European Union, a military superpower?

Originally posted by PlayeR87
as we all know the EU would jump at the chance to pay back america for there much needed help in ww2 (at least i hope they would)

cold war mate? war on terror?

only difference britain 'paid' america for there part in WW2, britain have received nothing back in return from the united states for our support in recent conflicts, the US didn't even want to hand over the codes to to britain in the jsf project

[edit on 17-11-2006 by Sepiroth]

Yeah, we only finsihed paying them off earlier this year..

Seems that the help came at a cost...

Originally posted by stumason
Yeah, we only finsihed paying them off earlier this year..

Seems that the help came at a cost...

Not nearly as much as it could have.

Wikipedia.org

Large quantities of goods were in Britain or in transit when Washington suddenly and unexpectedly terminated Lend-Lease on 2 September 1945. These were sold to Britain for about 10 cents on the dollar with payment to be stretched out for 50 years at 2% interest. [3] Debate in the Commons on 28 February 2002 shows that Britain expected to complete its repayment of its monetary debt to the USA on 31 December 2006, over 61 years from the conclusion of World War II:

"Bob Spink: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what outstanding liabilities there are to the United Kingdom of lend-lease loan facilities arranged during the Second World War; [38441]…" "Ruth Kelly: The information is as follows..." "Under the Agreement, the loans would be repaid in 50 annual instalments commencing in 1950. However the Agreement allowed deferral of annual payments of both principal and interest if necessary because of prevailing international exchange rate conditions and the level of the United Kingdom's foreign currency and gold reserves. The United Kingdom has deferred payments on six occasions. Repayment of the war loans to the United States Government should therefore be completed on 31 December 2006, subject to the United Kingdom not choosing to exercise its option to defer payment.

As at 31 March 2001, principal of $346,287,953 (£243,573,154 at the exchange rate on that day) was outstanding on the loans provided by the United States Government in 1945. The Government intend to meet its obligations under the 1945 Agreement by repaying the United States Government in full the amounts lend [sic] in 1945." Similarly, Hansard records from a debate that took place in the House of Lords on 8 July 2002:

"Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, is this payment part of the lend-lease scheme under which the United States supplied munitions, vehicles and many other requirements including food and other provisions that were needed badly by us in the last part of the war?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I referred to lend-lease in the context of the generosity of the United States throughout that period. However, the debt that we are talking about now is separate; it was negotiated in December 1945.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord remind me as to exactly how much the loan was, and how much we have repaid since then in principal and interest?

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the loan originally was £1,075 million, of which £244 million is outstanding. The basis of the loan is that interest is paid at 2 per cent. Therefore, we are currently receiving a greater return on our dollar assets than we are paying in interest to pay off the loan. It is a very advantageous loan for us." On 3 May 2006, the British Treasury Minister, Ivan Lewis in a commons reply said "Repayment of the war loans to the US Government is expected to be completed on December 31 2006," The final payment will be £45 million

Lend-Lease

Oh and please don't forget you only had to pay for the materials that were still in Britain and on the way to Britain. You didn't have to pay for the war materials lost throughout the war. For the greedy bastards we're portrayed as we seemed pretty damn generous. Oh and don't forget the Marshall Plan

Yeah but the question is danwild....

====
WHY SHOULD WE HAVE HAD TO PAY YOU?
====

it was a 'world' war, not Britain (or British funded) vs the evil.

. we helped you fight the Japanese, ww2.
. should we charge for British support in the cold war?
. bases in britain in the cold war (even now), the US government may pay for bases stationed here though, I SHOULD HOPE THEY DO
. Iraq/Alfganistan, American wars (all British support).

the marshall plan. oh please don't get me started on that, i could build a HUGE list on all the re-building plans the United States have had from Europe, how about huricane katrina for 1?


[edit on 17-11-2006 by Sepiroth]

The US does pay to station troops here. They also lease Diego Garcia off us, where they like to launch bombers from.

In case no one knows, Diego Garcia is a British Territory in the Indian Ocean. Nice little island, although largely a runway now

PS: Don't get me wrong Dan, I appreciate the US help in WW2. Although we were holding our own, eventually we would have just plain run out of stuff.

The Empire was supplying us with material, but the U-boat menace took it's toll. The US provided us with many merchant vessels that were built en-masse and material too.

Without them, we would have lost and the US would have stood no chance against the Nazi's, as they wouldn't have their giant floating aircraft carrier that some call the UK...

It does have to be noted though, that without the War, the US would unlikely be the dominant power today.

They would be up there with us, but the British Empire would likely still be pre-eminent.

The war bankrupted us, but at the same time, was pretty good finacially for the US.

We couldn't afford to run the empire anymore (or the will to fight the rebellions) and where happy to wind it down.

Man there seems to be a lot of hostility in this thread. The US is a war mongering nuke lobing slaves and te EU is a bunch of pansies that cant get along.

I dont why people think the US is so eager to use nukes in a war. We are the only ones that has ever used em but that was 61 years ago right as it was created( which was possible because of many nations contributions most notebly from the scientists). I seriously doubt we will ever use one unless they are used on us first and right now thats unlikely.

Also, how does the US have more freedome than the US. Now dont take this wrong and correct me when I'm wrong. But the European nations have a more socialistic type of govt in that business's have fewer rights compared to US companies ie hiring and firing. You also pay much more in taxes and in return you get free health care where as the US pays less in taxes and we get what we want if we want it. I dont know about other countries but it seems that UK's intel agencies have far more power than ours does. It seems that after WWI and WWII, Europe decided they wanted security over risk. This is above all other reason why we have grown so strong so fast.

