European Union, Military Superpower!?!

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 07:00 AM
link   
Ever notice that some Europeans sound a lot like your parents?

"You don't know what you're talking about. When you get as old as us YOU, will understand."
"Obviously you're wrong, you just don't see the big picture."
"What do you know, you're only 200 years old..."

LOL...Really, I get a bit sick of European High handedness. Sure, Americans are just as arrogant, so maybe it's just a taste of our own medicine.

I'm not going to say that either system is better, just different. If you guys can live with it, fine. I'm just saying that I wouldn't. I'm just saying there WILL be a state of Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, etc. withing the European Union. This IS just like the states rights arguments in the U.S. in the early 1800s. I'm just really curious about what will happen over the next twenty years. As long as anti-american forces don't take control, I'm just fine with the EU.

But, in the long run, we're both going to have to be careful of the dragon on the horizon. Senile old men with money, men, arms, and ideology make for a dangerous future for all of us. They'll either try to buy us both out or stomp us out. Not sure which...




posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 07:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by soulforge
Ever notice that some Europeans sound a lot like your parents?

"You don't know what you're talking about. When you get as old as us YOU, will understand."
"Obviously you're wrong, you just don't see the big picture."
"What do you know, you're only 200 years old..."

LOL...Really, I get a bit sick of European High handedness. Sure, Americans are just as arrogant, so maybe it's just a taste of our own medicine.


- .....and if Europeans were here discussing America in a manner totally at odds with the actual reality of America would you not start saying that they didn't understand or that they didn't know what they are talking about?


(...er, look around at the various threads!
a taste of your own medicine indeed.
)

By the way who said anything about a "big picture" or "When you get as old as us YOU, will understand."?


I brought the age of the USA into this in a response to an earlier comment.
The comparison between the several much older cultures in Europe are in no way comparible to the much younger (and - then - no culture) states as they came together to form the USA.

This is not "high-handedness" this is simply to point out the very clear absurdity of the parallel that a poster attempted to draw; well, it's clear to anyone who is the least bit informed and who has given the matter any thought beyond the most innane and superficial that is.

To state the facts of a matter clearly and correctly is not arrogant.
Maybe a degree of exasperation at the level of ill-informed comment about Europe and the EU comes in but that is not 'arrogant'.



I'm not going to say that either system is better, just different.


- I have merely described how things are.
Whether you think one better than the other or not is up to you..... and me, your and my free choice....but I don't think this has been a debate about the merits of one over the other.
It's next to impossible to debate that if those debating the matter don't understand the way things are in the first place.

....and to return to topic the matter of this new(ish) EU-wide military co-operation is nothing like an imagined embryo military superpower.



If you guys can live with it, fine. I'm just saying that I wouldn't.


- Well if your judgement is actually based on the reality of what is going on here, then fine.
But I have to say many of you guys could hardly make it clearer that you really have little or no idea how our systems actually work - and are therefore judging things on a flawed basis.

We are not anything like (kinda or otherwise) the USA and it's federal state system......nor an confederal state system either!



I'm just saying there WILL be a state of Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, etc. withing the European Union.


- No, sorry; this will not do.
There already are member states within the EU - now 25 of them - called Germany, France, Italy, Sweden etc etc.

What do you mean?


This IS just like the states rights arguments in the U.S. in the early 1800s.


- I am telling you this is plain wrong.

Those 'states' are nations states; nothing like your 'states'.

I keep asking but you guys merely repeat your original ludicrous assertion.....given that the nation states have full democratic voting rights including the power of veto - and can leave the EU any time they want .....by what possible stretch of the imagination would any(!) of the ancient nations of Europe vote themselves into or be 'forced' into a position of mere 'state-hood'?

The idea is as laughable as it is impossible. Wise up.


They are nothing like the early states that went on to become the USA.
By the same token the EU does not function in any way like the US federal gov.

I really wish you guys would stop drawing such unhelpful and inaccurate parallels.
You might think it helps you understand it but it really doesn't.



I'm just really curious about what will happen over the next twenty years.


- No doubt it'll be similar to the last (nearly) 50yrs of growing voluntary free democratic European co-operation.
I'd expect the wealth of Europe to grow and for Europe to be the single largest trading block on the planet.....oh, look at that, we already are
....well, ok, to maintain and extend that position.

I'd expect an expansion to 27 countries soon (within the next 5yrs) and maybe to 30 obver the next 20yrs.
Our population to grow from it's current approx 470million to around 550millions.


As long as anti-american forces don't take control, I'm just fine with the EU.


