European Union, a military superpower?

page: 9
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sepiroth
the EU as the potential to rule the world, you and everybody else are talking about the EU as it is '2006'.


What a cop out. I could just as easily and even more so say China has a better chance to "rule the world" whatever that means. They have the people, the economy, the budding desire militarily and politically to be a Superpower. Europe, IMO doesn't have nearly the same desire to "rule the world" again.


in many ways (questionable military) it already surpasses the US, but 1 thing the EU will never be is 'united' we love our independence/culture and national pride too much, take it in mind the united states is 50 countrys into 1 THE 'UNITED' STATES

Which is precisely one of the main things that will drag the EU down from achieving full blown superpower status
Umm... the 50 states were never countries unless you want to count the original 13 as seperate and Hawaii. All states are pretty much similar in regards to language, most culture ect. ect. ect.



but the EU will one day operate as 1 nation (infact it does in many ways now) but being 1 nation we will never be, europeans in general already enjoy better lifestyle than americans, if i had choice of having a better life options or a 'superpower' for a military, id choice 'life' all the time and i'm glad we (britain) no longer have our empire if thats the case.


One of the main reasons Europe has such a nice lifestyle is that since WWII you have cocooned yourself while the US asserted it's role as the leader of the free world. Most of Europe has been content to let the US dictate world affairs while improving their lot at the same time. It's easy to have your cake and eat it too if someone else does the heavy lifting for you. Europe willingly took a back seat to the US since WWII. I'm glad that maybe they have started to take a more active role worldwide, it's not like we are enemies or foes.


anyway define the word 'superpower' for me, a superpower is like superman/spiderman 'you are above something' (ie:- superman is above humans - america is above other nations in a military sense).


Funny that you use two American comicbook heroes to make your point, but I digress. Here is the typical definition of Superpower used in the geopolitical sense.Define: Superpower



yet why are they not showing this 'superpower' staus in iraq, alfghanistan, vietnam?
- the last i heard america was still losing lifes/president bush losing support/people wanting to bring the troops home - EVEN ASKING ONE OF THE AXIS OF EVIL FOR HELP (IRAN)
All nations, yes even Superpowers struggle with the occupation and reconstitution of a nation's political structure. It's not an easy thing to do. The military aspect is easy, the political is always the hard one.


therefore if america struggles with *the above* what makes people think they can take OTHER military powerhouses PUT-TOGETHER such as france/germany/britain (along with) italy/spain/holland/denmark/belgium/poland/sweden (+ many more nations), all at once


people are talking out of their arse, theres only one winner
its not even debatable, the US wouldn't even beat 2 of the big 3 together (maybe even 1) as i feel it's now impossible for another country to beat another established country in todays world.


Great leap of logic there as the US has not diverted it's whole capacity to smash Iraq into dust or whatever you think a real "superpower" should do.

Whoever said the US wanted to or could take on the whole fricken world? Why do you want to get into a pissing match as to who can kick who's butt? I thought Europeans were over that and had progressed beyond such petty nation saber rattling. Sigh.




posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
Actually the center looks to be in Africa in that map. LOL. Gotta take those Euro centric glasses off. JK.

Lol really? Take france and the UK dont count then lol.



Either the US with 14 Million University Students or India with over 8,000 universities. Sure the US has problems with parts of it's education system, but people from all over the world come to the US for their higher learning.

Will have to get back to you on numbers but will find out..


Not sure, but since the end of WWII the US has had the lead role in Politics, Economics and world leadership.

Politics, economics and world leadership dont exactly mean centre of western culture.



You know what he means. The birth rate of native Europeans vs recent immigrants is vastly different. Don't delude yourself that it wont change the society and culture. I bet many Americans in 1940 didn't think that many things they bought would have bilingual labels.


So? Times change with immagration...after all europe has been accepting immagration for many years not to mention emegrating its self.



What about the British Empire, those wonderful Colonial Empires spreading goodwill and cheer to the third world. How about Germany and something called WWII.

Last time I checked they where countries, europe on the other hand has never been combined into a super power since the romans.



Totally lost me on that one. Canada has always been a Commonwealth state more than part of the U.S.

Canada and the US are on the same continent why cant you both put your "prejudices" aside and become one country? Because your two countries and dont fancy it, welcome to europes problem.


Ask any Canadian if you doubt me. BTW Canda is spelled with a capital C.

Now thats just being pedantic.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 12:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp
Lol really? Take france and the UK dont count then lol.