But I doubt that this scenario is ever going to play out. Each nation in the EU and the US have too many interests with each other to go to war.

Originally posted by SenHeathen

Also, how does the US have more freedome than the US. Now dont take this wrong and correct me when I'm wrong. But the European nations have a more socialistic type of govt in that business's have fewer rights compared to US companies ie hiring and firing. You also pay much more in taxes and in return you get free health care where as the US pays less in taxes and we get what we want if we want it. I dont know about other countries but it seems that UK's intel agencies have far more power than ours does. It seems that after WWI and WWII, Europe decided they wanted security over risk. This is above all other reason why we have grown so strong so fast.

For the companies hiring and firing, it depends where you go. France and Germany are insanely socialist and it is very hard for companies to operate freely, where as in the UK and other places, it is much easier. Us more capitalist countries are trying to convince France and Germany that they need to loosen up. It's why their economies stagnate.

But we still have protection for employees here, so we don't get shafted by corporations quite as much as it would seem you guys do. If they want to get rid of us, they can expect to pay us redundancy money. This is to ensure that your ok till you find other employment and don't over burden the State.

As for taxes, they're not that high, at least, I don't really notice. I take home around £1600/month (around $3000 USD) after tax. I pay around £400 (around $750 USD)in income tax. For most people it works out about 30% on average. We do pay silly amounts of duty on some things, like fuel and fags, but it's not that bad.

In return, we get social benefits, health care, top class education, so it's hardly a raw deal.

I understand in the US you have to buy health insurance. This is ok if you can afford it (and in essence, your paying what we pay here) but if you cannot afford it, your in a right pickle. At least here, everyone has the right to equal treatment. You can opt to go private as well, but you can still use the NHS. Personally, I use both as my employer gives me free healthcare.

Our intel services have ALOT of power, but they are, on the whole, responsible and have a track record of being trustworthy. Alot of people actually look up to MI5/MI6 with a good deal of respect.

The reason the US has grown so fast is that you were the only developed, free country in the world that hadn't been royally shafted (in fact, you emerged unscathed) by WW2. Quite an advantage, would you say?

The rest of us spent 10-20 years rebuilding after the worlds worst ever conflict had been fought in our gardens. and who supplied the resources to rebuild? The USA. Not that I'm not grateful but WW2 did you guys wonders.

[edit on 17/11/06 by stumason]

The problem with threads like these is that they always degenerate into an us against them flame war. As I've said before I actually think another superpower inparticularly if its the EU wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. The US wouldn't have such a free hand. Which would in some cases at least that would probably be a good thing(even for the US). Because who's interests are we pursuing in Iraq. Are the Iraqi's better off? How about the US? Seems to me the ones that have benefited the most have been ExxonMobil, BP and their share holders.

[edit on 17-11-2006 by danwild6]

Originally posted by danwild6
The problem with threads like these is that they always degenerate into an us against them flame war.

Indeed they do, Dan. I try to keep it civil and analytical, but we do seem to get the occassional "Europe sucks" idiot posting on here that needs some correction.

Contrary to what seems a popular belief, we're not all pinko-commie, muslim serving, surrender monkeys.

It's actually rather nice here.

We, the U.S. and the E.U. are more alike than different. I understand both sides think they are the best at most things. However each side is only the "best" at what they are mainly due to the fact that together the E.U. and U.S. and the Commonwealth are stronger together than any one of them would be separately. We bicker like neighbors when in reality we are all pretty much cousins.

Yes America is strong, Yes Europe, combined, is just as strong. Should Europe step up to the Superpower level, sure, why not. There really is room at the top for more than one or two main players. We have far more in common with each other than we do with any other part of the world, economically, socially, culturally ect. ect. ect.

Now lets get on to the real controversy........ Who has the best beer?

Originally posted by pavil


Now lets get on to the real controversy........ Who has the best beer?

Silly question.

England.

Originally posted by stumason

Originally posted by pavil


Now lets get on to the real controversy........ Who has the best beer?

Silly question.

England.

See. Watch the can of worms I just opened up. Now it gets serious. I vote Belgium, very potent and lots of varieties.

But I like the saying "There is not such thing as bad beer.....some are just better than others".

Belgium does good Lagers, but the King of Beer is England.

Abbott Ale all the way!

I think it would actually be a good thing for the US if the EU would become a SP. This would allow ya'll to increase your influence in the world to help us counter both Russian and Chinese influence. This would also give us better security in knowing that we have a power of our size on our side that is united just as we are to y'all at the moment. Y'all know that if # hits the fan we'll be there and we know most of the EU countries would do the same for us as we both have for the last 200 years or so. But for the E to become a SP it could only help the US.

I also think it would help us if Russia and China become more powerful as to draw attention from many people but not as powerful as the EU or the USA.

Oh man, I'm not evening getting into the beer debate because I havent tried much foriegn beer.

But as not to look weak, Texas( my state) drinks 3/4 of the beer consumed in the US annually.

Just a reminder, the topic is European Union, a military superpower?

You want good alcohol you just get ur asses down here to Ireland

Originally posted by stumason
Silly question.

England.

Yeah right, german all the way. Either that or tennants

opps did not mean to go off topic
so.. emmm EU ya errrr superpower

Sorry, I tried to inject some humor as people were getting pretty snippy with each other. I was just trying to state that we have much more in common than not. Friends all, just not friends all the time on every occasion.

Cheers to all.