- Hmmm, these days not being adequately 'pro-America' seems sufficent to get one denounced as 'anti-American'.



But, in the long run, we're both going to have to be careful of the dragon on the horizon. Senile old men with money, men, arms, and ideology make for a dangerous future for all of us. They'll either try to buy us both out or stomp us out. Not sure which...


- .....and then there is the dangerous blinkered 'tomorrow belong to me' bold assertive arrogance of (some of) the very young which seem to believe all the lessons of what has gone before worthless.
That's one well worth keeping an eye on too, hmm.




[edit on 12-11-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 07:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheRepublic


you think the US is oppressive? imagine if hitler had won and facist germany was the superpower today, its not that far fetched really. one things for certain britain would not have lasted without the US intervention in WWII. but we did.



Oh yes, how foolish of me to forget
we owe our freedom to the US (not to the collected efforts of a coalition of nations; Britain, USSR, Canada etc.) I bow to you glorious US empire, great and benevolent bringer of higher civilization
Looks like someone climbed the propaganda tree


Imagine if the French hadn't helped the Americans in the Revolutionary War
would the US be independent? Perhaps it's a little ignorant, unhistorical, irrelevent of me to make this assertion. I thought it would be in line with the above mentioned quote though


[edit on 12-11-2004 by Volkgeister]



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 04:08 PM
link   
you make a good point, if the french hadnt helped the US in the revolutionary war there is a good chance we might not have gotten independance.

just like if the US hadnt interviened in WWII, britain would probably be a german state right now.

i dont see whats so hard to understand about that, its not opinion, its history.


also
"...(and - then - no culture) states as they came together to form the USA."

...theres plenty of diffrences in culture here in the U.S., sometimes it almost feels as if there might as well be diffrent contries over here.

[edit on 12-11-2004 by TheRepublic]



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by TheRepublic
you make a good point, if the french hadnt helped the US in the revolutionary war there is a good chance we might not have gotten independance.


- Given the geography involved and the politics of the time, in my opinion, it is most likely to have happened sooner or later.


just like if the US hadnt interviened in WWII, britain would probably be a german state right now.


- Come on then, let's have it.....on what basis do you come up with 'probably'?



i dont see whats so hard to understand about that, its not opinion, its history.


- Each case is opinion, it is not history given that it did not happen; one case is however much more likely that the other.

Given that the UK actually did very succesfully repell the German attempt at invading the UK alone.....did you miss that
; your opinion regarding the UK's possible future prospects is simply wild speculation without the slightest grounding in reality.....indeed so far removed from the actual reality of the events that actually happened as to be risible.

But do feel free to explain how Germany was ever going to successfully defeat the UK, when we had already seen them off all on our own, and when Germany then went on to attack Russia.....all of which actually happened long before the USA came into the war.......late..... as usual.








[edit on 12-11-2004 by sminkeypinkey]



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 06:02 PM
link   
anything that invloves france with military issues is far from the status of superpower.



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 06:22 PM
link   


never said the superpowers wernt involved in wars.
they would have never been superpowers to begin with had that been the case. what im trying to say is the wars that took place under superpowers were smaller and less deadly. there was "relativly" more peace- thus the "high points of civilization"
wars under one superpower, example: romans wiping out barbarian tribes
americans bombing taliban


Firstly, let me redress your apparent lack of ancient historical knowledge. Rome wasn't the only great power at the time.

The Carthaginians, Egypt, and to a lesser extent, the Greeks where firstly occupying the Romans time, and where large and powerful in their own right.

Later, the Romans had a hard enough time with these "Barbarian" races, who in all fairness where not quite as "Barbaric" as made out.

The Gauls, the Visigoths, the Germanic Tribes and the Britons where all powers that Rome feared, and eventually caused the downfall by bankrupting Rome in almost CONTINOUS warfare, so stating that one superpower brings peace is a fallicy and cannot be proven based on historical fact.




the US has been your "cuddly benefactor" before, remeber WWII? no?
well japan attacked the united states and we then declared war not just on japan, but also germany. why? well certainly not for our well being, we lost many troops and ran up a large national debt, but we did keep our ally britain from being anhilated by hitler


Already well rebutted by Sminkey, but I really must insist that you revise your misconception that America won the war.

Russia won the war, we just had a race on to make sure they didn't get greedy and take all of Europe.

We already saw off the Germans in the BoB, and inflicted unsustainable losses on the German Luftwaffe, whilst amazing them at the same time with the sheer amount of aircraft we could put in the air at short notice. These where called "Big Wings", whose purpose was to break up the german bombing missions.

