their military is not an indicator of “power”.

Regards



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 03:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
So, the question is silly because the Europeans ARE already powerful. The fact that they spend less on their military is not an indicator of “power”.

We are talking about military power. And in terms of military power, Europe is not powerful.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi

Originally posted by paraphi
So, the question is silly because the Europeans ARE already powerful. The fact that they spend less on their military is not an indicator of “power”.

We are talking about military power. And in terms of military power, Europe is not powerful.


I'll think you'll find the original question was:



But do you think the europeans wil ever have an important part to play in world affairs in the next 100 years. I got nothing to do so please respond.


So, no, we weren't talking about solely military power, although that does play a factor.

Europe is reasonably powerful in terms of military strength. There are weak countries, but some very strong ones too. The UK, France, Germany spring to mind as the leaders along with Sweden, Finland, the Dutch, Spanish, Portugese, Italians, Polish et al all having their own forces to bring to bear.

Economically, Europe is a powerhouse. If you do business these days, you do business with Europeans somewhere along the line, as you would the Americans and Chinese too.

Admittedly, the EU has it's failings and some countries (not looking at the French
) need to liberalise their centralised economies, but for all intents and purposes, the EU is massively relevant in todays Geo-political climate.



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 04:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason
Great Britain, France, Germany are the leaders

France? You must be joking.

Originally posted by stumason
Economically, Europe is a powerhouse.

Not truth. The combined GDP of all 25 EU countries is lower than America's GDP. Proof: www.cia.gov...

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Zibi]

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Zibi]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 04:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi

Originally posted by stumason
Great Britain, France, Germany are the leaders

France? You must be joking.


Regardless what you might think of the French (no doubt some racist French are cowards rubbish), their military is to be respected.


Originally posted by Zibi

Originally posted by stumason
Economically, Europe is a powerhouse.

Not truth. The combined GDP of all 25 EU countries is lower than America's GDP. Proof: www.cia.gov...


Did I say they had a bigger GDP than the US? No. That is immaterial. The fact is, the EU is a MAJOR economic force in the world.

[edit on 1/5/06 by stumason]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by stumason

Regardless what you might think of the French (no doubt some racist French are cowards rubbish), their military is to be respected.

No, it's not, in comparison to the US, British and German militaries. Each of these three militaries outdoes the French military in every term of military power.

Originally posted by stumason
The fact is, the EU is a MAJOR economic force in the world.

No, it's not. It's GDP is $ 12,180,000,000 - lower than that of the US, and it's GDP growth rate is just 1.7% - lower than that of the US. Proof: www.cia.gov...

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Zibi]

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Zibi]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi
We are talking about military power. And in terms of military power, Europe is not
powerful.


Europe is even in terms of military powerful. Maybe not as powerful as the US. Currently, there are plans to bring all EURO forces together under one name, and one policy.

The spendings of the military budget would be governed by Brussels. Most people think the American weapons are the most powerful on earth, but Europe has it answer to most US weapons. For instance the Abrams, we've the Leopard 2A6 and the Swedish Leopard 2A6 (Stridsvagn 122), which is superior to the Abrams. Or the Eurofigher Typhoon, which is one of the best fighters that currently exists, and comparable to the F22.

We've our own war industry, and if we have a need to raise an army in the near future, we'll be able to do it in no time. Of course the quantitative number of units is far less compared to our US friends, but our financial situation is much better.

As soon as the dollar collapses, and thus the US economy, we'll feel the influences of it as well, and it neither will be good for our economy, but in the end Europe will survive, like it always did, and China will take over the position of superpower. Europe will become their main trading partner.




[edit on 1-5-2006 by Mdv2]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2
For instance the Abrams, we've the Leopard 2A6 and the Swedish Leopard 2A6 (Stridsvagn 122), which is superior to the Abrams.

No, it's not. The M1 tank is the best tank in the world. It has achieved the best kill ratio.

Originally posted by Mdv2
Or the Eurofigher Typhoon, which is one of the best fighters that currently exists

The Eurofighter Typhoon is inferior to the F-15 fighter, which has achieved the best kill ratio. It's kill ratio is 95:0. Proof: iflynavy.w.interia.pl...

Originally posted by Mdv2
but our financial situation is much better.

That's not true. The combined public debt of all 25 EU countries is higher than the public debt of the US.

[edit on 1-5-2006 by Zibi]



posted on May, 1 2006 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi

No, it's not. The M1 tank is the best tank in the world. It has achieved the best kill ratio.


How come? The Leopards have far less real combat experience than the Abrams, which doesn't make the Abram a better tank, technically the Leopard 2A6 is superior.
So your 'proof' doesn't change the facts.


Originally posted by Zibi
The Eurofighter Typhoon is inferior to the F-15 fighter, which has achieved the best kill ratio. It's kill ratio is 95:0. Proof: iflynavy.w.interia.pl...


I am sorry, I can't read Polish. But again, comparing the Eurofighter with the F15 is like comparing apples and oranges. The F-15 is in service since midway the 70's, the Eurofighter since 2003/4 and again far less real combat experience than the F-15. You neither can compare the F-15 to the F-22...


Originally posted by Zibi
That's not true. The combined public debt of all 25 EU countries is higher than the public debt of the US.





Full source: www.washtimes.com...

There is no shortage of statistics to back up these views. In 2004, average growth in the 12 EU states that share a single currency was a meager 2.2 percent, compared to 4.3 percent in the United States, 6.4 percent in China and a whopping 9 percent in China. EU productivity levels, which grew quicker than the United States for most of the post-war period, have entered into a sharp decline since the mid-1990s, with U.S. productivity growth now twice as fast as in Europe.

...

"Europe's added value comes from the quality of life it delivers rather than its growth rates, but even on the traditional merits of economic performance, Europe's record is far more respectable than its American critics imply," writes Mark Leonard, author of 'Why Europe will run the 21st century."

...

Leonard says the U.S. economy has been driven by a growing population -- U.S. growth averaged 1.2 percent a year in the 1990s, compared to 0.5 percent in Europe -- and longer working hours -- Americans worked an average of 866 hours a year in 2003, compared to 691 in the EU -- rather than better economic performance. Take Germany, which has struggled with the costs of reunification, out of the economic equation and the British author says growth rates in Europe and America are almost identical.

...

Jeremy Rifkin, the American author of "The European Dream," also believes that raw economic data does not do justice to a European way of life based around high taxes and unemployment but long holidays and generous welfare systems. "If you measure the good life by the paycheck, we are more advanced than you are," he told an audience of Brussels policy makers last month. "But if you want quality of life, education and healthcare, go to Europe."

...

Finland is the world's most competitive country, according to the World Economic Forum, and Denmark, Sweden, Ireland and the United Kingdom do not lag far behind. The United Kingdom, Finland, Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands also have higher employment rates than the United States, with over 70 percent of the population in work.




Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


Yes, the EU has a bigger population, but also a bigger GDP. I furthermore rather trust an objective source, than your CIA source.

GDP (PPP) ($US)

EU: 11,723,816 million USD
US: 11,190,000 million USD

en.wikipedia.org...


And: We've a strong currency, the US has a currency, which can collapse between now and a few years. www.dollarcollapse.com







[edit on 1-5-2006 by Mdv2]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 20  21  22    24  25  26 >>

log in

join