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: 27
1
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2006 @ 10:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Peruvianmonk
That´s true but we are talking about Europeans not Americans. In world war two France folded extremley quickly even with a well equipped army. There is just no will or courage in Europe for a fight, Mabye becasue of the destruction of world war 2.


And that world war 2 fiasco has invigorated the French armed forces to grow into the fighting force they are today. France doesn't depend on anyone for anything today. Not military-wise at least. France in WW2 and France today is..well ages apart!

Underestimating France is muc much worse than underestimating ..say Iran or NK. You should look up the evolution of the French arms industry/armed forces after WW2 unitl today. Lots to learn..




posted on May, 7 2006 @ 12:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wembley
The Euroland (ie Euro zone) economy is bigger than the US

This is not true. The US economy is stronger than the economies of all 25 EU countries combined. Proof: www.cia.gov...

Originally posted by Wembley
and growing

Yes, but slower than the American economy. Proof: www.cia.gov...



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 12:55 AM
link   
No offense, but I don't trust the CIA factbook. Like asking the Fed how good the economy is. Another source perhaps?



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by crazyman


benedict arnold - Please remember you NEEDED our (british) help in every recent conflict. Take Iraq and the stupid afgan conflict - the british stood by America.



that's cause the British = the USA's bitch. They will do anything the US tells them to do lol



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 07:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi

Originally posted by Wembley
The Euroland (ie Euro zone) economy is bigger than the US

This is not true. The US economy is stronger than the economies of all 25 EU countries combined. Proof: www.cia.gov...

Originally posted by Wembley
and growing

Yes, but slower than the American economy. Proof: www.cia.gov...


Quoting the CIA Factbook is hardly proof. The figures cited also refer to 2001 and 2003, so not exactly up to date and it may be that the CIA is not reflecting changes in the EU sunce 2001-2003.

Two sources which I would trust more than the CIA show the US have an 8-9% lower GDP than the EU and a 25-26% GDP lower than the EU plus the rest of Europe, like the Russian Federation.

As follows:

The Economist 2005
EU = 14,275
ROE = 2,267
Tot Europe = 16,543
USA = 13,180

World Bank 2004
EU (inc enlarged) = 12,815
ROE = 1,778
Tot Uurope = 14,593
USA = 11,712

USD in trillions

Now the key is in the consistency of the difference in size between the players.

However, the fact remains that the economies of the USA and the EU / rest of Europe are very large and advanced and all developing and growing. They are also all mutually dependent global.

Anyway. The original question was whether Euope would ever be powerful again. I do not think Europe was ever "un" powerful. Certainly Europe continues to have global economic and political influence.

Regards






[edit on 7/5/2006 by paraphi]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
The figures cited also refer to 2001 and 2003, so not exactly up to date and it may be that the CIA is not reflecting changes in the EU sunce 2001-2003.

No, they refer to the year 2005. In the CIA World Factbook, it says:


United States $ 12,410,000,000,000 2005 est.
3 European Union $ 12,180,000,000,000 2005 est.



United States 3.50 2005 est.
European Union 1.70 2005 est.


[edit on 7-5-2006 by Zibi]



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
Quoting the CIA Factbook is hardly proof. The figures cited also refer to 2001 and 2003, so not exactly up to date and it may be that the CIA is not reflecting changes in the EU sunce 2001-2003.


- Economics sources are like the age-old adage about economists, find more than 2 that agree and you are lucky.
Like all economic arguements so much depends on the method of accountancy used, the particular measurement(s) used to define the issue in question, the dates selected and the 'bases' chosen to reflect and quantify increase or decline.

The fact is that the EU is currently an entity of 450+ million individuals with the potential to grow to (at best) 550 millions at maximum current enlargement projection.
The US is currently somewhere around 270millions and is expected to grow to maybe around 392millions by 2050.
Indian and China comfortably out-size both.

But frankly this is so wide open to selective interpretation that once again it seems to boil down here - amongst some - to little more than a sterile pissing contest where the object is not a rounded debate but rather an attempt to 'win' yet another futile 'my preference is the best' contest.



posted on May, 7 2006 @ 11:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi

Originally posted by paraphi
The figures cited also refer to 2001 and 2003, so not exactly up to date and it may be that the CIA is not reflecting changes in the EU sunce 2001-2003.

No, they refer to the year 2005. In the CIA World Factbook, it says:


United States $ 12,410,000,000,000 2005 est.
3 European Union $ 12,180,000,000,000 2005 est.



United States 3.50 2005 est.
European Union 1.70 2005 est.


[edit on 7-5-2006 by Zibi]


OK, so the CIA Factbook is using estimates for 2005, presumably based on 2001 ranking if the URL is describing content. This is hardly FACTUAL and not really somthing to be relied upon as abosolute poof to prove your points.

Regards



posted on May, 9 2006 @ 01:43 PM
link   
I think Europe will be powerful economically. The Euro could possibly take over for the US dollar as the world currency. But the European Union makes the member countries decentralized, as opposed to the USA's federal government rules pretty much supreme over the states. Hey if the states want Road construction money the Federal government at times puts requirements on it. (as an example)

Europe will have an aging population fairly soon that will have a harder time supporting all the government services. The USA seems to pick up 10 to 12 million new not legal immigrants each decade of so. (from the last two decades as an example.) This influx will keep the USA population mean age lower, so the economy can support are older population better.