This is why the Germans switched from targetted attacks on the RAF stations and went for nightime bombing of civilian areas.

Which also ended in failure, as they could not break our spririt, and by September 1940, the main thrust of the German campaign was finished, as they needed the resources to fight Russia.




anything that invloves france with military issues is far from the status of superpower.


Hmm. I was waiting for that one. Again, please revise your history. For many, many years, France was an extremely powerful country (and to some extent they still are, they just don't throw their weight around like some "others").

They were powerful enough to warrant there being an almost constant state of warfare between England and themselves for nearly 900 years, ending only in the Entente Cordial in 1904.

Comon guys, if we can fight them for a millenium and get along, why can't you untangle your panties, and just get over the whole Iraq thing?

Anyway, onto topic.

The EU is never going to be a Federal state, namely because the member states do not want it. It could do with reform, but is not the overbearing demon filled cesspit you would have us believe.

It actually has brought the most successful, progressive and productive period in European history, ever! We are the biggest and most powerful trading bloc on the planet, and no one hates us to boot, and will actually treat us with a modicum of dicorum when we get involved diplomatically (look at Iran, they will speak to us, but they won't deal with the US and its overblown threats)

Your misconceptions about the EU being unpopular are unfounded, and most of this in the UK is fuelled by such "newspapers" as the Sun, which incidentally is owned by Rupert Murdoch aka Fox, News International et al. The US has an active interest in trying to promote anti-EU feeling for one reason...

They fell threatened. They are scared of OPEC switching to Euros, they are scared of the big traders, like China and Russia, dealing European companies, and not US ones.

Face it lads, the time has come, and the writing is on the wall. get used to the EU as its here to stay and will only get bigger and better.

[edit on 12/11/04 by stumason]



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 06:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
anything that invloves france with military issues is far from the status of superpower.

france creatres some good soldiers and tech, dont diss em.



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 07:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by KrazyIvan
anything that invloves france with military issues is far from the status of superpower.

france creatres some good soldiers and tech, dont diss em.


good tech? WOO HOW BOUT THAT MANGINO LINE?

good soldiers? the french resistance did more damage to the germans than the regualr french army.

look dont make me break out french military history on your ass!



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 07:55 PM
link   


good tech? WOO HOW BOUT THAT MANGINO LINE?

good soldiers? the french resistance did more damage to the germans than the regualr french army.

look dont make me break out french military history on your !


Spell it right. Maginot is the word your looking for...

Go on then, "break out french military history ",,,this should be a laugh. Let me guess, its that fake google page or something similar....



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 09:44 PM
link   
hey man its true.

france has only been freed of near or actual occupation by an british-american-canadian force. if i was a country looking for arms to buy, id buy russian first.

hey i could build a time machine and go talk to president rosevelt and say "they wont appreciate it" when he brings up the subject of liberating france. they are an ungreatful bunch. all of em. they didnt like our GIs like a week after france was back in allied hands.

i say if the russians ever invade the west, we hold onto germany but let the have fracne.

their military is not impressive. plain and simple. and they dont have that great of a mlitary history



posted on Nov, 12 2004 @ 10:43 PM
link   
@pinkey & TheRepublic

Just to get it off my chest:you're both wrong and right at the same time.

pinkey:i was born and grew up in Brussels.Some of my friends were children of American ex-pat's.Most of them (...) are perfectly reasonable ppl.
Not every American agrees with GW Bush heh.As a matter of fact,the chairman of the "Republicans abroad" in Belgium called upon US citizens in Belgium to vote for.....KERRY! (Sounds hard to believe but it's true.....)

TheRepublic:i was in Boston about 2 weeks before you guys managed to re-elect GWB.I have rarely seen a democratic nation that divided.Two days ago i called a friend of mine who lives in Boston:he's considering moving to Canada....

What never stops to amaze me is this:

After over 50 years of alliance (NATO),knowing that the Union and the US have common enemies who hate us just for living,why the f* do we keep on disagreeing on irrelevant issues amongst ourselves?
How is it possible that the Atlantic ocean is getting deeper by the minute????

Yes, the EU with almost 500.000.000 citizens is THE MOST POWERFULL economic block on the planet.But we can't defend ourselves against a handfull of muslim terrorists.....(cfr 11M in Spain,Theo Van Gogh in the Netherlands.....)
And yes,the US have an army that simply cannot be defeated.But then again:how many generations of Americans will not be able to get their children a decent education because they have to pay for a budget deficit larger than that of all other nations on the planet put together?