Look at the map cse.ssl.berkeley.edu... .gif and tell me that Africa is not the center of that map.
Here I'll make it easy for you, look where the lines intersect. en.wikipedia.org...

Yeah I get that the Prime Meridian goes through France and the U.K. Hardly surprising considering who made it.





Politics, economics and world leadership dont exactly mean centre of western culture.
Ok add movies, music ect.



So? Times change with immagration...after all europe has been accepting immagration for many years not to mention emegrating its self.


And you are struggling with your integraton of immgrants into your society. I've see it first hand. It will continue to be a problem. For all your covering it up or ignoring it, there is quite a bit o racism and nationlism in Europe.




Canada and the US are on the same continent why cant you both put your "prejudices" aside and become one country? Because your two countries and dont fancy it, welcome to europes problem.

Still not following you. Canada and the U.S. have never expressed an interest in being "unified" We are both of quite happy with the way things are between us for the most part. Europe seems to have chosen a different course, bully for them.



Now thats just being pedantic.


Only if your not a Canadian. I just think it's a proper way of spelling, sorry.



[edit on 30-11-2006 by pavil]





[edit on 30-11-2006 by pavil]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 02:04 PM
link   
A center of the world does not exist( unless you mean to go inside the Earth) since the world is round and the center can be wherever one wishes to draw it. Arguing over the center of a map is somewhat childish guys.

As I stated before, I hope the EU can do it but being realistic, its not likely as each country will look after its own interests first and each has its own constitution and those arent bad things. In order to unify the countries will either have to get rid of their country titles and all become known as the EU, form a central command that has full power over the separate countries militaries or give it to the UN. All of which would violate the individuals sovern(sp?) rights and wont likely happen.
But if you are able to do that then you still have to largely unify economic and political control, and the political control will be the hardest of all 3 to do.

The US is made p of 50 states each with their own laws and powers with the federal govt also making laws that each state has to abide by and has powers the states don’t have just as they have powers the fed doesnt have. The way this has worked is they they each have a constitution but it was drawn up known that it was to be part of the USA. With only Hawaii and Texas being their own countries before entering the Union. This is in contrast to the EU being made up of COUNTRIES working as COUNTRIES for hundreds of years .



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Also, I dont think the EU countries have the willpower to what it takes to become a Superpower. They dont need to so why spend the money on it. The US however became one and now has to spend enormous resources to maintain that status and protect our enterests all over the world.

I'm not saying its a bad thing, just that there seems( in an Americans view) to be lile need for the EU to become a SP. If you need help you know we will be there in a heartbeat just as we know the samw ill be true for most of the EU nations. SO why do it if you dont need to.

Why would Canada want to be part of the US and the US as part of Canada. Canadian policy is much closer to European policy than American policy so its be a mismatch. We do however work EXTREMELY closely when it comes to protecting each other. We do that nearly as one but even then we dont always get along. IE, they sided with us very quickly when it came to 9/11 and aided us when we needed it but when it came to Iraq they said they disagreed. That was fine since they saw our side and didnt share the view but they didnt work against us and try to undermine us as other countries did.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 05:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sepiroth
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).


You had to pay because the materials weren't produced in Britain or by the British. They were produced for the British in and by the US and paid for by the American tax payer.

As far as Japan I'd it was the other way around being that the US defended Australia, New Zealand and British posessions in the Pacific.

Our expenditures in the cold war were as much a benefit to you as they were to us if not more so. Without the US manning the defenses around western europe would europe have been as prosperous as they are now. Think about it all the money the US spent to defend europe from the Soviets would have to be spent by european tax payers instead of American.

Iraq you've got to be kidding! You created the damn country in the first place. And you didn't exactly have a gun at your back did you? Believe me I wish that Blair hadn't gone along with Bush maybe then Congress would have blocked support seeing as our only true allie wasn't even going to back us.


Originally posted by Sepiroth
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?


Okay give me a list. As far as Katrina you sent some aid which I very much appreciate but you hardly rebuilt the US.

Plain and simple the American people saved European civilization from complete and total oblivion. Even had Hitler been defeated and Stalin took over that would have been just as bad in just as many ways. Tell me what do you think France, Italy and Britain would look like today had they spent 45yrs under Soviet rule. The only reason why you don't know already is because we got ourselves involved in WWII. Then spent the next half century bankrupting ourselves fighting communism. Imagine what would have happened had we not gotten involved. What happened in Europe starting in 1939 would be remembered centuries later in a similar way to the fall of the Roman Empire. Because it would've had the same affect on culture and civilization.