No country or area is perfect. I think the US could do better by spending billions on solar power for homes, and alternative fuels for cars, so they don't feel a need to F around in the middle east. But big oil wouldn't make any money.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 10:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by sbob
I think Europe will be powerful economically.

How is it going to be economically powerful if the average economic growth in the EU is 1.7%?



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi

Originally posted by sbob
I think Europe will be powerful economically.

How is it going to be economically powerful if the average economic growth in the EU is 1.7%?


Yeah sure, because the whole economic situation of half a billion people can be measured in ONE isolated statistical figure
Zibi strikes again...

---

I said it earlier in this thread (waaaayyyy earlier, last year...) that it is wrong to think of Europe as not being powerful at the moment. Real power cannot be measured in the strength of a military or with some economical figures.

REAL power means that others are dependant on you, in one way or the other. Practical example: would the USA care when the Netherlands reject the F-35? Not really. Would she care if the UK would reject it? Certainly! Because with the participation of the UK the whole integrity of the JSF cooperation rises and falls. As the strongest voice within the "Axis of Buyers" the UK can be seen as the president of the junior partners, apart from the technical participation of the british firms.

So, by careful maneuvering the UK is in a position that it can use it´s leverage to manipulate decisions of the US government... not with an econmic threat, not with a militaristic threat, simply because the USA cannot go well without the UK in the JSF program. And THAT, Gentlemen, is real power. And Europe was and is quite good at getting its fingers into a lot of issues and therefor achieving a certain degree of influence in many matters.

[edit on 10/5/2006 by Lonestar24]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 11:47 AM
link   
europe has always been powerful all the way through human history!!


you only have to go back to 60/70 years ago aswell:-

=====
France (was classed a superpower back then), Britain (empire), Nazi Germany
=====

its only been the last 60 years after europe was fighting with each other, the US emerged and to this date they are the ONLY global 'superpower' - they can't hold onto that though, its only been 60 years (a dot in human history) and things are crumbling already, the $ (dollar) is dead - national debt is 'mind-blowing' thats why they are invading the middle-east for oil (ie) saving its long-term future (food for oil program anybody)?


things will change though, europe is re-built, europe is on its feet again - and most importantly EUROPE IS UNITED (through the EU), which was created in the 1950's after the WW2, to STOP europe fighting with each other again.

if it wasn't for both world wars america would still down kissing europe and british empires bum (even now)....america never got hit in WW2 (except pearl arbour), america didn't fight from BEGINNING TILL END in either world war (thats why they never suffered any real financial damage)!!

but 60 years on (together as a whole) the EU, pisses all over the america, no contest! (never mind in 20 years time)
....but one thing, the EU will never be ONE nation (ie:- THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE), ive explained my reasons in other threads.


(SUMMARY) - at present, the EU together is the most powerful 'group' of nations (or states) on earth because in landspan it covers 30/40% of the world!!

is the EU a concern for the US, no! - because in my eyes the next 10/20 years america is going to do a USSR and destroy itself, therfore america is out of the ocastion completly.

is china a threat to america (short-term)? - the american economy is fastly declining, yet china as the fastest growing economy (doesn't take einstein to work out what is going to happen)!!


is the EU a concern for china, yes!!

but who cares, 50/100 years time when we discover aliens and traveling the stars - the world will be just as one (1 SPOKESPERSON, 1 MILITARY etc)

NEW WORLD ORDER?




[edit on 10-5-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
europe has always been powerful all the way through human history!!

you only have to go back to 60/70 years ago aswell:-

Who was powerful? France?



Germany? They lost two world wars against the US.

Great Britain? It was powerful - until Blair became the British PM.


Originally posted by st3ve_o
things will change though, europe is re-built, europe is on its feet again - and most importantly EUROPE IS UNITED (through the EU), which was created in the 1950's after the WW2, to STOP europe fighting with each other again.

The reason for why European nations didn't fight against each other after WWII was NATO, not the EU.


Originally posted by st3ve_o
is china a threat to america (short-term)? - the american economy is fastly declining

This is not true. The American economy is growing at the pace of 3.5%. Proof: www.cia.gov...

[edit on 10-5-2006 by Zibi]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 12:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi

Who was powerful? France?



Germany? They lost two world wars against the US.