The way i see it,things are perfectly simple:what Americans do in America is an American problem.What Europeans do in Europe is an European problem.
Stop focussing on the 3 issues that divide us and lets focus on the 3 million things that are going on out there and who invarriably concern both the EU and the US.

As for that EU-superpower idea......forget it.
All Europe needs is a handfull of ICBM's to send a clear message to who ever it may concern:"Don't even think about it......."
France has them,the UK has them - exactly how many times can we destroy 1 planet?
I don't want to loose our social security system just to find out that my gvt is fighting a war halfway across the world and using my taxmoney to murder women and children. (Pinkey:how do you feel about what the Black Watch (or Black Guard or whatever you call that regiment) is doing in Iraq - in your name?????)



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 12:21 AM
link   
first of all i wish we had a historical forum so i could go more in depth but:

the romans were undeniably the most powerful in their time, as were the greeks in their own time, the carthaginians were wiped out by the Romans before they set up the greek pharos in egypt (cleopatra), each nation was the supream power in its own time with minimal overlap between empires, as soon as one started to fall another took its place there has never been long periods of dual empire rivalry in history. i feel the U.S. is on its way out as a world power, and it will be soon replaced by the EU. I think the US downfall will be due to Economic problems.

what does this have to do with the EU as a military super power?
well if the EU is primarily a trading aliance why does it need an army?
its simply the first steps of the government of the EU awarding itself more power. if you dont think there is anything wrong with that then thats fine.
but it simply shows the path the EU is going in and by talks of a military it shows they want more than economic weight. they are trying to be the next superpower.

[edit on 13-11-2004 by TheRepublic]

[edit on 13-11-2004 by TheRepublic]



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 12:50 AM
link   
what i find interesting here is the fact that i know America will stay true to Israel, and when EU launches an Assault on Israel they will launch an assault on America at this point America and Israel will probably be one maybe not officially though, hence World War III, and just as stated in the bible, America will be about to lose the war when a GREAT miracle happens, as seen by George Washington. America will be pushed back to its last foot and then Heaven will part and Angels will come down and help destroy the Invaders, and the Anti-Christ. Then the Kingdom of God shall befall on Earth!

But beyond that, whether or not its true, lets get one thing straight... The Americas had already repelled the British assault without the french in the American Revolution... and then again defeated the British, although it was declared a peace treaty with no other reason but to stop fighting, in the war of 1812.... What would happen if the french didn't come at the last minute after promising to be there for the entire war? Well lets see, the British would have been repelled, maybe even surrendered, and if they didnt they would have gathered their forces again and unsuccessfully tried invading a country that was well prepared and CONFIDENT and then they would have realized that it was costing too much money and ended the war. What happens if America doesnt enter into World War II... Britain gets taken over, easily, with Japan right there helping them, the British lose the war. Germany becomes the super power of the world. The best thing is Europe may scoff at the idea of the US, and its lack of history, but Africa and the Middle East scoff at both, and guess what, NONE OF THEM ARE THE STRONGEST NATION IN THE WORLD! What is going to happen once the war in Iraq stops, along with Afghanistan? The US economy will sky rocket with the return of soldiers, and perhaps another baby boom, and the economy will flurish again. Face it, the US has atleast another 100 years of rule.

[edit on 13-11-2004 by Ryanp5555]



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 02:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by sminkeypinkey

one things for certain britain would not have lasted without the US intervention in WWII. but we did.


- Sorry but this is just wrong. We withstood the German onslaught alone in 1940....and they were never again to be in a position to come back again after this.



Sorry I think you got it wrong

The UK would not have lasted without the help of all the Allies with the US and Canada at the top of the list. Without safe Allied use of the Atlantic shipping lanes Britain could not have survived. To obtain sufficient food to sustain her people, and to import the raw materials to prosecute the war, of necessity, Britain needed to look westwards to North America.

The German U-Boat service decimated Britain's Merchant Fleet in the ongoing Battle of the Atlantic.

In April of 1941, 800,000 tons of shipping was sent to the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, by U-Boats, these ships were being sunk at a faster rate than they could be built.

Where do you think those supplys came from? Without those supplies the UK couldnt even feed themselves let alone fighting the Germans. And taking back Europe forget about it.

Without the ship building industry of North America and ships like the Liberty Ships and the supplies they carried the UK would have fallen to Hitler sooner or later. It would only have been a waiting game for Germany then.

[edit on 13-11-2004 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 04:27 AM
link   
Why do discussions about EU always turn into discussions about WWII??!