Their complete destruction that is.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 06:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by SenHeathen
A center of the world does not exist( unless you mean to go inside the Earth) since the world is round and the center can be wherever one wishes to draw it. Arguing over the center of a map is somewhat childish guys.


the whole damn thread is childish. All this thread has done is serve as a vent for whatever problem europe has with the US.

Gee guys, last I checked we are supposed to be friends.


Anyway, we know what this is all about, even criticisms about the war in Iraq stem from the same issue.

Europe... especially britain has this "america envy" problem.

I know, "your an arrogant american" blah blah blah.

Horse crap.

Britain, you got alot to be proud of so I truly dont understand your attitudes toward the US.

if europe wants to be a superpower, go for it. Hell, we could use the support.

I just get tired of hearing the constant whining out of europe about the US.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 06:30 PM
link   
@ danwild6

haven't changed have we dan?, i remember our little debate in politics forum a few months back in how you call europe 'eurorabia'

but wow, how ignorant and arrogant is that post?
- you sir are classic example why people hate americans, may i suggest you learn your history on WW2 and then come back please.

[edit on 30-11-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 06:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
@ danwild6

haven't changed have we dan?, i remember our little debate in politics forum a few months back in how you call europe 'eurorabia'

but wow, how ignorant and arrogant is that post?
- you sir are classic example why people hate americans, may i suggest you learn your history on WW2 and then come back please.

[edit on 30-11-2006 by st3ve_o]


What exactly is your version? I know I am going to regret asking this.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
@ danwild6

haven't changed have we dan?, i remember our little debate in politics forum a few months back in how you call europe 'eurorabia'

but wow, how ignorant and arrogant is that post?
- you sir are classic example why people hate americans, may i suggest you learn your history on WW2 and then come back please.


Hi st3ve_o I was beginning to think you were ignoring me
Obviously you haven't changed that much either. Call someone a name then insult their intelligence and add nothing to the debate


Oh and it was eurabia



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 07:01 PM
link   
my version i posted yesterday, victory in WW2 could never have been won without any of the allies.

i'm just sick of hearing about this big 'A' (for america) on the front of the t-shirt singing ^hear i come to save the day^
- this big 'A' t-shirt doesn't exist, but does for certain americans.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
my version i posted yesterday, victory in WW2 could never have been won without any of the allies.

i'm just sick of hearing about this big 'A' (for america) on the front of the t-shirt singing ^hear i come to save the day^
- this big 'A' t-shirt doesn't exist, but does for certain americans.


to be perfectly honest, I think we could of won it without britain's help. Maybe not without the russians though.



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Britain as in the island of Great Britain I believe was necessary but as far as the British Armed Forces their Army was mainly equiped with US kit and severly undermanned. Most of their Merchant Marine as well as a significant portion of the Royal Navy were using ships delivered too them under lend-lease. I'm not of the mind that the US could have won the Second World War alone and never have been but credit should be given where credit is due. And that is recognition of the fact that the allies would've lost if it hadn't been for the US(Russia included).



[edit on 30-11-2006 by danwild6]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 08:15 PM
link   
Britain ‘MAINLY’ armed by the US?
I’m not sure about that, i doubt we would have been running around barefeet
, of course i know the US sent aid/equipment but 'mainly?' - even if so I think its only fair afterall we armed your troops back in WW1, but one thing I am certain on though (without even looking it it), this kit and equipment would have come at a ‘cost’


as for ships being delivered to us under lend-lease, the royal navy was the best in the world ^british grand fleet^ having the best navy was something britain always prided itself on all the way through the empire, even hitler himself also knew the royal navy was something germany could not defeat.

you also undermine Britain (for some strange reason) by saying "russia and the US" - we fought in both wars from beginning to end, funding both wars for australia/canada/india (commonwealth) and even the US, infact 80% of both world wars was funded by britain (thats why it destroyed our economy/empire) we also fought hitler and mussolini without help for 2 years after france surrendered, we were also the only european nation in the war not to get invaded and had we not won the 'battle of britain' the war would have been lost anyway, so don't say just russia and the US


i'm also beginning to think your schizophrenic because an hour ago you say this:-


Originally posted by danwild6
Plain and simple the American people saved European civilization from complete and total oblivion. Even had Hitler been defeated and Stalin took over that would have been just as bad in just as many ways.


and then in your next reply you say this



Originally posted by danwild6
I'm not of the mind that the US could have won the Second World War alone and never have been but credit should be given where credit is due. And that is recognition of the fact that the allies would've lost if it hadn't been for the US(Russia included).