Great Britain? It was powerful - until Blair became the British PM.


eek!! - an american doesn't know his history lessons again
yes france, there's a website these days called 'google' do a search on 'global powers world war2' see what it comes up with.

the afterwards do a search on the 'rise and fall of powers after WW2!!'

but as for america 'winning both wars' have you been watching 'saving private ryan' again? a film which is about WW2 (world war, which means THE WORLD IS AT WAR) but only mentions AMERICA


if you won both world wars, why couldn't you do it in vietnam then (when you was fighting by YOURSELF) a country running around with a WW1 rifle :p - oh well hollywood sure makes up for that as usual!!


ive never seen in you lose in any remakes of vietnam (full metal jacket, when we were soliders), we know how you like to learn your history over the pond, me personally i like to read FACTS.

just as in 'the pariot' how hollywood made out we burned people in churches and american farmers chased the british to the coastline (by themselfs) just before the french got there


but AGAIN fact! - britain was at war with america/france/spain/holland (at once).

actaully do a search on WW1 and find out that it was the british empire who was the main infulence in WW1.

back to WW2, amerca came when it was over!! was britain invaded? (nope)! - we was fighting germany/italy (for large parts) by ourselfs after france surrendered, then russia came in.

if britain lost the 'battle of britain' the war would have been over then...but i'm sure american history says WW2 started in 1941-45, and it was the good ol US of A who saved the world like 'superman' (just like in hollywood films)









[edit on 10-5-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 12:32 PM
link   
The allies were pretty much done for in ww1, until we came in.Iam not saying its because we were better.You didnt have anymore troops to keep dying for you, thats why you just wanted the usa to send troops over to fight in your armies.You were losing and losing bad, american man power saved the war. I know we were only there for liek 6 months , but without american fighting men you would have lost. As for ww2 normany wouldnt have happened without us in the war. Your have would have gotten france back or any of the conquered countries. So if you consider winning having to hide out on your island then i guess you guys were doing great. Why would we want to fight before we got attacked, there was no reason i mean if i go with your line of thinking britain could have won the war by itself.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 12:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
eek!! - an american doesn't know his history lessons again

I am not an American, I am a European. And I know history better than you do.


Originally posted by st3ve_o
actaully do a search on WW1 and find out that it was the british empire who was the main infulence in WW1.

As I said, Great Britain was powerful until Blair became the British PM.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Zibi

As I said, Great Britain was powerful until Blair became the British PM.


how do you judge 'power' by military means or do you judge 'power' by most infulence on a global scale?

military means - id be prepared to discuss this in the 'british manpower thread'.

global issues - who often leads the way in all global issues, ie:- (world climate/poverty africa etc), answer BRITAIN, john major did sweet f-all.

vote convservative mate, lets have the poll tax again







[edit on 10-5-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 12:39 PM
link   
I jsut read the book those damned rebels,writing by a brit. Its the aemrican rev though the eyes of the british. Its a good read, but you are way off. France was giving us money and that about it, until the end of war then when it was clear we were winning they finally provided naval support ie the battle of yorktown. Besides that france didnt want to mess with britain unless they knew we were winning. Come on holland the mighty british empire would have no problem with them.You lost because of supply lines, to far to go. That and we had the best general of the time on our side. Not because he beat the brits in many battles but for the fact he could always get away with out your country crushing his army. Which for gb back should have been easy. GB should have won a fwee times, but poor tactics didnt let that happpen. Spain wasnt even a major power back then, maybe a hundred years earlier.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
how do you judge 'power' by militry means or is 'power' by global issues?

By "power" I mean the general ability to influence the world by any means.


Originally posted by st3ve_o
militry means - I'd discuss this in the 'british manpower thread'.

Which thread?


Originally posted by st3ve_o
global issues - who often leads the way in all global issues, ie:- (world climate/africa etc), answer BRITAIN.

It was Great Britain - until Blair became the British PM.



posted on May, 10 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   
actaully dude forget it, because you know NOTHING about britain, your polish or german arn't you if i remember right (so not sure why you have british planes and a royal emblem in your avatar)!!


either way (pictures or not) you don't like the UK much by reading other discusions you've indulged in the past.

your the dude who pm'ed me last week, (so you should know which thread i'm talking about)


cut and pasted from your pm:-

========
from: Zibi
sent: 4-5-2006 at 03:59 AM
You have recently engaged in a discussion about the British military. I would like to tell you my opinion, but via PM.

Listen to me: the British military IS too small and uses the wrong equipment. My ideas are:
1) Scrapping all combat ships that are not OPVs, subs or aircraft carriers, and ordering 24 aircraft carriers (each should be of the same size as USS Nimitz, but conventionally powered)
2) Ordering 550 more Harrier aircraft for the RAF, and constructing 10 new airforce bases so that the Harriers could be parked somewhere
3) Inventing a new tank version - with thicker armour. The current British MBT version is easy to destroy with IEDs
4) Inventing a new IFV version

And besides, the RAF needs to improve training.

=======

2nd e-mail

from: Zibi
sent: 4-5-2006 at 05:06 AM
Oh, BTW, I forgot to tell you the following:

1) A new tanker version should be invented, and then a new tanker version
2) A new ASW helicopter version should be invented, and then a new ASW helicopter version, and then a new ASW helicopter version
3) The "24 aircraft carriers" figure I told you was wrong. I think the RN should order 25 aircraft carriers, not 24
4) The aircraft used by the RN should be the F/A-18, until the JSF comes into service
5) Only on one aircraft carrier should ASW helicopters be parked

=======




[edit on 10-5-2006 by st3ve_o]



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 24  25  26    28  29  30 >>

log in

join