We are living in the year 2004, WWII ended 60 years ago and europe is completely and utterly different from what it was back then. Who had what in 1945 is irrelevant now.

What we are talking about here is will EU be a military superpower in year 2004. The correct answer would be that we do not even want to be it.
We have enough military to send a message "do not dare to INVADE us", and I doubt that somebody will. We do have to keep an eye on Russia, due to unstable and very corrupted goverment there, but even an invasion from there is highly unlikely, they live off of money from west, they won't risk it, I think.

As pointed out by europeans in this thread, we deal differently with the world. We do not invade, we do not want to invade, we make trade agreements, we talk, we buy off countries


Somebody mentioned that we can't defend ourselves from a handful of terrorists. I wouldn't put it that way. It is simply a price you have to pay for a free democratic society. You can't have it both, freedom and totalitarian police state in which every citizen is closely watched. You can't "pull a Hitler" either and deport all non-white non-christian people out of EU, that would be extremely stupid.
Also that won't solve the problem of killings, since a lot of white christians are crazy bastards too. European terror didn't start with 9/11 and Muslims. We had dealings with terror way before that: IRA, ETA, terror groups in Italy and Germany in the 70s and 80s. Integration of Europe has greatly improved the situation.

So, economicaly strong EU: yes
EU that invades other countries and spends its entire budget on military: no



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 06:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by ShadowXIX

Sorry I think you got it wrong

uhh no he isnt.



The UK would not have lasted without the help of all the Allies with the US and Canada at the top of the list. Without safe Allied use of the Atlantic shipping lanes Britain could not have survived. To obtain sufficient food to sustain her people, and to import the raw materials to prosecute the war, of necessity, Britain needed to look westwards to North America.

we werent allies when we where buying supplies from you. you where the closest one , we could have picked better.

The German U-Boat service decimated Britain's Merchant Fleet in the ongoing Battle of the Atlantic.

yeah and we rebuilt it.


In April of 1941, 800,000 tons of shipping was sent to the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean, by U-Boats, these ships were being sunk at a faster rate than they could be built.

yeah and we dstroyed every 2 in 3 of german u boats. they only had 830 operational and we destroyed 510 of them.

Where do you think those supplys came from? Without those supplies the UK couldnt even feed themselves let alone fighting the Germans. And taking back Europe forget about it.

we could actually. it was other sources and i dont think you can call tradeing supporting a country in a war.


Without the ship building industry of North America and ships like the Liberty Ships and the supplies they carried the UK would have fallen to Hitler sooner or later. It would only have been a waiting game for Germany then.

uhh so the whole clyde,liverpool and forth industries where what?.....fishing boats?

[edit on 13-11-2004 by ShadowXIX]



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 06:03 AM
link   


well if the EU is primarily a trading aliance why does it need an army?

It is not anymore. Since when do trading alliances have courts and parliaments?

We would have european military cooperation today even if there was no EU. It is a logical step to cooperate with your neighbours.
Nobody complains about NATO enslaving us.



But we can't defend ourselves against a handfull of muslim terrorists.

Neither can the US.
Nobody can be absolutely safe.



EU that invades other countries and spends its entire budget on military: no

ACK

All we need and all the european army will be, is a quick response force for Situations like in Cte d'Ivoire



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 06:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by KrazyIvan

good tech? WOO HOW BOUT THAT MANGINO LINE?

firstly its spelled wrong.
secondly, they where some good defences , just the line was outflanked.


good soldiers? the french resistance did more damage to the germans than the regualr french army.

lets see holding off the german army so thier allies could make it back to thier own country? i dont call that crap.
the french ressitance was ex army.
they french ressistance was a very good organisation. also it is much easier for a few individuals to cause more damage than an entire army.


look dont make me break out french military history on your ass!

really?
go ahead show your command of history.

paperclip
nicely said. why is it that they always lead to WW2?

[edit on 13-11-2004 by devilwasp]



posted on Nov, 13 2004 @ 06:13 AM
link   
The EU could in time be a military superpower. I have not been to Europe but what I have read is that the EU is still emerging and do not yet have a strong command and control. I t appears to me that even though there are treaties signed and all that the EU is still not one. It will take time for countries to think of the EU first before their own country. Just my own opinion. But after there is true unity they very well could be the next military superpower. The countries of the EU have the capability to make top quality combat equipment and the money to spend on the equipment and training for soldiers. They have plenty of combat experience in which they can train and produce excellent officers for their military.




top topics
 
0
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join