Anyway this is all I’m going to post on this issue now, because I find this disturbing and disrespectful even trying to explain why 1 nation alone never won the war
- summary, every solider who fought in the world wars deserves RESPECT and without any of those people (regardless of nationality) victory could never have been achieved.

[edit on 30-11-2006 by st3ve_o]



posted on Nov, 30 2006 @ 10:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by st3ve_o
Britain ‘MAINLY’ armed by the US?
I’m not sure about that, i doubt we would have been running around barefeet
, of course i know the US sent aid/equipment but 'mainly?' - even if so I think its only fair afterall we armed your troops back in WW1, but one thing I am certain on though (without even looking it it), this kit and equipment would have come at a ‘cost’


Yeah the difference there was that the US had to pay for all its kit not just what it had left over.


Originally posted by st3ve_o
as for ships being delivered to us under lend-lease, the royal navy was the best in the world ^british grand fleet^ having the best navy was something britain always prided itself on all the way through the empire, even hitler himself also knew the royal navy was something germany could not defeat.


Yeah the Royal Navy has the greatest naval tradition in the world no doubt about it. But thats not the point I was making. By the outbreak of war in 1939 alot of the Royal Navy wasn't prepared. During the inter-war period the Royal Navy had been seriously neglected and had been getting hammered by German U-boats. So much that Churchill appealed to Roosevelt for 40 old WWI destroyers to help fill lessen the burden. Roosevelt agreed on the condition that Britain lease Royal Navy facilities in the Atlantic and Caribbean to the US. That was the beginning of lend-lease.


Originally posted by st3ve_o
you also undermine Britain (for some strange reason) by saying "russia and the US" - we fought in both wars from beginning to end, funding both wars for australia/canada/india (commonwealth) and even the US, infact 80% of both world wars was funded by britain (thats why it destroyed our economy/empire) we also fought hitler and mussolini without help for 2 years after france surrendered, we were also the only european nation in the war not to get invaded and had we not won the 'battle of britain' the war would have been lost anyway, so don't say just russia and the US


Well as far as the 80% for both world wars figure you'd have to find me some supporting stats to get me to believe that. The First World War I think could be correct. I believe it was called the year alone as Hitler attacked Russia about a year after France fell. But even at that Lend-Lease was passed shortly after France capitulated so you were receiving help pretty early on from the US. And yes you won the Battle of Britain on your own certainly one of the greatest events in world history
But I believe you missunderstand the part about Russia. I believe without US help Russia would have been defeated as well. I was in no way trying to undermine the British alone(the rooskies are just as indebted to us as you are
)




Originally posted by st3ve_o
i'm also beginning to think your schizophrenic because an hour ago you say this:-


Well I am schizophrenic but I'll simplify what I said the US didn't and most likely couldn't win the Second World War alone. We might have been able to as by 1945 the US had atomic weapons and the B-36 bomber that could deliver them all the way to Germany from the US. But had the US not entered the war there is absolutely no way the allies could win, IMO. Simply put the US was the deciding factor. And had the Brits and Russians not been fighting in the first place then we obviously wouldn't be either.


Originally posted by st3ve_o
Anyway this is all I’m going to post on this issue now, because I find this disturbing and disrespectful even trying to explain why 1 nation alone never won the war
- summary, every solider who fought in the world wars deserves RESPECT and without any of those people (regardless of nationality) victory could never have been achieved.


Well st3ve_o you make alot of sense there and perhaps you're right it took everybody. Perhaps I'll reexamin my opinions.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 01:23 AM
link   
Well as an American, I like to think of our contribution as something that changed the course of the war and eventually helped it to win. But I also understand that we weren’t in the war the entire time and that we weren’t near as powerful back then. I don’t believe that the US was itself the deciding factor in winning or losing WWII, but with the help of largely the Russians we were victorious. The Russians gave the war another front and split up Germanys resources and helped to give the other countries time to resupply. There were a lot of things that could of changed the war. If Hitler had been killed in one of the attempts on his life, if he had waited and not gone after Russia so soon, if Japan had not attacked the US so soon, if Hitler had postponed the war by only 1 year…..etc. The facts is, the US prolly couldn’t have won the war by itself since Hitler was already working on bombers to hit the US by the end of Germany’s involvement. Our seas have given us great protection but it never has and never will make us undefeatable. And without the help of Russia, the USA, the UK and all the others even smallest involvement, the war would have been extended years longer if not lost.

The US gave many supplies, the USSR gave many lives, the UK gave an economy……we all lost but given the alternative we won by pulling together.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 03:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by SenHeathen
I don’t believe that the US was itself the deciding factor in winning or losing WWII, but with the help of largely the Russians we were victorious.


Personally, I do think America's role was of crucial importance. Hitler was forced to attack Russia in order to secure his oil supply (Operation Barbarossa) by capturing the Baku oil fields.

Hitler's generals often warned him not to start a war on two fronts, should he have focussed his attention solely on the Soviet Union the chance he would have defeated the Soviets would have been much greater. However, reality differs and the attack on Pearl Harbor resulted in another major power on a different front.

What I'm trying to point out is that without any US support Nazi-Germany would have been allowed to focus its attention on securing the oil supply which would have been a key factor for winning the war and eventually conquer Britain.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by pavil
Look at the map cse.ssl.berkeley.edu... .gif and tell me that Africa is not the center of that map.
Here I'll make it easy for you, look where the lines intersect. en.wikipedia.org...

Yeah I get that the Prime Meridian goes through France and the U.K. Hardly surprising considering who made it.

Frankly your going off track, the centre of the earth in longitude terms is through greenwich, because WE defined it. And the equactor has no centre, because its a circle




Ok add movies, music ect.

True america has the the movie and music drive but europe does have its own movie studios and music industry but both are interconnected.



And you are struggling with your integraton of immgrants into your society.

Yes and this never happens does it? Certainly didnt happen to the black community in the 1960's did it?


I've see it first hand. It will continue to be a problem. For all your covering it up or ignoring it, there is quite a bit o racism and nationlism in Europe.

As suprising as it may actually be I DO live in europe (though many discount the UK as europe) and I have seen this, it happens when you get diffrent people from diffrent countries mingled together= friction.
Also "covering up"?
We have our racists but then again so does every one as for nationalism is that negative? Its thier views as people unless ofcourse you want to ban thinking.




Still not following you. Canada and the U.S. have never expressed an interest in being "unified" We are both of quite happy with the way things are between us for the most part. Europe seems to have chosen a different course, bully for them.

I'm stressing the fact that both of you are diffrent countries, in europe its many diffrent countries with many diffrent ideas. Hell in the UK theres many who would break up the union and be our own countries but others that dont, frankly if you call this "prejudices" then go ahead but I personally call it opinion.



Only if your not a Canadian. I just think it's a proper way of spelling, sorry.

If you want to lecture someone about english go become an english teacher, dont lecture me.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 01:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by danwild6
As far as Japan I'd it was the other way around being that the US defended Australia, New Zealand and British posessions in the Pacific.

Yes and british forces made no effort to defend these nor the actual colonies themselves fighting...I think not.


Our expenditures in the cold war were as much a benefit to you as they were to us if not more so. Without the US manning the defenses around western europe would europe have been as prosperous as they are now. Think about it all the money the US spent to defend europe from the Soviets would have to be spent by european tax payers instead of American.

Frankly we werent the ONLY ones who got something out of this , comrade, you also got a nice little bit too. You managed to create a several bases in europe in key places thereby increasing your strategic range and you also got a lot of support from your allies, this was not a one way system you know.


Iraq you've got to be kidding! You created the damn country in the first place. And you didn't exactly have a gun at your back did you?

And we dont now, if US and UK high command had made the plan to GTFOOT or getie # then we wouldnt be in this mess.


Believe me I wish that Blair hadn't gone along with Bush maybe then Congress would have blocked support seeing as our only true allie wasn't even going to back us.

Funny how all this logical thinking comes AFTER the event.



Plain and simple the American people saved European civilization from complete and total oblivion. Even had Hitler been defeated and Stalin took over that would have been just as bad in just as many ways. Tell me what do you think France, Italy and Britain would look like today had they spent 45yrs under Soviet rule. The only reason why you don't know already is because we got ourselves involved in WWII. Then spent the next half century bankrupting ourselves fighting communism. Imagine what would have happened had we not gotten involved. What happened in Europe starting in 1939 would be remembered centuries later in a similar way to the fall of the Roman Empire. Because it would've had the same affect on culture and civilization.

Lol care to rephrase that?
You didnt exactly "save us" you became a FACTOR in our not being overrun by the soviets. Care to tell me how america on its own "saved" europe from total destruction , without ofcourse listing any help you may have had from your allies since then you wouldnt have done it on your own.



posted on Dec, 1 2006 @ 01:05 PM
link   
We did play an important role in winning WWII but I think that you take away the UK, Russia or the US then it would have turned out vastly different.



  exclusive video


new topics
top topics
 
0
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join